Am I the Only One....

c.poulton

c.poulton

Well-known
Local time
4:25 PM
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
774
........that thinks this is just plain wrong?

From Dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/14/Scalado-Remove_Mobile-App-Removes-Distration

"Mobile imaging company Scalado has created a multi-shot technology that identifies differences to allow unwanted objects to be removed. The 'Remove' technology, currently being shown-off in the form of an Android app, is the first object removal software on a mobile device, it says. The technology allows passers-by to be selected or automatically removed, or cars to be simply edited out of the scene you're trying to capture, without the need for Photoshop."

I know that photography has been used and abused since it's inception, but this is just wrong in my mind - where does the truth lie anymore? Can we ever trust a photograph again (indeed, could we ever?)
 
Since ages, people have been using extremely long exposures to take photos of the busiest places on earth so that the outcome is an image without people and traffic.. This basically is the same, but compressed in just a couple of seconds.
 
What has The Truth to do with photography in and of itself? Unless the user claims that what he shot is as exact a representation of reality as he could have captured, what exactly is wrong with this tool?

My view is that this is just another tool to allow the photographer to portray the world s he sees it.
 
Photography presents the illusion of Truth. Any resemblance to actual Truth is a coincidence. i read somewhere that when someone asked Gary Winnogrand if he was afraid he might lose a photograph while he reloaded his camera, he replied that while he reloaded his camera there were no photographs.
 
Good point Peter! I guess that it's not too dissimilar to using very long exposures...

I guess my concern is that with digital technology photo manipulation is becoming far too easy - for example it's not a great leap to imagine your average snapper using their iPhone 5 or 6 to take a holiday snap - the software then gets rid off any unwanted crowds, maybe changes the backdrop to a more picturesque sky, slims down the wife's figure, gets rid of any unwanted lines or blemishes on her face, whitens her teeth and generally makes her look ten years younger, oh, and in the process takes a whole series of shots and decides which one is the best of the bunch for you.......
 
So what? If the tool gives the photographer the results he desires, and takes away some of the pain that would otherwise be involved in obtaining them, then isn't that a good thing?
 
c.poulton said:
.. slims down the wife's figure, gets rid of any unwanted lines or blemishes on her face, whitens her teeth and generally makes her look ten years younger, oh, and in the process takes a whole series of shots and decides which one is the best of the bunch for you.......
Click to expand...
Actually, this does not sound very different from shooting with a 300 (its perspective removes countless pounds from the body and is very flattering for headshots too), wide open (no distracting background), softar (flattens skin texture and emphasises eyes) and cool filter (removes red spots/freckles). Portrait photographers have been using these for ages without objections.

But I totally agree with you on the easy part.. and it is a trap indeed. What used to take conscious effort is now a mere mouseclick away. This morning when I looked at a scan of an almost perfect landscape photo, I was tempted into removing some branches that got in the way of a pristine white field of snow. But as I was cloning out the sticks, I realised that I was changing what I had really seen into something that wasn't. And even though the aesthetics of the image got better, its value went down for me.. a couple of clicks on undo later, all was well again.. Lesson learned, I guess.
 
Years ago I came across a book called "The Comrade Vanishes" about the old Soviet Union's practice of editing people out of official photos once they had fallen out of favor politically. Boy, I bet those old airbrush guys wish that they had this! Even better than Photoshop for getting rid of the unwanted.
 
KenR said:
Years ago I came across a book called "The Comrade Vanishes" about the old Soviet Union's practice of editing people out of official photos once they had fallen out of favor politically. Boy, I bet those old airbrush guys wish that they had this! Even better than Photoshop for getting rid of the unwanted.
Click to expand...

I have that book! its fascinating to see the history of the USSR through those photos as prominent people fall from favor. The editing was often mirrored in reality, as most of them were executed on Stalin's orders.
 
pvdhaar said:
.....But I totally agree with you on the easy part.. and it is a trap indeed. What used to take conscious effort is now a mere mouseclick away.
Click to expand...

Peter - spot on! While I can understand the 'need' for these particular tools (although i wouldn't personally ever use them), it's the ease of use that I find worrying. So easy that soon it will be part of the picture taking within camera - you can see it happening already with a lot of digicams. The user probably won't even realise what's going on, they just get a 'nice' image at the end, regardless if that image bears any real relation to the reality that was orginially captured.

Regarding Stalin, I too find the photo manipulation fascinating, both historically and technically. However, when this manipulation was done, it was done by professionals and probably took quite some time to get right. Today it's just a mouse or shutter click away......
 
BTW - I am not anti-digital (although I do shoot film exclusively) and don't mind people using photo manipulation tools, be they Photoshop or in camera. I just think that people should stop and think for a moment before they start use these tools - why are they using them, is it for art, or artistic enhancement, flattery, composition etc. The danger becomes evident when we start going towards documentory, trying to record an accurate depiction of a moment in time.....
 
You still haven't explained why allowing the photographer get the result he wants - which, in the end, is all that matters - is a bad thing.
 
ruby.monkey said:
You still haven't explained why allowing the photographer get the result he wants - which, in the end, is all that matters - is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Painters do it all the time. Nobody complains. What makes photographers into a separate class of artist where this is forbidden?
Of course, if all you want is "record" shots then, yes, make any alteration a flogging offence.
 
I believe it's a bad thing once it becomes main-stream thus in danger of leaving a legacy of an altered reality for future generations to mull over. It's not too great a leap to imagine most holiday images being altered to remove 'annoying' background people and traffic. OK you could have done this in the past by getting up really early in the morning to miss the crowds, (or use very long exposures) but the point is this does not have to be the case anymore. You just retouch the image (or the software does it at the touch of a button) to basically lie for you.....

It becomes so easy to alter reality (in fact it might be done in camera without the user fully appreciating that it's happening) that that altered reality becomes the reality - blurring whatever boundaries we had between fact and fiction.....
 
I only see it as being wrong if the person claims it as an actual documentary of something "real". Long exposures to get people out of photographs constitutes more of a fine art technique, not a digital manipulation. If the person is using this program for documentary purposes and saying "look how empty this beach was today -It was just me and _____" and they took out everyone else, then they're lying. If they're doing it because they want a "pretty picture with no people in it", power to them. When it's overdone, people will just start creating false memories, which is their issue in the end if they want to fool themselves that they had the Eiffel Tower all to themselves.
 
Leigh, painters do indeed do this all the time, however when most people view a painting they are usually not under any illusion that what is depicted is reality. It is a representation of reality as depicted by the painter. With photography this (was) is not always the case.... Traditionally, the prevalent 'common' belief was that photographs accurately depict reality.
 
If we both are at a scene and event and you we have different memories of it, what is the truth?
 
c.poulton said:
I believe it's a bad thing once it becomes main-stream thus in danger of leaving a legacy of an altered reality for future generations to mull over. [...]

It becomes so easy to alter reality (in fact it might be done in camera without the user fully appreciating that it's happening) that that altered reality becomes the reality - blurring whatever boundaries we had between fact and fiction.....
Click to expand...

This is already happening to some extent with digital photography. Before, people would get the 24/36 prints from the developer and stick 'em all in the photo album. Now people transfer to the computer, delete unflattering shots, and upload what they want to Facebook/Flickr. One could argue this is a generational thing, but I think deep down inside people have always wanted to remove unwanted elements from our past, and now the technology is available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom