Is this a lie and why?

According to a thread the other day, this is a lie! Why?





[IMG]http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa417/walkeja/Lichfield%20Cathedral/IMGP3823.jpg[/IMG]

Thats a bit cryptic, which thread are you referring to?

Lens v Photoshop

are you referring to the ghost like flare from long exposure??

Sorry, still don't get your point.

I spotted it straight away!!.. The hex-shaped thingumabob has light relecting off it strongly on the RHS, despite the fact that it seems to be facing away from the only light source - the stained-glass window. Since there is no other point of reference for any other light source, that has to be it, IMO!

It is what it is, an image. It can't be a lie unless it purports to be something it's not...so the point is obscure for me too.

What Walkeja is driving at is some people's argument that a photograph is not a 100% truthful reproduction of what the human eye/brain sees. By claiming these people must believe that 'every photograph is therefore a lie' is a straw-man argument!

Is Walkeja refering to this thread?link Galoot photoshopped the Enterprise next to the moon but it was argued the light was on the wrong side. If that is the case the argument isn't really relevant here as we all know churches have more than one window.

Are you sure Alan?

He was quite specific about the Lens V Photoshop thread

I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like Lichfield Cathedral. Otherwise I'd pop in and check.


Bernard

It is Lichfield Cathedral

That's good seeing as you said all photographs are lies.

That's not actually what I said. What I said was far more complex than that and relates to the way the camera sees things, how we view and interpret them and what the photographer does.

"The camera never lies" is a common phrase, and in a literal sense that is true as it's an inanimate tool. However, it depends what the photographer does, why they do it, in what context they present it...etc.

What our mind sees is far more complex than the 2D representation of a photograph.

For example, there is the question of the dynamic range of a photo compared to what our eyes and mind are capable of seeing. My understanding is that when we look at a scene our eyes will move around and adjust to take in a greater dynamic range than they would be capable of seeing as a snapshot. Your mind interprets this as current and essentially fills in the gaps. It's kind of like HDR within your mind.

and add to that all our previous cultural experience and programming...