Hacker News Reader

Comment by ballenf | Hacker News Reader

I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article.

Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed.

Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and in front of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.

View on HN

> I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article.

I have an even lower bar: compositing impossible images is perfectly fine[0], just don't lie about it.

[0] There are plenty of interesting and thought-provoking visuals to be had there. A few years back there were compositions of gas giants instead of the moon which were interesting and beautiful, also the discussions of taking the picture quick before the entire scenery is torn apart by tides were funny

iow Pictures don't lie, people do.

Agreed! I don't mind crazy composites at all. I like looking at all kinds of photography. I hate that he tries to claim its not composited. That seems impossible considering the clouds appear to be behind the moon. Also, how long of lens would be needed for that kind of compression? Seems impossible to have something that sharp at that kind of length. Several things point to a composite IMO.

"Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me."

To me part of why I admire a picture is the fact that someone did the work to get to the right place at the right time. So compositing something that could have happened but the photographer wasn't there when it happened is still disappointing.

Someone I know used to be a fairly serious amateur photographer back in the film days. Did a lot of bird photos among other nature-related things. He pretty much got out of the camera club and photo contest scene a number of years back because, once digital scanning and then digital cameras became a widespread thing, most of the winning photos were increasingly "faked" in various ways.

This piece in Outside Magazine in 2009 describes the beginning of this sort of things. https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you

Totally agree. I know a few professional photographers and some of their best shots were HARD to get. Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck.

Learning that they had composited those shots would be really disappointing. Learning that some hack was "stealing" their income by compositing hard-to-achieve shots would be maddening.

It's a also a big problem for aspiring photographers. You practice a lot to get as good as the pros only to find out that they are manipulating their images. It's like trying to get really good at a sport and later finding out that the top athletes are all on steroids. It makes you very cynical.

> some of their best shots were HARD to get

For some definition of "best" !

Pictures succeed or fail on their own merit, not on how much work was needed.

otoh House painting we value by how much work was needed.

> Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck.

How disappointing it must be to learn that so many of those widely admired Ansel Adams' photos were taken from the road side, standing on his car roof.

> "stealing"

Now you're just name-calling.

I assume Adams still did some amount of recon. Driving around, sees something he likes, comes back when the lighting is better.

Two of the pros I know shoot professional cycling. Lots of time on the back of a motorcycle to get action shots. But some of panoramic shots of the peloton are what takes more work/planning.

And of course, my own personal biases come in as well. I strongly prefer photos that are on the "journalism" end of the spectrum vs pure art, if that makes any sense.

By all means "strongly prefer" and resist the temptation to insist those personal preferences are truths.

Adams was also an avid hiker and spent a lot of time in the mountains.

What would be relevant, is if you could show something to suggest that Ansel Adams considered his best photographs to be those that had required the most "physical exertion": those that were "HARD to get".

Meanwhile:

"Looking at Ansel Adams: The Photographs and the Man"

https://books.google.com/books?id=SsGMtgAACAAJ&dq=isbn:03162...

http://anseladams.com/looking-at-ansel-adams-the-photographs...

> don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article.

Let's say I took a picture of someone in a Halloween costume. Let's further say that I called it a picture of the Amazing Mutant Bigfoot, blew it up to the size of a building (in picture size though) and composited this "bigfoot" onto a city, apparently being trampled in his chivalrous outrage at bottom-feeding city dwelling humans.

RAWR, HUMANS, RAWR!!! (notice the use of punctuation by bigfoot)

If I composite an impossible picture like this, sell it to Walt Disney for the movie, RAWR, HUMANS, RAWR, starring Scarlett Johansson, does that mean that people should believe the picture is real-life? If Marvel says that Thor, God of Thunder is not a Movie but a documentary, so what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com