Should dishonest photography be shunned?
>>4484678If the primary goal is hyperrealism, then yesIf not, then noAre you just trying to take a snapshot index of reality?Or is the real world just the starting point of a transformative process leading to an original work?
>>4484678All photography is dishonest.
>>4484685What is honest?
>>4484686Good question.
>>4484678That's a honest photo taken through dishonest means though, literally an exposé.
>>4484678Yes
>>4484680Hyperrealism as in making things look very realistic, or creating a fake reality?Please be specific desu
>>4484686SooC Jpeg only, no raw manipulation or editing. Just as Nikon or Canon intended it. No black and white, color only. No flash. 40-50 mm as the human eye sees, f8, variable ISO. EV scene metered to -0.3, all Dynamic Range Optomisation in camera turned OFF. No filters or "film sims" at all. This is honest. And almost no one /p/hraud dares to do it.
>>4485029>Just as Nikon or Canon intended it>honestNigga wut.
>>4485015Hyperrealism as in the primary goal is to have your output be as accurate and representative of reality at the time>>4485029That doesn't sound any more honest
>>4484678All photography is neither honest nor dishonest, it simply reflects the photographers perspective. Choosing what to shoot, how to shoot it, how to process it, the crop of what to exclude, choosing which image to share over the others in the set, are no different than the author choosing which words to write, the painter what to paint, or the political troll choosing what filth to spew. What people put out into the eyes and ears of other people is what they choose, and that is as honest as anything gets. If I tell you the earth is flat and the moon landing never habbened and vaccines are a jewish conspiracy and, then those things may all be wrong and stupid, but I am being honest with you in conveying that I am honestly a fucking idiot.
>>4485029The only honest photography a digital camera can produce is a monochrome raw file.Everything else is faked.>>4485033Common gearfag fantasy because even though they never shoot jpeg, they have their ego tied up in brand name jpec color science (with no settings changed - thats CHEATING) being somehow important (because otherwise they wouldn't be able to say every other brand is worse)
>>4484678Photography is art, editing is part of the process. Always has been. Perspective is subjective
>>4485215
Honesty as a principle is not applicable to photography outside niche cases like photojournalism or medical imaging.Processing raws to taste, using a flattering focal length or perspective, selecting a lens or film on the basis of its characteristics, manipulating light, etc. - none of these things are any more honest or dishonest than painting or shooting JPG. Like all these other things, the purpose of post processing is not to deceive or convince the viewer of something, but is simply one part of enacting an aesthetic vision.Journalists on the other hand often do have an agenda, and therefore the concept of honesty might apply to their work: framing to make crowds appear smaller or larger, images staged to elicit an emotional response, omission of important context that entirely changes the significance of the image etc. This, however, seems to fall more under the umbrella of editorial integrity than some bogus concept of "photographic honesty".
>>4485220If what you said were true, then dishonest filmmaking wouldn't exist since it's all fiction. Dishonest photography is sometimes even more insidious. Take whoremongers like Moriyama making it look like prostitution is a glamorous life, for example. Or HCB fooling entire generations into thinking his carefully staged shots were happenstance. Dishonest photography is a confidence trick.
>>4485029based and true
>>4485260Are you cinefraud the doggy humper?
>>4485605>being this out of arguments
>>4485048Ken disapproves.
Put on your trip cinefag, I promise not to bully you to oblivion
>>4485216My interpretation as well. Schizo scribbling.
>>4486225i like more Morrowind
>>4486377Skyrim is good and I'm tired of pretending it's not.
>>4485216>>4486369>lab D&B instructions look like schizo nonsense to zoomerfags
The moon landing didn't happen and I'm tired of pretending it did. The photography gives it away.
>>4486672
>>4486672I'm tired of you chuckleheads thinking you're funny.
>>4486673>Pics an image that has been badly shopped to make a claim that reality is fake>Titles the image, "dishonest">Doesn't recognize the ironyHere... have a peek at the real image
>>4488206lol, look at the shadows. do they have 2 suns on the moon?
>>4488212Was this post meant for the Sarah Bahbah thread?
>>4488238He posts that shit in every thread. Guy is fucked in the head.
>>4488215>what is lens distortion
>>4488215The moon landing hoax is an excellent litmus test. Ardent believers are the nophoto boomers among us.
>>4488215Imagine posting on /p and not knowing how lenses work.Next you'll complain about the lack of stars because you don't understand how film works.
>>4488245>>4488259That's not how distortion works sweaty
>>4488261lol yes it is
>>4488262They used a 6cm Zeiss, roughly 35mm equivalent. It doesn't distort that much.
I hate that it's now cool to question the Moon landing, the Holocaust and the CIA on /p/. It's plainly un-American.
>>4488264Do you think >>4488206 is one picture?
>clear sun location>shadows in many different directionsI'm not simply misunderstanding, there is a grand conspiracy!
>>4488267So you admit it's not lens distortion
>>4488272I never said it was, not those anons, but it is still from distortionYou can very obviously see it's a panoramic stitch or several images, if they had stitched them differently the apparent distortion could go away
>>4488276See >>4488245
>>4488278See >>4488261Did you mean to say that's not how lens distortion works?If I wanted to be ultra pedantic, that still is similar to how lens distortion can work, just not with this specific exampleWere you the retard here >>4488215?
>>4488280>Did you mean to say that's not how lens distortion works?Context man, of course I meant that when replying to a guy saying it was lens distortion.I did fail at interpreting "not those anons" thoughbeit, thought you meant "nor those anons" but it was clearly "I'm not those anons" now that I read it again.
>>4488256>The moon landing hoax is an excellent litmus test. Ardent believers are the nophoto boomers among us.I see what you did there, beautiful use of ambiguity.
>>4488284>Context manTrue, very interesting of you to not offer the additional context of what kind of distortion was actually happeningGiven the context, almost makes it seem like you didn't know that either
>>4488288>very interesting of you to not offer the additional context of what kind of distortion was actually happeningWhy would I? It's already implied with "35mm equivalent".
>>4488289>They used a 6cm Zeiss, roughly 35mm equivalent. It doesn't distort that much.Just implies it isn't lens distortionI must have missed where you suggested it was something else causing the distortion?
>>4488290>I must have missed where you suggested it was something else causing the distortion?I didn't, what I cared about was dispelling the fiction that the lens was distorting the shadows.
everybody taking about the moon itt needs to be executed also what the fuck is dishonest photography? any image at all could be considered dishonest because it is a single view of a single instant of a subject or event, its like how people talk about how much they hate "bias" or "indoctrination/propaganda" when what they really mean is they dont like it when others treat a perspective other than the mainstream perspective on a topic as truefor example: >teaching kids in school to be liberal capitalists = cool and normal>teaching kids that liberalism and or capitalism might be bad = evil indoctrination and brainwashing literally every perspective is biased and its the same with photography literally every image could be considered a lie based on the intentions of the person framing the imagei think the only thing that could actually be considered dishonest is how people use an image to make their audience feel, if i took a photo of a dead Palestinian killed by an israeli JDAM and the zog used the photo to say it was actually hamas who killed the kid or to say it was somehow the kids fault he god the bomb dropped on his head that would be dishonest but the photo would not be
>>4488318Capitalism does not exist. It was invented as a strawman to propagandize neo-feudalism aka the unending struggle towards real communism. And its greatest triumph is convincing americans that its real and business are the equals of the state or else the entire country is logically obligated to go full commie. You will also find this “jedi” mind trick in other debates. And not just lefty insanity like veganism and population replacement either. It is also used by the right wing. You must adhere to ____ or your world will end if you ever stop being a hypocrite, and anyone can do anything they want and you cant logically complain. Know this trick. Fear it. Hate it. And remember the more you acknowledge ISM dichotomies the more powerful they become.
>>4488318>also what the fuck is dishonest photography?The Bahbah thread is a great example of it. Photography done with the pretense that it's presenting some deep truth when it's just navel-gazing erotica peppered with some critic bait. The faux rebellious aspect of it is also part of the dishonesty. The photographer is playing it safe while pretending to be some daring maverick. The idea that it's speaking truth to power when it's actually just power talking. It's corrupt to the core, there's no sincerity in it. Another example, hobotography.
>>4488206lol they forgot to shoop in the stars
