Hello,
I've recently found myself commenting on a pair of images that came up in the recent Fstoppers contents that were, to my eye, clearly "fake".
Photography is, and has long been, the art of >creation< of an image. This often employs techniques to enhance the natural appearance of a subject. Photographers use Lightroom to punch up or modify colors and contrast. They use Photoshop to combine elements from multiple images, or to eliminate unwanted aspects of an image.
This is all fine to me- and I have done such things many times myself.
My problem is when such an artistic work is presented as something that it is not.
I became interested in this not long after I started watching the Fstoppers videos. One of the first that I watched was the "How Fake is this image by Peter Liek".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2yaO__wmA4
As an astrophotographer (not a particularly accomplished one, but I try...) it was absolutely clear to me that the image in question-
https://petapixel.com/2018/02/06/peter-lik-called-photographers-faked-mo...
- was a heavily exaggerated artisitic composite. No doubt about it.
Then this image popped up in a contest. It's a cool image- very moody. I like it. However, the tornado appeared, to my mind, "painted" on. I did not believe that the photographer captured a real tornado and I gently (I hope) commented that I didn't think the image was of an actual tornado.
https://fstoppers.com/entry/442952
The photographer wrote back and assured me that the photograph was of a real tornado, but "enhanced". I'm still skeptical, however. I think the background, with the supercell is "real" and the tornado was not really there; it was "painted".
Lee and Patrick in the Fstoppers CTC video also puzzled over the "reality" of this image.
Then, recently, I came across this image in the submissions for the most recent "Backlit" Contest:
https://fstoppers.com/entry/453202
Which was billed as being of "Solar Eclipse, March 2015"- implying that it is an image of that actual eclipse.
Now I know that there is no way that this is a photograph of that eclipse. The total portion of that particular eclipse made landfall only in the very remote archapelago of Svalbard, which, by some miracle, was totally clear the day of the eclipse. The image bears none of the hallmarks of an image of totality taken during an eclipse under clear weather- there are no prominences, the solar corona doesn't look right, and the "haze" around the limb of the "moon" would be much different in a real photo of the sun.
That said, it >is< an interesting photo. Quite artistic. As a fan of eclipses, I might even have a print of it on my wall. As a photo, I like it.
So what bugs me about this and the other two images above?
It is the fact that the photographer >claims< that the images are something that they are not. The marketing team of Peter Liek, in defiance of all common sense, claims that his image above (and others like it) is "real". In other words, that Liek captured an image of the moon rising behind that cliff- and then manipulated it instead of what he really (and demonstrably) did, which was take a preexisting image of the moon and carefully Photoshop it behind that cliff.
The artist who created the solar eclipse has made an interesting image, but insists (or at least cagily, and strongly implies) that the image, which looks nothing like a real photo of a solar eclipse, is "real".
I take many photos that often combine, or exaggerate elements of one or many individual frames. However, when I do this- and in particular when the subject matter is "scientific"- I am clear to present the images as manipulated, or composited, or stacked or what not. Or, if I don't, I will freely explain how the it was created when asked about it.
I would feel as if I were misleading the viewer if I did not.
For instance, this image-
- is a composite of 300 individual images "stacked" to increase dramatically the number of fireflies in the image. It does not represent the actual number of flreflies that one would see at one time in that field. It does, however, represent what happened in that field over an extended period of time, and it gives interesting information on the behavior and patterns of fireflies. Even so, I felt it necessary to include a brief statement explaining how the image was made.
The image is informative.
However Liek and the other photographers DISinform by not adding such a caveat to photos with a "scientific" theme and insisting that they are a more or less faithful (albeit artistically enhanced) representation of reality.
In other words, if you take the photographer at face value, you end up knowing >less< about the subject of the photo than before you saw it.
That's what bugs me.
I'd love to hear others' opinions on this matter.
Do others feel the same way as me? Where do you draw the line between real and fake? Should I care? Should I lighten up?
It is looks good and you aren't misleading people by pushing an agenda who cares?
Would you consider implying that the image is of a "real" event in your description (as Liek's company did) "pushing an agenda" even if that agenda is merely greater sales? I'm sure a lot of people bought the photo feeling that it captured a reasonable facsimile of some real phenomenon. There's some cachet in "the real" which is why Liek (et al) insists on it.
It's an interesting topic and one that books could be written on each with several dozens of chapters.
I remember a lot of the debate over that Lik Moon photo, people trying to figure out if it was "real" or "fake". On one side, an image similar in composition is possible... and I say that very loosely.
I recently watched a video on a photography channel that talked about "the impossible shot" which he was trying to capture the moon in all its glory, right behind a solo tree up on a far away hill compressing the image. --- that said --- The pinch for the Lik photo was the discovery that the Moon in that shot was an identical (exactly the same) Moon image from an earlier work of his. I shoot the Moon quite often, sometimes a few nights in a row, sometimes a few times that same night... and no two images I have taken are identical in that regard. Heck, even taking a shot 1s apart is enough for the image to be different due to atmospheric conditions.
But that brings up the bigger point you're talking about, dose it matter, should it matter? I felt in this case it did as the Photographer had the reputation of "everything in camera"... But in a defense response about the above debate, mentioned he never said it was "real". This, though true, I felt (personally) was deception as he knew his reputation and didn't say a word.
I've been giving a lot of thought to this subject over the last week myself and in my own work. Where is the line between real and fake? Real would be straight from camera, but is just grading and adjusting a few sliders in Lightroom/PS enough to make an image fake? Is it the addition of elements, removal of elements that makes a image fake? Dose the utilization of an Oil, or Painting filter make the image less real or fake? On the other hand we have art is an expression, and that can be real on any level.
Another example is the Famous Photo of Abraham Lincoln that we have all seen which is indeed fake; just his head is real but the standing body is that of the photographer himself. Apparently one of several faked historical photographs. Appears photo-manipulation and merging of two photos has been around since the start.
I feel it is all okay as long as the artist is clear. In the case of astrophotography, I feel it is far more accepted and just part of the process.
Now with computational and algorithmic photography is on the rise, how do people feel about these types of photos?
Interesting subject. I'm still int he "discovering my voice" stage of photography. But I feel as long as one is true to themselves and their viewers; that's the best route to take. Be free to explore and express thru photography, but if someone asks, be honest... or at least say that my process is my own and not share... Just don't lie.
As an example... I have a solid tech background, I'm a tinkerer, a fixer, and love fiddling with things. Someone brings me their broken computer saying they have no clue how it stopped working... I can look at it, and I can clearly see what they did... I ask about the situation and I get full denial... I know what they did, they know what they did, but they will not speak the words..
Don't be that guy from my example I feel... :)
As "just part of the process", I often take the foreground of a single image, and combine it with a stack of images taken from the same session and of the same angle. In this way, I'm showing, for instance, the milky-way rising behind the trees as it was at one point in time. This seems to me, okay. Even so, I'd probably comment on what I did- but it wouldn't be necessary.
However, if I take another image of the milky-way, from a different time and combine it, then I feel that is "faking it". I'd most definitely comment on what I did then- particularly if that particular orientation of the sky were not possible from that angle.
Yup agree completely.
I saw another video recently where it was mentioned that (for astro) take your foreground image.. Then take your star image but with a clear foreground. I could see how this would be easier to process and compile the two images afterwards. I'd say this is fine giveng two factors... say if it was me taking the images.. The foreground and star shots have to have been taken looking at the same direction of the night sky and as close to the same angle as possible... and also taken on the same night.
I know some astro shots can take hours, days and sometimes weeks worth of shutter time to get all the fine detail. I feel those images are in their own situation. I'm just talking the more traditional "landscape astrophotography" in a single night type shots.
But taking a milkyway shot in the winter and mixing it with a summer flower shot, yeah.. The milkyway has cycles like all things. This is an extreme example of course.
The end viewer may not even care one way or another, but to play it off as "real" with the expectation it is all shot right then an there. I feel is dishonest. Sounds like we are of the same mind on this.
Yes, I think we draw the line similarly. I do both sorts of "astrophotography"- landscapes and highly processed images (albeit scientifically "faithful") closeups of astronomical objects. For the latter, I'd never bring in an object from elsewhere, or do spot editing that appreciably changed the form of an image. I also try to keep the coloration natural or at least "representative" (a given element's glow is represented by a given color, as in the "Hubble Palette')
This, by the way, was a stack of about 20 images of the Scutum region of the Milky-Way. I use a iOptron SkyTracker. There's no local enhancement, but, of course, I shot raw and manipulated the contrast and sharpness. I also "subtracted" a "noise reduced" average of the image before stretching the result to cancel out the skyglow and the vignetting. (For completeness sake.)
Beautiful.
I'm not going to share my astro shots, no tracker, in a light pollution 8 zone, and three massive 1500watt floodlights (from a building) pointing into my yard. I hope to get there one day.. I have a big interest in landscape astro.. and astro in general.
Thanks! But my image is a relative "quickie" compared to what a really good astrophotographer can do. At the public observatory that I manage, I have an actual mounted telescope, with an actual CCD astro-camera, but I'm so busy showing members of the public objects through the visual telescope that I don't have time to both use it and do the countless hours of processing. Instead, a friend of mine takes most of our images and processes them. He's really good at it. I post them- along with a few of my more modest, and easy to process ones taken with a DSLR- here:
https://www.instagram.com/jgastropark/
Just took a peek, fantastic stuff!
I have a couple nice photos given the equipment and conditions I'm using/under but nothing like those. One I even played with the light clouds and light pollution causing the stars truly "glow". I can get some truly great Moon shots though using my nikkor 200~500mm FX lens on my DX body. (So crop factor).
I'll share 2 shots..
One of Andromeda... I did clean it up further but, honestly, I like this version the best as it has more character. Using my 70-300mm kit lens and several images stacked.
Second of the Moon. This was a little bit ago, pretty sure I touched it up a little... Can't remember exactly. I also have to recent Snow Moon but, I'm just not a fan of Full Moons as the Suns light washes out the details. :-/
I also did catch the Transit of Mercury, I was shocked I got it. Used the special filter for the front of the same Nikkor I shoot the Moon with. Worked nicely.
Yes, the moon shot is really good. Very sharp and clean. I think the image is sharper than what I can get with my Tamron 150-600 on a Full Frame D750. I sometimes wish I had the crop factor. :-)
I curse not having a full frame sensor at times, but in some of these cases, it is nice to have... Stretch just a bit more out of that lens. I'm using the Nikon d5500.
I think you can get more out of the Andromeda one. There's a bit of banding that I think you can get rid of, first off.
What I'd do, is stack/align the images in PS after exporting them from Lightroom in 16 bit TIFF. Then do a median on the entire stack. Then, make a copy of the image, circle the galaxy and do a "content aware fill, to get rid of it. Then apply a strong "noise reduction" to the that entire image (the level should be like 128 pixels or so). Then "apply image" using the "subtract" and an "offset" of about 30 back to the original image. Then stretch and process >that< image. This gets rid of the vignetting and color cast of the sky and allows you to do more "stretching" to the image (using the curves function, usually) without causing the edges to go dark and the center to be overexposed.
You can get the bands out by doing the same "subtract" with a second noise reduction that is only like 20 pixels or so.
There's clearly some data there to work with. I'm seeing a lot of the outer portion.
Sorry if any of this is redundant or confusing.
Not at all, it's great information. Once the nights get a pinch warmer, I want to shoot it again. This was taken about 5 months ago and I have learned more since. These cold clear nights are the best for shots, but my camera can take it more then I can. Unfortunately I'm in a neighborhood where leaving the camera out unattended isn't an option.
I copied your information over the my notes, I will def give them a go. :)
Joe, regarding the Liek image, "the pinch" for me was pretty much >everything<in the image. At first glance, to my astrophotographer's eye, it screams "fake". (The other two images I cite are far more plausible to me).
To enumerate: First, any shot of the moon close to the horizon would not have a "one day from full" amount of shadow when the moon was rising in the twilight sky. Second, the limb of the moon would never be that much brighter (or, in other Liek photos, darker) than the background. Third, the clouds would not go behind the image. Finally, the moon near the horizon would have visible diffraction effects and blurring and distortion from the atmosphere- no matter how clear.
And, to reiterate, none of this would be a problem if he simply labeled it "a fantasy" or simply did not insist that it was a real event when asked.
Indeed, something about the image strikes a chord with people. It's compelling.
It's the lying about it- even by proxy (his marketers)- that is annoying.
Yup, again I agree complete.
I forgot about all the other little errors, it's been a year or more since I've watched the video and was working off memory.
Wasn't there something like 80hrs of editing put into that photo, and there were still all those mistakes? How embarrassing...
Now I have done some "fantasy" pieces but I clearly state that this was a "mythical" edit. Most people don't seem to mind but I was clear and didn't try to hide anything.
That's the worst part about that Moon shot, all those that spent real serious solid money for prints. I know I'd feel cheated.
Like buying wooly mammoth dice only to learn months later they were plastic dice with lead paint; but being in a protective case, I wasn't the wiser. Then getting a statement from the seller: "yeah, we never said the dice you were getting were real".
Sorry for the metaphors! heh... and no, I never brought the wolly mammoth dice set. :)