Hi Roman,

It seems to me you didn't read my comment just before this one.

I know my English is not perfect, but I wrote: I'm not calling digital photographers cheaters!

This sentence is so simple, it is impossible missunderstanding, even In a same comment I explane what is a cheating! I wrote that, even a digital manipulations are NOT cheating, if the picture is not called a photo anymore!
because if it is called a photo, the viewers expect it as captured image, not a manipulated one!

This explanation is so clear it is impossible missunderstanding, unless if some one want it to missunderstand it. I know my English, I know my limitations, but also I know which of my sentence is probably missunderstandable and which one is not.

Quote:

---

Sure, some of the less professional people rely on photoshop to make up for lack of skill...but you know that it actually shows up in the end product. I can spot a bad photoshop job a mile away.

---

I didn't want to mention the name of the photographer, but looks like I can't avoid it.
What about this "photo"
You said you can spot a bad photoshop job a mile away! So I think you gonna see on this one too! And the photographer is not a "less professional"! And chek the comment under the picture! All of them so amazed by the photogrpaher! Looks like this picture is the "Mona Lisa" of all photograph, but in fact this is not even a photo it is a composit picture.
Chek the aura around the horses, chek de mark of the blure tool on the closer horse mane, and chek the edge of the chin of the closer horse. Both the sky and the closer horse was added later to the picture! Even I suspect the closer horse wasn't a wild one so needed to clone out something, and the bluring was used to cover the clone stamp marks.

And this is not the only one from only one photographer! Lot of composit picture are still called as photograph, so the viewers believe they are a captured photos. Don't mention all the manipulations, what are just fix/cover the lack of photo skill!

And what about the good PS job, what you can't spot from mile away not even from closer looking? That an other thousands of fake photos, because many can do a really good PS job!
I saw a picture, you can notice any PS job on it! The picture is looks like a "one of a million" shot, featuring a kind of swallow catching a feather in the air. The only mistake the "photographer" did that, he added the feather in a picture in a wrong way, actually "upside down". The curve of the feather wus upwards like an arch, but the feather never falling like that! curved feather always falling with the curve is downwards, like a valley.
And this picture is actually an award wining "hoto"!

We are a real and honest photographers, who are not cheating (digital or film) can't compete with this kind of pictures!
And let face it, before the digital, it wasn't this large amount of fake pictures. Yes, may be there was a few fake/manipulated pictures before digital, but just a few and those was only prints, because only those was able to do it who had they own darkroom. Dealing with commercial photolab, was a had ace! That is why the best way was to shooting on slides, because on slides, there was no automatic adjustment or anything. So before digital, this kind of cheating/manipulations wasn't vailable for the mass, just for a few. And don't forget, the negative or slide, always was there to prove the truth!
But with digital, there is no original picture, because even the RAW file is manipulatebale. So this fact is open the door for easy and "undetectable" cheating. Least for covering the lack of photography skill. Also the Photoshop or other manipulation softver are even provided with digital cameras, but if not still we can say least a 90% of the digital photographer has some manipulation softver! So the cheating/manipulation, became so easy and widely available! If I compare the accessibility to the manipulation in a film and digital era, we found out it is about 90% to 10%
In film era it was accessable for about the 10% of the photographers and not acssessable to 90% of the photographers. In a digital era, 90% of the digital photographer have manipulation softwer on they own computer, and the rest of the 10% still not buy it yet, but will!
So this huge amount of fake photo came with the digital, becouse easy to do, easy to accsess to the manipulation tools, and hardly decetable the cheating.

I'm not positive that's a composite. It could be, but the haloing could also be from several other things.

Shadow / highlight adjustments in PS will cause some halos. That's why I don't use that tool at all anymore. I've made my own actions that do a much better job.

Sharpening will cause some haloing too, though I don't think that's the case with this one.

In any case, I've invited John to drop in and give his input on whether the image is a composite or not. Whether or not he does is up to him.

I'm not woried about if it s a composit or not. And I dont compete with him...so not really on a crusade about batteling the great cheaters out there.

My work sells, I am getting noticed, I have ethics in my work, and if I focus on the photographer that is behind my viewfinder...I woln't ever have to compete with anyone else...cheater or not.

Roman

Atilla, It actually is starting to look like you joined and started posting here as part of a crusade against John.

You registered and started railing against him on the same day you left a comment about the photo on his page.

I don't know him one way or the other so I can't comment on his ethics.

I see the areas in question, and it does look like a composite, or at least something funky going on. But when I looked at it I really had no expectation of it being post-processed or not. So it doesn't matter to me if it is a collage or all done with one exposure in the camera. It's a nice enough image, and if this is making money for the fellow then that is fine with me.

I would have different expectations from a photojournalist or a forensics photographer.

The wildlife and nature photography is the most sensitive area of fake/manipulated pictures!

In other area if the artist does made out the scene is completly acceptable, and actually part of the creations. Like in a pet photography, if the dog was placed in a basket and not walked itsefl into it, is not a problem, that is part of the creations. But in the wildlife and nature photography do the same thing is unethical! So if I force an animal (not luring or baiting but forcing) to do something or get to the place I wanted it, is unethical.

Back in time when there wasn't as sophisticated cameras yet, just the old large format field cameras, photographers usually made out the scene in a studio, and took a picture of "wildlife". Sometime put the insects or amphibiants in a fridigare make them motionless for a while. In that time this things was acceptable, because there was no other way to do the pictures. But as the cameras and lenses got better, all those tricks and fake backgrounds, made out scenes became unethical! So the photography was movewd by the techologie, but still remains as photography.
So in the Nature and wildlife photography let's say that no manipulations of any kind are acceptable. In a photo contest sience the digital came out, some levels and overal color corrections, and saturation and contrast corrections are possible, but nothing acceptable on a portions of the photos. The ruules loose up a little for the digital photographers, make theyr chanse better, because slide photographers can't do any correcttions on the slides, but still no other manipulations are allowed.

And again and again and already for a lot of time I said, there is nothing wrong with manipulations or composit pictutres, if it is disclose to the viewers! If it is, there is no cheating!
If not, and let the viewers to believe the composit or manipulated picture is a captured photo, that is cheating!


And one more thing!

There is a fake photo and there is a fake subject!

If the subject is fake still the photo of it can be not fake! (but can be unethical)

Let me expalne!

If I made out the scane create a fake subject, still I need all the photography skill to capture a diecent photo. So what is on the picture is may be fake, but the photograph itself is not fake, because it was captured by a camera, with all the skills what a photographer have.

If I take a pictures of a real thing, but I have no idea about photography and my shot not came out as good, and I fix it in Photoshop, that is became a manipulated or fake photo. May be the subject on the picture is not fake, it is real but the picture is fake as a photo, because the final result wasn't captured by a camera, was made in Photoshop. In this case I misslead the viewers and faking myself as a photographer. But if I call my manipulated picture as a digital art or what ever but photograph, it is not fake anymore it is not cheating!
It's all about how you call it!
The same thing if called on a wrong name it is cheating becaouse misslead the viewers, but on a right name there is no missleading, so there is no cheating! Simply as that!

Always ask the question? Is it gonna misslead others, is it gonna make others to believe what it is not?
If the answer is YES, that is a cheating, if the answer is NO it is not cheating.

If you use a special filter on your lens wich create a rainbow on a picture that is cheating, because the rainbow wasn't there, but it is believable it was there.
If you use a special color filter which create breath taking, but not natural colors, is not a cheating, because that is obvius the colors are not real, so the picture is not missleading anyone. But it tells to the viewers, you had a talent to prevision the picture, select the right filters, the right exposure, the right composition, etc.

If you add those filters effect to the picture later in photoshop but cal the picture as photograph, it is a cheating, because make the vievwers to believe, you had a talent to prevision the picture, select the right filters, the right exposure, the right composition, etc. but in fact you did all these things later in a computer! So actually you didn't have that talent what the viewers believe you have. So it is misslead the viewers, so it is a cheating unless you disclose that, the picture was made in a photosop.