|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2006, 10:30 PM
Post #1 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
We had a thread a while back where I expressed dismay at the casual way climbing photos are digitally manipulated. I felt (and feel) this routine post processing threatens the integrity of climbing shots in general.
I was laughed at of course. "Why, Ansel Adams manipulated his photos too, you simpleton child!" Was about the best reply, paraphrased of course. But it basically came down to: we all do it, we always did it, we'll always do it, only a noob would not do it.. Others pointed out the extreme lengths climbing photogs will go to stage a shot, etc. Sadly, with tears in my one good eye, I had to accept the bitter truth that there were fakes in the world of climbing photography and I lacked the good sense to detect them.
Conclusion - climbing photos are digital art. They aren't fake. But they don't show reality either. Accept no photograph as proof of anything (other than the graphic designer's skill).
So I came across this article today:
In reply to: An explosion of new digital image technology has left many of the world's top biology journals vulnerable to fraud, scientists say. The same advances that have given consumers inexpensive digital cameras -- and software to easily copy, crop, or alter an image with a few clicks -- have also proven a temptation for unscrupulous researchers. Federal science fraud investigations involving questionable images have grown from 2.5 percent of the cases in 1989-90 to 40.4 percent in 2003-04, according to the federal Office of Research Integrity, which investigates scientific misconduct."
http://www.boston.com/...ulation_of_research/
Of course climbing doesn't matter. I do wonder how and to what extent the climbing rags are already screening for cheats. Man would they get no end of grief if for example they pubbed a shot of some dude free soloing some heinous route and only found out later the rope was photoshopped out.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
woj12_16
Jan 16, 2006, 10:57 PM
Post #3 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Posts: 5
|
yeah, this has been happening for years, in the biology world at least. National Geographic has been a main victim/producer of these shots. Think about it. It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2006, 10:59 PM
Post #4 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: yeah, this has been happening for years, in the biology world at least. National Geographic has been a main victim/producer of these shots. Think about it. It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky...
Interesting. So catching a tiger pounce is as difficult as catching the real send of a cutting edge free solo I guess?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
cowpoke
Jan 16, 2006, 11:08 PM
Post #5 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: So I came across this article today: In reply to: An explosion of new digital image technology has left many of the world's top biology journals vulnerable to fraud, scientists say. The same advances that have given consumers inexpensive digital cameras -- and software to easily copy, crop, or alter an image with a few clicks -- have also proven a temptation for unscrupulous researchers. Federal science fraud investigations involving questionable images have grown from 2.5 percent of the cases in 1989-90 to 40.4 percent in 2003-04, according to the federal Office of Research Integrity, which investigates scientific misconduct." Of course climbing doesn't matter. I do wonder how and to what extent the climbing rags are already screening for cheats. Man would they get no end of grief if for example they pubbed a shot of some dude free soloing some heinous route and only found out later the rope was photoshopped out. DMT |
|
|
|
|
pdx_climber
Jan 16, 2006, 11:09 PM
Post #6 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2005
Posts: 110
|
Through the wonders of Photoshop I've turned casual lead climbs into ballsy free-solos before; it's surprisingly easy to digitally remove someone's harness and rope. All in good fun of course, but it's easy to see how people can take advantage of it.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Jan 16, 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #8 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Assuming that it does happen...so what? Climbing is only a game. Not like a manipulated photo really matters.
After all, our moral leaders, such as Tom DeLay and GW Bush, have endorsed "anything goes, it's the results that count." Certainly we shouldn't be held to a higher standard than these great patriots.
|
|
|
|
|
tweek
Jan 16, 2006, 11:24 PM
Post #9 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 171
|
In reply to: It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky...
Ya, I love it when they release the heard of antelopes in the lion pit in the zoo. Then they have to run and take them down after the twenty minute chase in their twleve by twelve cage. It is awsome.
Then they have to dress people up in tribal dress from the sahara to have the people aspect of the story.
I guess what I am thinking is do you have any proof/ example/facts that you base this on? It sure sounds like an internet rumor to me. Especially with the quality of photography that N.G. is well known for.
|
|
|
|
|
scottquig
Jan 16, 2006, 11:31 PM
Post #10 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 298
|
When I edit my digital photos, I try to stick to the tools available to the film photographer (dodge, white balance, etc). This way I'm producing a mostly-accurate shot that looks good too! When I totally mod my picture (look in my photos, there's one of a guy "freesoloing"), I mention it.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Jan 16, 2006, 11:39 PM
Post #11 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: yeah, this has been happening for years, in the biology world at least. National Geographic has been a main victim/producer of these shots. Think about it. It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky... Interesting. So catching a tiger pounce is as difficult as catching the real send of a cutting edge free solo I guess? DMT
I'd imagine the free soloist would be a bit more obliging and amenable to having his photograph taken than the tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2006, 11:42 PM
Post #12 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I'd imagine the free soloist would be a bit more obliging and amenable to having his photograph taken than the tiger.
I wouldn't count on it!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jan 16, 2006, 11:44 PM
Post #13 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky...
JL
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jan 17, 2006, 12:06 AM
Post #14 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: We had a thread a while back where I expressed dismay at the casual way climbing photos are digitally manipulated. I felt (and feel) this routine post processing threatens the integrity of climbing shots in general.
I can't imagine why someone would take pride in a photo that intentionally misrepresented reality. I don't have the skills to do that sort of thing, but wouldn't if I could; to me, it would be like taking credit for redpointing a 5.11 that I actually hangdogged. As long as I knew I was lying, it would spoil it for me.
JL
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jan 17, 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #15 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
In reply to: Assuming that it does happen...so what? Climbing is only a game. Not like a manipulated photo really matters. After all, our moral leaders, such as Tom DeLay and GW Bush, have endorsed "anything goes, it's the results that count." Certainly we shouldn't be held to a higher standard than these great patriots.
As for modifying photos or not I would say that if you are trying to get at the truth of something such as a) whether lots of military folks like Bush OR b) whether Roy climbed A Date With Death without any protection), then stick to the truth. Else, there is room for poetic license.
|
|
|
|
|
cchildre
Jan 17, 2006, 12:21 AM
Post #16 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 671
|
It is going to happen and nothing will ever be able to be done about it. This is like when they detonated the first nuclear bomb. It became the 'ultimate' weapon and every country on the earth wanted one, if they could afford it. Thankfully at the time, it cost so much to develop a single bomb that until recently only seven or eight countries had the finances to pursue them. Here, we are talking about less than a thousand bucks, and you can fabricate just about any image that one would want. I knew a guy in town that was printing money with his setup 10 years ago. Made it work for almost two weeks before they nabbed him, and deported him. So today your going to be hard pressed to tell a high quality fake. A skilled fabricator can eliminate all but the most minute evidence of how they manipulated the image. Just an opinion though.
|
|
|
|
|
woj12_16
Jan 17, 2006, 1:05 AM
Post #17 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Posts: 5
|
dude, i dont know why everyones getting their panties tied in a bunch over all of this. There's no reason to get pissed off at people like me who like to photoshop in a rope and a harness when, in fact, im really freesoling the hardest crags. I'm gonna do it whether you like it or not!!
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 1:46 AM
Post #18 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
uhm, it's already happening guys!!!
And from the company you would least expect it to come from.....
drum roll please.......
BD.
yup, it's true, about 2 years ago a BD poster came out with a guy leavitating up a fat Indian Creek crack, #5 BD in hand. Exact same shot was also in a magazine ad where you can see he has a cam set in the crack right in front of him. Dunno if the photog gave them 2 diff versions, or they chose to photochop it themselves, but doomsday is upon us!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jan 17, 2006, 2:11 AM
Post #19 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
t_dog, that's a pretty serious accusation. Can you back that up?
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jan 17, 2006, 2:18 AM
Post #20 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
That was a photo composite of two shots taken just moments from each other, which resulted in a more dramatic composition in the photojournalist's mind. What a rube!
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Jan 17, 2006, 2:45 AM
Post #22 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
Digital manipulation is just a branch off the good old tree of human manipulation. It's happening all around us in everything you see, touch, smell, and hear. Some of it's artistic and/or fun, some of it is manipulation.
|
|
|
|
|
hillbillywannabe
Jan 17, 2006, 2:56 AM
Post #23 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2005
Posts: 415
|
i will cut out the rope that is going to the anchor for a top rope when i can, but deception is wrong, i dont care who did it.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jan 17, 2006, 3:14 AM
Post #24 of 55
(11494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: yeah, this has been happening for years, in the biology world at least. National Geographic has been a main victim/producer of these shots. Think about it. It's a lot cheaper to get shots of a tiger pouncing on it's prey in a zoo and photoshop the background, then too hire a photographer to fly to Africa for a month and get the same shot... if he's lucky...
Signifigantly so, especially since there are no tigers in Africa, except in zoos. Photog would be waiting.........and waiting......and waiting. Suprised no one else noticed this geographic faux pas.
"african tiger habitat" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jan 17, 2006, 4:38 AM
Post #25 of 55
(11344 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
