InsectNet forum

I harbor disdain for thread that go off the rails, away from the topic, so I'm starting afresh with a subject line that reflects the topic.

Fake, from Oxfords:

1. not what somebody claims it is; appearing to be something it is not (syn: counterfeit)

2. made to look like something else (syn: imitation)

Note the first includes "claim". Thus, reflecting on the morphos on a tree photo, the complaint that it is neither real, nor reflective of reality; however, if the author makes no such claim, it would not be a fake.

Mirriam-Websters is more specific with:

2. being such in appearance only and made or manufactured with the intention of committing fraud

Thus, color-shifted photos, photos of live specimens, etc. are not truly fake. (perhaps "fake" is a default use of a typical average American vocabulary, which is only 25% of that of the typical British vocabulary.)

Are some photos, and indeed some antiques, etc. not truly fakes, but irresponsible? What culpability does an author/ photographer have to avoid unintentionally deceiving the public? And, if "the public" is not the consumer, but instead a buyer is (e.g., a buyer of Art, not nature photography) does the photographer have an responsibility to produce a 100% accurate photo?

Of course, if something is faked with the intent to deceive for gain, that's fraud. What responsibility does the fabricator have to recognize the potential for their creation to be later pawned off as authentic?

I believe we need to be more cognizant of the words we use, and the accusations made. Just because a photo is not representative of fact does not automatically make it a fake; I may not like the photo, and may have concern it exacerbates The Dumbing Down of America, but that doesn't make it a fake.

Similarly, the thousands year old say Let The Buyer Beware. An uninformed buyer is more likely to be later disappointed. I will admit there have been many times I've commented on such happenings that the buyer was too stupid (e.g., often more money than brains) and deserved it.

Fakery and fraud is rampant in society, including in science. But we must exercise caution in making accusations.

I don't know we we need to agree to disagree or not. I couldn't care less what the dictionary says about the word "fake", in my judgment anything
that is manipulated to look better, or is not representative of the actual reality of a behavior is not real, and I would use the word fake to
describe such images, or solid objects.
Let the buyer beware is a cop out. We are constantly bombarded with imitation goods and it is the crime of the seller deceiving buyers who
bears responsibility. I use eBay often and there is a great deal of deception going on there, even legitimate businesses with brick and mortar
sales will make false claims, or make overt attempts to give the impression an item is rare or OOAK. Reprints, copies from the public domain
sold to unsuspecting buyers, it's wrong, and sellers know exactly what they are doing. Spend some time shopping collectibles and you'll soon
find out that everything is the "holy grail", or rare. My steak is rare- and that's something I can count on. I showed my Mom a picture of
a flood of Morpho butterflies on a tree. She thought it was real and butterflies do that, Context is important, if that image is in an art gallery-
that's one thing, but putting it up on the net without a disclaimer, well, that's something I have little respect for. You get credibility by
delivering the goods, as a tradesperson, I was constantly pissed off by people who would take advantage of customers who just don't
know better. I live near a subdivision that is under constant repair after someone has bought a house. Built by workers who don't give a damn,
sold by dishonest real estate agents, and as soon as it rains sideways- here comes someone to redo the windows, or try and fix erosion, those
things end up in court, and in the meantime, the buyer is SOL. It might look nice when you bring it home, or just move in, but when it
breaks, you got nothing but a crime scene. That's what feedback and consumer protection is for, to protect the foolhardy.
Buyers do need to be careful, and I find myself asking many "dumb" questions, but that's the way it is when you've been burned before,
I don't like it at all. In the old days people at least had to rob you face to face, now, it's just the result of a society that doesn't punish the
guilty in a manner designed to deter future transgressions.

kevinkk wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 9:49 pm in my judgment anything
that is manipulated to look better, or is not representative of the actual reality of a behavior is not real, and I would use the word fake to
describe such images,

I published a hardbound book on collectibles with over a thousand photos. Fully 50% of those photos were manipulated- color corrected, sharpened, fill flash.

The reason for manipulating the photos was specifically to best represent the subjects. Despite having hundreds of dollars in light studios, inevitably something wouldn't be picked up properly. What you get in a photo is not usually what you see...ever photograph the rising moon? It was my goal- actually my responsibility- to ensure that the actual colors observed were reflected in the images in the book, that markings were legible, and details observable. These images were, at the simplest expression, "manipulated to look better." Are these "fake" images?

Outdoor photography has a whole extra set of problems- shadows, over-exposure, under-exposure, too dark, etc. We now have the capability to mitigate those environmentally-induced influences on recorded images; why not take advantage of it?

A papilio polyxenes photographed late in the afternoon may have an orange wash from the sunlight- why not remove it? You're not changing the color of the subject, it hasn't changed at all. In fact, some dingbat will probably later claim they saw an orangy polyxenes. So why not restore the final image to correct the induced flaw?

While one might not like dictionary definitions, electing to use words outside of the definition only obfuscates. Surely, there are better words. As for the rest, this is no defense of the irresponsible artists. Nor is it defense of criminals, counterfeiters, or fraudsters- if it were up to me they'd be punished in a manner that is inappropriate to describe here. But it doesn't change the fact that "fake" has a meaning and should be applied appropriately.

Agreed. Photography and depicting pertinent subject matter is not easy. Every time I try taking a picture of a full moon or rainbow, the result
isn't even close to what I saw with my naked eyes. Same thing with my eBay pictures. It takes thousands of pictures to get it right,
sd cards are a gift from your deity of choice. I took some photos of big waves earlier today, and realized that I could spend all day
on the shoreline. I did not spend all day there.
Your last paragraph is the crux of the matter, I'm sure I've seen somewhere the proper "explanation" of imagery. Like- "your results may vary".
I think it's a matter of the publisher to make the possibility or likelihood that images have been retouched known. I know a semi-professional
photographer who takes outdoor pictures, the surf, and other natural subjects, I have a retouched photo, and one of the first things, which he
was proud of, was his manipulation of the subject using digital software, quite a bit different than someone that has an issue with being
called out for tweaking a subject. If you want credibility, tell the truth.