Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stephen Fox
I dont think this is relevant as I believe the deception idea was concerned with image only not following description.
I support the proposition of a manipulated image is deception through the addition or subtraction of subjects or artifacts.
|
I'm at pains to understand what you mean by deception. A manipulated image does not deceive unless something is claimed for it that is knowingly incorrect.
The example given above about photos submited to the BBC country file, are submitted in accordance with rules as to what editing is and is not permissible, if you break those rules then you deceive. But there is nothing intrinsicaly wrong with having manipulated the image, the wrongness lies in the claim "This image has not been manipulated" when it is submitted to the BBC countryfile. In other contexts where such claims aren't being claimed then it makes no difference whether the image has been manipulated or not.
I don't think there are any niceties here, there are no degrees or grey areas. If you present an image in a context where unmanipulated images are expected, that has in fact been manipulated it then that is deception.
I've recently been looking at some of the landscape photographs by Ernst Haas and I can't tell whether the images were derived purely within the camera or whether there was a large amount of darkroom work involved. Personally I don't think it matters one iota.