On 2/9/19 9:04 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 20:30:13 -0000, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article ,
RichA says...

Seems only fair.* Since about the same amount of product there isn't
Swedish, it's Chinese.

https://petapixel.com/2014/08/28/fli...raphy-see-cgi/


To a certain it's the future of photography. Image processing software
adding computer generated content to photos to enhance them. Photos
taken by cameras won't go away, they will be enhanced by software.

But it's lying.* I want to buy what I see.

It's an ethical conundrum.

Suppose Ikea has a common table. The photographer shoots it on a green
screen (or white or black background). The art director decides it would
look better in a dining room, so he drops the table into a stock photo.
The table is still as it was when photographed, only the surroundings
are changed. And you are not buying the surroundings, only the table. Is
it lying? It could have been photographed in that dining room, but for
economy and efficiency, it was not.

Suppose the art director decides that table would look better in the
well of the US Senate, so he drops it into a stock photo of the US
Senate chamber.

In my opinion, the first example is acceptable, the second crosses a
line. The difference being that the first photo could have existed, the
second not so likely.

Let's go back to the first example. Now, the art director decides the
table needs a floral centerpiece and some dinner settings, so he drops
them in. (These items may be Ikea products also.) Again, the table could
have been photographed this way originally, but it would have cost more.
You are still buying the table (and perhaps the items on the table),
they look just like in the photo, just not all combined.

Where does "enhancement" become "lying"?

--
Ken Hart