What are some of the most misleading photos ever taken?

What are some of the most misleading photos ever taken?

Moderator Note - This thread has been moved from "Business of Photography" Forum

Moderator Note: Image removed.

It appears as a photograph you did not make yourself and this contravenes the Terms of Use and User Guidelines to which you agreed when you joined Photonet.

A link to the Terms of Use is at the bottom of most if not all pages on the Site.

Just about every photo ever used in advertising? Ever gotten a burger that looks as good as the one on the ad?

Well said, Dieter. My haircuttery has a framed photo on a wall. The first time I looked at it, I thought it displayed a tender scene involving mother and child, well done in b&w. On the second occasion, when I saw the blurb for Paul Mitchell shampoo, I quickly changed my mind.

Just about every photo ever used in advertising? Ever gotten a burger that looks as good as the one on the ad?

McDreck takes the prize home. Reality is a dried up sandwich that looks like it was assembled on the counter by someone standing on an 8' stepladder.

Second place goes to the Dead Lobster/Olive Garbage chain of feederies. Their ads make me want to run to the car at 3AM. The plate at the restaurant makes me want to choke some sense into the fry cook... :eek:

The worst offenders of all time? Nothing to do with food, but in a metaphoric way feeding off hopes. Those hair replacement ads for men, and the 'skin creams' for women. Bring back the whipping post in the public square. :)

............

Oh, come on. Every photo is an attempt to nudge things one way of the other, to mislead toward a judgment. Which ones are "most misleading" depends on how much they go against your personal judgment.

However, sometimes I can't for the life of me figure out which way I'm being nudged ...

Photos which are physically altered to enhance a political point of view are arguably the most egregious, and they are legion. Distortion can be much more subtle, even unintentional.

If you pick a particular place to stand, choose a certain lens, set a particular aperture or shutter speed, are you not altering reality? Representing a time thread with a still photograph is probably the ultimate distortion. The greater question is whether the intent is to deceive the viewer or enhance his enjoyment or appreciation. I like to shoot landscapes, and try to establish a sense of place and proportion. My distortion is clearly intentional. I recall an altered photo showing George H Bush walking hand in hand with Queen Elizabeth. The photo was in fun and labeled as such, otherwise the reaction would be greatly different in the US (odd, humorous) or the UK, where it would be a serious breach of protocol.

News photography is particularly distorted. If you want to show a protest, for example, you move close with a wide angle lens (or cell phone) to emphasis people in the foreground, relegating others to a distant background. If you want to show a seething mass, you use a long lens from a distance, and crop out the stragglers. A wide angle lens from a modest distance thins the crowd, and diminishes its importance.

The same principles apply to words as well. When listening to politicians or hucksters (if there is a difference), you must consider what is not said with equal weight to the actual content. When the same content is discussed by the media, everybody "hears" or "sees" something different, to the extent you can't believe they're discussing the same event.

That was one thing about the late, lamented German Democratic Republic, everything was just what it seemed. ::rolleyes:

Here is the cover of "Rich Selection", an internal sales brochure from ca. 1955:

Can you imagine, ostalgie has become so embedded, that some people actually collect all those cameras!

Appreciation (financial) is not usually a problem. Most of them ten years or so on are still worth just as little as I paid for them, or less.

............

However, sometimes I can't for the life of me figure out which way I'm being nudged ...

Those PCP smoking ad gurus have definitely 'nudged' me away from ever buying anything with the H/K brand on it. I thought that company died a natural death in the 70s, and came back to life as an overpriced producer of cheaply made Chinese PC speakers in the 90s. This ad may explain a lot--someone else can wax philosophically on the matter... :confused:

Any photo of a North Korean dictator and his minions grinning and clapping. Do they ever stop? o_O

(Note: I kept trying to type his name, but PN's grammar trolls insisted that end of it is "In" instead of "In". Oops, there it goes again...)

Un

It's one of the few things you can't blame PN for. It's likely your browser's or system's spell checker which you can learn how to override.

Well said, Dieter. My haircuttery has a framed photo on a wall. The first time I looked at it, I thought it displayed a tender scene involving mother and child, well done in b&w. On the second occasion, when I saw the blurb for Paul Mitchell shampoo, I quickly changed my mind.

McDreck - - hmmm, a new buzzword for we despairs of fast food joints!

Photos which are physically altered to enhance a political point of view are arguably the most egregious, and they are legion.

Ed, do you take "egregious" to mean the same as "misleading?"

If the photos are misleading, does that mean that the photographer's intention was to mislead?

No.

What's misleading is to equate Adams' ethics with those of Riefenstahl.

Actually, what's misleading, if not downright intellectually dishonest and despicable, is to suggest that giving two examples of something is equating those two things.

Ed, do you take "egregious" to mean the same as "misleading?"

"Egregious" is a modifier of the theme "misleading", and denotes a particularly appalling example thereof. Any questions about "appalling?"

"Egregious" is a modifier of the theme "misleading", and denotes a particularly appalling example thereof. Any questions about "appalling?"

Please see Definition of EGREGIOUS.

Please see Definition of EGREGIOUS.

English dictionary or yours?

Please see Definition of EGREGIOUS.

Is it 'egregious' or is it 'misleading', or is it really 'disingenuous'? Then we have the problem of defining what 'is' is.

And now for your entertainment, a musical interlude by Slick Willie and the Closet Girls...

If the photos are misleading, does that mean that the photographer's intention was to mislead? From what I've read it doesn't seem that Adams was out to mislead as he himself opposed to the existence of the camps.

 

"He keenly felt the injustice of the exclusion order against the Japanese Americans. When told he could not photograph the guard towers, Adams took photographs from the towers, giving away their existence"

 

Ansel Adams Gallery - Manzanar National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

 

What's misleading is to equate Adams' ethics with those of Riefenstahl.

I would say so. Adams was a personal friend of the Manzinar Camp director, who asked him to make the photographs, ostensibly to portray a life-isn't-so-bad situation of smiling and obedient prisoners. In his book, Born Free and Equal, he had an agenda, as naive as it was, regarding how the imprisoned (without due process) United States citizens (of Japanese ancestry) and Japanese citizens (legally in the United States) should better socialize with the rest of the US after the war. In the same book, Adams did feel that the imprisonment was an injustice, but in the end was necessary. Adams was a fine landscape photographer and teacher, but a lousy social documentary photographer/writer.

Though it doesn't speak to intentions, compare his photos with Dorothea's Lange's, which were quarantined by the government for decades, The difference is telling.

............

............

English dictionary or yours?

Since you seem to have the proverbial h#*d-on against me, will you also have the same attitude toward Merriam-Webster?