Digital imaging presents a huge potential for fraud.
Among the many honest photographers it is the unscrupulous photographer that concerns me. I suppose in the morass of excellently over manipulated imagery the lure of money, getting noticed, prestige or career advancement proves to much for any semblance of integrity.
Faking it, or fraud as I call it is nothing new in photography. Doing it in the old way in the darkroom is a thousand times harder and takes real skill. Nowadays it is click, click, click, done. It's just so easy. Perhaps Photoshop should embed 'History' and 'undo' etc, within the file so all changes can be backtracked to the original.
jaygeephoto: Yes, Pink. I am tempted to add a descriptive adjective before the word "pink" but fear that my post would be deemed inappropriate .Only "Crystal" and "Silky"? Automobile manufactures are more creative. Actually, if they wanted to make a pink one and partner with breast cancer awareness that would be admiral.Green or camouflage would make sense too. Guess I'm not over the whole Ferrari red Hasselblad thing yet.
How about one in brown. The same colour as Sh... you know what!
Wye Photography: Doh! Not available in Pink!
And he's positively PINK!
I wish I could sell a picture of a kids bike for a tenth of that.
You see better pictures on that Instagram thingy.
I think Mr. Slobel needs a reality and IQ check.
The money is best put to use helping the american poor, of which, there is an increasing number.
Doh! Not available in Pink!
Digital Suicide: Nah.. Don't like how exposure meter works. Looks like Fuji tends to overexpose as well.
Sorry, I should have specified dynamic ranges modes of 200% and 400% applies to JPG only (as far as I know). DR400% is amazing.
ashwins: Nice set of pictures.
X100s seems to have the tendency to overexpose a little, though.
That's not exactly true is it Barney. On the X100S there are two wide dynamic range modes 200% (minimum ISO400) and 400% (minimum ISO800). About 21 of the pictures have an ISO under ISO800 and 15 of these under ISO400, ergo, Dynamic Range of 200% and 400% was not used. Page 73 of the X100S manual for those shot in jpg. I don't know which ones were shot RAW.
TonyinJapan: Mmmm, is the X100 series known to be not so sharp when shot wide-open at f2.0? Looking a the white flower pic (DSCF0166), it has a hazy glaze over the whole shot – even in the centre where I guess the main focus should be. Is this the norm for the lens when shot wide-open?
The main problem I have when shooting at wide apertures is that if you move after focussing you can think you end up with a soft photo. Often, you are just NOT aware that you have moved. Even a few mm will do it. At f4 I find the sharpness more than satisfactory. It's OK wide open, and not really noticeable in small prints/images.
Gasman66: I owned an X-100 for just over a year before I sold it. Build quality is excellent. Lens quality is too - as long as your subject is more than a metre away, and you don't want to focus quickly. Ergonomics were so-so, and software was just plain awful - and remained so after several software upgrades.
Because of this, I quickly found myself not using the camera, and it effectively became jewellery. That side of me misses it. My photographic productivity - doesn't.
I don't see enough new in the X-100s to dramatically change any of this. It's an improvement, but only an incremental one.
Why do people obsess about resolution. It doesn't make better pictures. Today, resolution is pretty irrelevant and most camera have more resolution than MOST people require. As a comparison, some years ago, a professional photography magazine said "Six megapixels is enough for an A3 spread in a magazine".
Rectified if the photog...
a) Paid attention and used the histogramb) Used the exposure compensation knobc) Used Wide Dynamic Range mode
Problem solved! I've had simply the best exposures from my X100.
arpikusz: Is it just me or do these pictures have two things in common?
1. bad light2. bad composition
And sometimes bad white balance. :(
This is a real world SAMPLES gallery. It looks as if the shooter has picked up the camera and just gone out for a casual shoot here and there.
I think the shot of the girl at ISO6400 at f2.8 is pretty phenomenal for a casual shot. And she has a nice smile.
Rectified if the shooter...
a) Paid attention to the histogram in viewfinder and/orb) Put the camera in Wide Dynamic Range mode
GeorgeFellows: Bit worried about the dynamic range...probably best to wait for the full review to tell me and not my eyes, but those plane shots have some awfully clipped highlights (in my eyes). Sold my X100 recently to get a 60D so I can shoot my bros wedding, might buy another X100 but the image quality doesn't look any better (especially not for another £800) on the S and I don't need super fast autofocus etc... for the shots I would use it for.
I doubt the camera is in 'wide dynamic range' mode. I use this all the time on my X100 and the dynamic range is incredible. Best I have used in any camera, including Pro jobs. The ISO in Wide Dynamic range mode is 800 and the difference is negligible when compared to the camera's quality at its base ISO of 200.
Image manipulation is nothing new. Except that in the chemical filled darkroom it took a lot of effort, time, resources and skill to do it convincingly. Generally, such work was a one-off.
Today, a monkey (sorry to insult you monkeys out there) fake it in a few clicks and then replicate it a million times.
I think a lot of modern photographers point an accusing finger at the old dead photographers and announce "THEY DID IT!!!!" as justification for their own works of fantasy.
I never liked the desktop version anyway, so I am not sorry to see it go. It wasn't exactly harmonious to use going from mobile version to desktop. I like using snapseed when I feel a little jaded from shooting monochrome.
I still feel a little irked that Nik sold itself to the Devil. I suppose I have to refer to it now as Old Nik.
Easycass: A good article. There will always be various ways to achieve better results; explaining the technique was the point.
And ‘cheating’? Even purist photographers are never able to fully represent reality. Would that mean everyone ‘cheats’?
In camera we: crop, rotate, use focal length, DOF, compression, distortion, shutter speed, expression, props, shadows, viewpoint, film, exposure, blockers, lighting, reflectors, masks, filters, etc.
In the darkroom we: dodge, burn, mask, filter, diffuse, solarize, graduate, spot, colour balance, vignette, bleach, and even do composites (you know, a house and a different sky) by multiple exposures and sandwiching negatives.
In Photoshop we: do all of the above and more.
All the above distort what is reality. Am I to believe that those ‘photographers’ here who accuse people of ‘cheating’ do none of the above?
Photography - Painting with light - You do not have to like what is created, but love that we have the ability and freedom to create...
To Easycass and AluKd
Many thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.
It will be very interesting to see how the technology, software and the direction photography takes actually pans out in the next five or so years.
AluKd, when I said 'build my own camera', I did actually mean a film camera (I do shoot film, and more recently). If you feel so inclined, please send me details of your self-made-camera, I will be very interested in that.
May your Light always be wonderful!
That's true. I could build my own camera though, it's not that hard. I have given it some thought actually. Building my own camera one day. I have already mixed my own developer, made Cyanotypes, that's a little start.
I like to see you write your own version of Photoshop! LOL.
My issue is expressed in my comment above yours (I hope it was clear). The ease of it doesn't bother me per se, I was making the comparison that in the 'old days' faking, composites etc took really skill and a lot of hard work. Photoshop isn't hard work, it's easy.
Perhaps I have been using PS for too long. I went through all the stuff like I see and read here. There comes a point when you become sick of it all. Sick of all the computer generated un-reality. Perhaps you'll come to that point one day.
Like you, once I didn't care how the seagull was removed. Now I do. I suppose I've around digital media too long.
For me, authenticity is important, as is honesty, integrity and being genuine. Personally, I think Capa staged it, Alexander Rodchenko faked it a lot. That's not genuine. It's lying. Some people are like that. I am not.
Thanks for your comment about my iPhone pictures. I don't know where that sits with me yet. I'll take your comments aboard. Take care.
Sorry laddie, but I have been using photoshop PROFESSIONALLY as a Graphic Designer since version 2.5 Currently I run CS5.5
Old duffer eh! Well, this one being ex-Army is probably more fit than your are.
I think when this computer/gadget fetish runs it's course people will want to return to a simpler, unfiltered, humble way of making images.
You rely on a plethora of software engineers and programmers for your images. I don't. When I think about it, you don't actually make your images, Abobe's code-heads do.