OT - Gross manipulation and its consequences.

[djl251]

In case you missed it please see this post - its unbelievable.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg-2.tcl?msg_id=

0064ka

 

 

The original (now deleted) thread appears here:

 

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~edb9d/temp/exile.htm

 

I give the moderators credit for quickly dealing with this

REPREHENSIBLE abuse of the photo.net privilege.

[henry_ting2]

I have nothing against manipulation provided it was stated. However, in this case, the lies, cheatings and cover ups are downright unethical.

[patricks]

Ah, it is too early to go through all of this. Some ppl obviously have too much time on their side...

[thomas_moraitis]

Does someone have an idea about the motives of such a behaviour? Is there some material or other gain? Is this site some kind of contest?

[stephen_w.]

"Does someone have an idea about the motives of such a behaviour? Is there some material or other gain? Is this site some kind of contest?"

 

Pure ego trip for the top pix page.

 

Good Riddance.

[stephen hazelton]

I find it all somewhat comical. Thanks, elves, for standing up to these folks.

[andy_piper2]

Uhh - maybe it's just me - but I don't find the final results of the manipulations to be anything but mediocre and boring landscapes, anyway. Barely acceptable eye-candy for a stock house.

 

I wouldn't give the image (even if unmanipulated) more than a 1/2 rating.

 

Might buy a few thousand copies if I were doing the interior decor for a motel chain, though.

[marbing]

The thing about the manipulators (posing as photographers) is that they don't even have to own a camera as long as they have an 'archive' of stock photos that they can use to assemble an image...a 'franken-photo' they call them...created by stitching together pieces of the dead.

 

I find it hard to apply the term 'photographer' to somebody that doesn't own or use a camera...they may be artists...but photographers?...no way!

[sk_arts]

http://www.decusdesign.com/adams/index.asp

 

Go and be horrified.

[Karim Ghantous]

Don't you just love the way Ms. Pagnacco tried to turn everything around and make herself and Mr. Filippeschi some kind of victims?

 

I love these two lines by Ms. Pagnacco the most:

 

"Even though Valter did wrong denying this is a composite I find more shameful from you Mr. Carrus to accuse public a photographer like Mr. Filippeschi whose work is remarkable"

 

and this beauty:

 

"Valter has only lied"

 

If she weren't so serious I'd be able to laugh.

[anavar]

Shawn,

I visited the link and almost swallowed my tongue! What are people thinking?!!!! Although I wonder what would Michaelangelo's David look like in a tuxedo.....AHHHHHHHHHH.

 

Art

[douglas k.]

I followed Shawn's link, too...Since Ted Turner thinks that color improves "Casablanca," it's not surprising that someone has decided to "improve" Ansel Adams' photos, too.

[________1]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I can�t stand that kind of �photography� anyhow. It�s creepy and suffocating in a way.

[henrimanguy]

Sorry, I am not of the same opinion. Please, read below what I have write on the subject. And sorry again, there is not only two lines, and probably many faults in my english. I hope this will not be boring.

 

WHY VALTER PHILIPPESCHI HAS BEEN BANISHED ?

 

1. EMOTION

 

My aim is not to revive the controversy which opposed, there is some time, Valter Philippeschi and Anna Pagnacco on the one hand and the direction and some members of photo.net on the other hand, about one photo posted by Valter Philippeschi, and which ended by the banishment of Valter and the deleting of his portfolio. I just want to try to understand why this has may happen. Perhaps is�nt it the first time this sort of thing happend, I am too new in photo.net to know, but I was really shocked by this and I feel necessary for my own balance to analyse why it happend.

 

First, let me tell you how I have discover the affair. Valter Philippeschi was the author of Tuscany landscapes photos very well appreciated by number of photo.net members, and by me too. These photos give me the wish to discover this region of Italy and I had decided to pass a week there in the month of october. The 30th of september, I decided to take a look at his portfolio and to let him a comment and a word to say that I will go soon to Tuscany. I clicked on his name in my "circle of friends" page, and when the page of Valter opened, I could read these words : "This portfolio has been deleted and this member banished from photo.net". Nothing else, no explanation. Underneath, the blue link used to open the portfolio stated : "0 photos uploaded". I stayed some long seconds without understand. The word "banished" had been like a slap I would have receive in my own face. What could have been the gravity of his crime to be banished ? was I wonder. I could�nt imagine what one has to reproach to him which deserves banishment.

 

So, I decided to post a question in the forum. And this is what I done immediately. And do you know what ? After some minutes, when I decided to look if there was answers to my question, I saw this words : "Your thread has been deleted". After the slap, it was now a punch in the face. My question have been censored !... I can say that at this moment I was frightened.

 

And I decided to send a mail to Valter himself. By chance, they had not deleted his email adress.

He answered some minutes after, saying it was a long story, that certain in photo.net do not like him nor Anna Pagnaco and have find a pretext to evict them.

In the same time his answer reached my mail box, others emails arrived, and one, perhaps sent by the direction of Photo.net, but I am not sure, which was a copy of all the controversy beneath the incriminate photo. I read it all, and at last I could understand all the affair.

 

2. ANALYSIS

 

I have think about it during a long time. One thing is certain, Valter has lied in saying that his photo was not manipulated. If this deserves banishment is another question. As for me, I find it is a too hard punishment but this is not the question I want to discuss for the moment. I am more interested by this other question : Why has he lied about this whereas it was certainly not expensive to recognize it was manipulated ? To answer this question you must observe that Photo.net (I will use the name "Photo.net" for "the direction, or the webmaster, of Photo.net") shows an extreme tenseness on the question of manipulation. So much so that there is a box to check off if you want to assure that your photo is not manipulated. One can wonder why one would assure that a photo is not manipulated, as if it was the criterion of the photography in all its purity. As if a manipulated photo would not deserve absolutely this name. As if, after the moment of shot, it was a bit ashamed to touch up the negative or the print. You know, to touch up is a means to hide the imperfections... or to disguise reality. And photography has much to see with reality. Unlike painting or drawing, the photography can reproduce reality in its least details. And it is very tempting to go from the "can" to the "must". And also to the "not to have", and the "not to be" manipulated.

 

I think there is two sorts of photographers : those whose passion is photography itself, and those for whom photography is just a means in the service of their art. It is probable that among the firsts one find mainly the champions of the unmanipulated photo, and among the seconds, mainly those for whom manipulation is not a problem and for whom only the result is important, not the manner to manage it.

I dont think I make a mistake if I say that Anna Pagnacco and Valter Phillipeschi are among the seconds. This explain why they feel allowed to manipulate their photos, even without say it. But that does not explain why Valter has lied and go on lying when one have demonstrate his manipulation. I think I can explain it thus : for Valter it might have be a challenge. I can imagine him thinking thus : "I will so well manipulate this photo that nobody will see the manipulation." For an artist this is a very strong sort of challenge. For example, the artists in trompe-l��il style are in this sort of challenge : to trick the best informed. I find this absolutely lawful. The only point where Valter has made a mistake is to have not admit that his manipulation was�nt perfect and to have persist to say his photo was�nt manipulated when somebody has began to call his work into question.

 

Now, Photo.net say that the reason why it is necessary to mention if a photo is or not manipulated is the pedagogy and the honesty towards the beginners in photography. Perhaps. And without doubt, if you agree to the Terms of use, you implicitly accept this rôle of teacher at the very least. Yes, but how many make the effort to this ? Very few it seems to me. And moreover, the box "manipulated or not" don�t force to state if you have manipulate, but just allow you to point out if you have not. The distinction is very subtle. If you had to check off the box to point out that your photo is manipulate, some (like me, I confess) who are in disagreement with this notion of manipulation, could check the box for all their photos, arguing that as soon as the moment of the shot there is a manipulation of the reality. But the Photo.net notion of manipulation is not this one. Photo.net don�t want you state that your photo is manipulated, but that you point out that it is not. I think there is no teaching in there. The "not manipulated photo" is just a plus, a "self-awarded" distinction which say that you are a great photographer, whose shots are perfect and who don�t need to arrange them, neither in the dark room nor with a software. I wonder if such a photographer does exist ? We know on the contrary that great photographers in the past where also great technicians (is the good english word "contact printers" ?) in the dark room. To work on a computer is not different in the principle, only in the possibilities and the easiness it offers.

 

So, what was the crime of Valter in faking the reality of the Tuscany landscape ? I think it is thus : He gave me (and others) the wish to go in Tuscany, and when I will arrive there, I will see with great horror that the real Tuscany is not like his photos, that it is an ugly land where nobody would stay more than an hour...

 

Another point in the "Terms of use" is that photo.net members must post photos that are their own. And what is reproached to Valter is that he would have post a photo of someone else.

 

The reality is somewhat different. He has used of a piece, an extract of a photo (a sky, some clouds, what a carry on !) taken by someone else to make a composite with one of his own photos. There is here another distinction, which is not subtle this one, but essential : the result of the composite is a work by Valter and by no one else. The author of the sky is�nt the author of the final photo. The art of collage is a century old at least, and no art critic would reproach to an artist to use of this technique. I think that if a piece of a photo is�nt an essential element of this photo, if, moreover it is a banal object used in an ordinay arrangement, if this element does not permit to say immediately : this element come from this photo of this author, one cannot say it is a theft. If, in a nocturnal sky a bit empty I decide to paste a moon cuted up in a photo of another author, will this later accuse me of theft of "his" moon ? And if he do that, which one will be the more ridiculous ? The problem is different if this moon shows a particular appearance that make it unique and recognizable of all ordinary moon, in a certain manner signed by one author. But I have not seen something particular in the sky used by Valter, and the person who has find the clone of this sky in a photo of Anna Pagnacco must have seek several minutes to find it. And even this is not the appearance of the sky itself that tell him where he had to seek but more probably an intuition (Anna and Valter are friends, they both photograph Tuscany).

 

3. IN CONCLUSION

 

My feeling is that in banishing Valter and deleting his portfolio, photo.net has not punish his fake, which is not so grave if my demonstration is good, but his stubbornness in not recognize it. But I feel there is stubbornness too on the photo.net side which, have I said on the begining, is somewhat tense on the question of manipulated photo. I think that if the box "manipulated or not" was suppressed, another atmosphere could establish in the all photo.net site. Those who would reveal their manipulations could do it in the "technical details" box, those who would not could let it blank, and those who would point out that they have not manipulate could do it if this is their pride. Well, photo.net is�nt a news website where manipulated photos could serve disinformation ends. It is a site where photography amateurs gather for show their works, for learn, for pleasure, for discuss and contest. Controversies like this one can occur, it is probably unavoidable (I even think it is a good thing), but for pity�s sake, let it not end by banishment ! In what sort of world do we live ?

 

[travis1]

I gave a 3/3 rating to this weeks POW and a shor comment and that got deleted as well. I had to reword it to fit the elves's definition of a critique. Check out my reworded comment if you want. I felt like my arms were being twisted when I wrote that.

[marbing]

It IS a very sensitive issue but one that should be addressed. I, for one, understand that the problem was not necessarily the 'manipulation' but the attempt to deceive. We know that the sky was substituted in the image...(The current issue of Popular Photography has an article advocating just that kind of substitution as a legitimate part of the photo process!)...but can we be sure that was the only addition? What if the entire scene was composed of elements from different stock archives? It is certainly possible and this is where the issue confronts all photographers.

 

There must be a certain abiliity to 'trust' that a photograph is 'real' and not a composite. The photographer's job...his art...is in getting us to look at objects, people, scenes in new ways. The best photographers do more than just 'record' events however. In making us look at things with new eyes we see more than the surface. The portrait photographer Karsh, wanted to do more than just document what the person looked like...he wanted the image to say something about the person. You know Karsh's subjects a little better for having scene their portrait.

 

When images (proporting to be photographs) are shown to be composites, it throws suspicion on all photographs and photographers. Is he really a good photographer or did he cook up that shot on his computer? In short, is the person good with a camera or good with a computer? They are very different skills.