How to sign a "doctored" photo?

[alex_p._schorsch]

I decided this was the best place to post this question. A few years ago there

was a raging debate about if photoshopped photos could be considered

journalistic, etc. One of the major scandals of the epoc was when a famous

wildlife photographer (Wolff?) was caught cloning in several little herds of

zebras into a shot of the Serengeti plains. In the end, he espoused the idea of

putting a little delta mark next to the copyright mark or credit. I never

really think that there was a real decision made by the photographic

international community on this. I was just wondering and here is my question:

What is the correct manner to identify a photograph which appears to be a real

unmodified capture but in reality is a photograph which has been altered for

aesthetic or informational content reasons. I was thinking of just putting

MODIFIED DIGITAL PHOTO or do I go with a Greek Alphabet delta which is an

upside down pyramid. Please speak all you experts and any philosophers. I thank

you for your input. Cheers, Alex.

[mike_earussi1]

So many images (the majority?) are modified in Photoshop either as dramatically as you mentioned or just by altering color balance or saturation and sharpening that marking the unmodified ones would make more sense. Today I just assume that every photo I see has had something done to it. Not that traditional film prints were unmodified either. I and many others would habitually increase color saturation to make the image puncher. Or just shooting with Velvia alone was enough to drastically alter the color and contrast of the original scene. And, of course, no film or digital sensor is truly accurate as regards color/contrast rendetion.

 

Journalistic validity is another matter, especially if it purports to show the "truth" say in a war or crisis situation. And I believe that there already are standards in place for that.

 

But for wildlife or nature shots, as far as I know the aesthetic and/or commercial has always taken precedent. Hence "wildlife" shots taken using "rent a wolf" or "rent a cougar, elk, bear, etc." have been popular with stock photographers for decades. A friend who has been in the business for 40 years told me about some famous images and posters made using this technique. One was an Elk silhouetted against a sunset made using "rent a stuffed Elk" and another of a wolf hopping from ice patch to ice patch made with "rent a trained wolf." So as you can see you'd have to really define your terms carefully if you want a strict definition for wildlife photo "integrity."

[root]

"PHOTO ILLUSTRATION"

 

That's what the Washington Post uses, although they seem to be inconsistent about it, maybe using it only in cases where it isn't obvious.

 

Leave the word "digital" out of it.

[sam_thompson2]

It must be this picture.

 

http://www.artwolfe.com/cgi/shop/detail.cgi?r=CDS1

 

And a discussion from 10 years ago.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001m3

 

It's interesting how 10 years ago blending exposures might've been considered digital manipulation. But nowadays people just do it without thought.

[alec_myers]

When the Times (in London) earlier this year published a picture of Darth Vader's head superimposed over that of a party leader in a Parliamentary procession, the credit was given as a "photomontage"

[alex_p._schorsch]

Well, it seems that this is almost a non-issue. It is interesting to note that two major publications have come to terms with this problem. So far we have 1) Photomontage and 2)Photo Illustration and the old 3)Delta Symbol. Looks like the delta symbol has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Interesting. So far, I like Photomontage better but it does seem a bit too French.