|
gunksgoer
Jan 17, 2006, 4:39 AM
Post #26 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
So does this mean that no one will believe the photo of me clipping the anchors on realization?
|
|
|
|
|
grovehunter
Jan 17, 2006, 5:09 AM
Post #27 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 227
|
I photo shopped some of the chub out of my belly to see how I would look skinny again. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I didn't post it to this site though, just experimenting for some motivation to eat healthier... :wink:
Peace,
Chuck
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Jan 17, 2006, 5:18 AM
Post #28 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
In reply to: Assuming that it does happen...so what? Climbing is only a game. Not like a manipulated photo really matters.
Not sure how serious you are, but, a photo of someone soloing a route when they did not is similar to (if not exactly like) misreporting the details of a send.
This type of false beta can be dangerous. Makes for a deadly "game."
Cheers,
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jan 17, 2006, 5:19 AM
Post #29 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
In reply to: In reply to: t_dog, that's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back that up? I'll check back home if I still have the poster. The magazine ad shouldn't be hard to find, but the poster might be a little harder to come by. And yes, I remember specifically comparing both side by side because I was surprised at the discrepancy.
I'm recalling a shot in mags and a BD poster of a dude placing a large cam, shot from straight above. He had dark-rimmed glasses on, if I recall correctly. Is that the one? If so, what was shopped about it? Looked like a good pic, but I never looked for edits. I'm merely interested.
As for the world of digital editing in general, to me it's not a big deal unless the artist is trying to say something happened that actually didn't. For example, there's enough pics out there and I have enough talent that I could work up an entire trip report of me climbing the Nose on El Cap, and I've never been to the Valley. That sort of thing isn't right for obvious reasons, but what part of cloning in background to correct severe horizon tilt or erasing a section of highway that just clips the corner of a photo is horribly wrong enough that it should be spoken out against? Clearly there's a line somewhere between that and photoshopping the rope out to create a free solo, but art has an inherent freedom attached, and who are we to say what a photographer can and cannot do to their work?
Perhaps the line between art and journalism is too blurred by modern tools for some people to realize that what they do can cross it, though. I see no problem with artistic manipulation, but manipulation with the intent to misrepresent a situation is a different matter altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 17, 2006, 5:24 AM
Post #30 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Perhaps the line between art and journalism is too blurred by modern tools for some people to realize that what they do can cross it, though. I see no problem with artistic manipulation, but manipulation with the intent to misrepresent a situation is a different matter altogether. |
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jan 17, 2006, 5:33 AM
Post #31 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Technology has allowed for the democratization of fraud.
Nothing more to see here.
Now move along!
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Jan 17, 2006, 6:39 AM
Post #32 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
pffft, like photo alteration started with digitals.... it only made it easier...
btw, check the cover of alpinist
http://www.alpinist.com/...wHome/i_14/zak-9.jpg
Zak deleted his fixed rope from the image. At least he tells it.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jan 17, 2006, 12:01 PM
Post #33 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: Suprised no one else noticed this geographic faux pas.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #34 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: t_dog, that's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back that up? I'll check back home if I still have the poster. The magazine ad shouldn't be hard to find, but the poster might be a little harder to come by. And yes, I remember specifically comparing both side by side because I was surprised at the discrepancy. I'm recalling a shot in mags and a BD poster of a dude placing a large cam, shot from straight above. He had dark-rimmed glasses on, if I recall correctly. Is that the one? If so, what was shopped about it? Looked like a good pic, but I never looked for edits. I'm merely interested.
Yup, that the one. In the magazine version of the ad, if you look carefully, you can see his rope leading up into the crack and the stem of another large cam it is clipped into with a biner way at the top/bottom of the image. On the poster version, the crack is blackened so that it appears that the large cam he is holding is the one he is about to place. You have to look super carefully, but you can see the rope leading up into the crack towards nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trebork2
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 5:15 PM
Post #36 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
If it can't be done in the traditional darkroom it doesn't deserve to be in a magazine
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 17, 2006, 5:23 PM
Post #37 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Nearly everything you can do in Photoshop can be done in a traditional darkroom...it just takes more time and skill.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Jan 17, 2006, 6:22 PM
Post #38 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: If it can't be done in the traditional darkroom . . .
Posh! Tradition! Charcoal on paper was tradition once. Just think of all those pre-camera pictures that are "traditional." Certainly those medical drawings during the Dark Ages of the intestines of humans, you know- the days when the Catholic Church didn't permit human dissection. . . .
Tradition, my foot!
|
|
|
|
|
mack_north
Jan 17, 2006, 6:49 PM
Post #39 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Posts: 74
|
I photoshopped in some pecs and a bit more hair for my match.com profile pic. I also added a couple of Super Bowl tickets to my shirt pocket and some square footage to my modular home. The Dodge Stratus I'm standing in front of is all real, though. I paid cash for that car and I can afford to do that sort of thing because I'm a chiropractor! Check me out, ladies!!
Mack
|
|
|
|
|
hillbillywannabe
Jan 17, 2006, 7:35 PM
Post #40 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2005
Posts: 415
|
mack thats funny
but i must agree with lewis, photography was debated to not be an art for a while and then was finally accepted as an art, for the same reasons that are being posted that are pro tradition and anti PS. we all enjoy a activity that was once not accepted as art. and are aguing if the new stuff is worthy of being called art.
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 8:41 PM
Post #41 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: As for the BD poster, it's two different shots from the same climb
Have you done a side-by-side comparison of the poster and magazine ad? Or are you just assuming, because BD is a respectable company?
I'm just asking, because I have (albeit 2 years ago) and I somehow didn't come to the same conclusion you have.
|
|
|
|
|
cchildre
Jan 17, 2006, 9:05 PM
Post #42 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 671
|
So, you guys citing a BD ad for shopping in or out cams, ropes....in their ADS. This is what marketing is all about. Everyone fabricates things for ads. Hell, go to McDonald's, check out the photo of a cheese burger and then look at what you get. Not much in common. Now for a magazine spread and story, I would be disappointed if they took to doctoring those shots just for good looks, and or fabricating them. What a company does in its advertisement is not bound by the same rules as those that attest to display actual events. Just my view though.
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 9:59 PM
Post #43 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: So, you guys citing a BD ad for shopping in or out cams, ropes....in their ADS. This is what marketing is all about. Everyone fabricates things for ads. Hell, go to McDonald's, check out the photo of a cheese burger and then look at what you get. Not much in common. Now for a magazine spread and story, I would be disappointed if they took to doctoring those shots just for good looks, and or fabricating them. What a company does in its advertisement is not bound by the same rules as those that attest to display actual events. Just my view though.
Agreed, I don't think that changing images for ads is anywhere as bad as changing images for a news story/report. Somebody brought up ads and I just mentioned it's already happening for ads. what a surprise!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jan 18, 2006, 6:15 AM
Post #44 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
philbox moved this thread from General to Climbing Photography.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jan 18, 2006, 7:28 AM
Post #45 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
There were those who said I couldn't do it. There were those who said I was mad. To them I say...
BEHOLD!!!
Edit: bugger - they won't allow image linking. Just go here.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jan 18, 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #46 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Those are great..
Of course, based on the post here, I am sure some would say this is art while others would say it's missleading and shouldn't be done.
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Mar 14, 2006, 10:48 AM
Post #47 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
it comes down to what you feel comfortable with and what you choose to represent as a photographer.
i personally do not change things in my photos, most of my submissions are slides so I often dont have that option anyway... but I personally view my photos as an art of moments- i want to capture whats there, and i want it to be pure.
But I do recognise that many people regularly doctor their photos heavily and i couldnt give a rats to be honest. Do what feels right, report honestly, and have fun!
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Mar 15, 2006, 2:10 AM
Post #48 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Thanks for the link. It has inspired me to improve my photoshop skills.
Photoshop art is really fun and amzing at how real they can ake it look.
Those of you who blame digitalk camera: I saw photos of JackAlopes in New Mexico in the early eighies. Actually, I also saw stuffed Jackalopes, well before Digital cameras were the norm.
I thought they were clever than and I still think that type of creative is cleaver today.
http://www.rotten.com/library/cryptozoology/jackalopes/
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 15, 2006, 7:47 AM
Post #49 of 55
(9531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: Photoshop art is really fun and amzing at how real they can ake it look.
make? fake?
:lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Mar 15, 2006, 11:55 AM
Post #50 of 55
(9386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
I can't say about the BD ad. But I saw a picture back before digital was all the rage ("99"-"01") that had a quickdraw PSed out. I saw the pic in a calendar and somewhere else, probably a magazine. I think it was at the Red, at the Pocket Wall.
Definitely the same picture. Climber was in the exact same pose, on the exact same holds. The rope and draws below were in fact in the exact same position. Try and catch that twice. The only difference was the lack of a draw on a bolt above the climber.
I have seen two very similar pictures too. When a photographer does a photo shoot they burn a lot of frames. Get two money shots a half second or half a minute apart, and they can sell basically the same image twice and not have it be the "same" photo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
