6 ms·

She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She clearly articulates herself as an artist and appears to enter many fine art photography competi

by Atsuii 4y ago

She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She clearly articulates herself as an artist and appears to enter many fine art photography competitions, never attempting to pass her work as unmanipulated to her peers. Photo manipulation and composites is extremely common in fine art photography (as well as many other photography fields, ie. landscape), and the act is never questioned when the work is hanging in a gallery. The narrative is part of the art. An artist does not have to put a disclaimer on their own website saying their work is not manipulated, they can also tell whatever STORY they want next to it. If anything how convincing her narrative and photos are speaks volumes to her ability as an artist. Do not claim that collages or manipulations are not 'photographs' or that she didn't 'taken them'. She took every photo used, that act alone makes her a photographer. What constitutes a photograph can not be distilled to 'this photograph was manipulated so it is not a photograph'. Take some of this anger and direct it at publications that stole her photos and published them as something they were not with no input from the artist. It is the medias job to research what they publish, it is not an artist's job to to dictate how someone interprets their art.

dEnigma 4y ago
> She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She might never explicitly claim that, but the page is clearly written in photojournalist style. A photo of snow leopard tracks with coordinates, talking about and documenting the process of her search and how she finally managed to snap a photo of the leopard. Reading that page I certainly would think the images are unaltered (i.e. not stitched together). That is not to say that the publications that took the photos were in the right. But the false impression is not entirely on them.
- tantalor 4y ago
  > I certainly would think the images are unaltered You should consider developing your critical thinking skills.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    The parent explained exactly how their critical thinking skills led them to believe the images are unaltered. Instead of belittling them, do you have examples of things which they could have picked up to imply that the images were altered?
    - tantalor 4y ago
      I'd start by reading the disclaimer at the very top of every page.
      - matkoniecz 4y ago
        Note that this disclaimer is barely visible - and just got added, it was not there for example on 2022-11-27. See https://web.archive.org/web/20221127123427/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://web.archive.org/web/20221127123427/https://kittiyapa... What was displayed before was "WORLDWIDE SHIPPING AVAILABLE FOR PRINTS" and only on general print page disclaimer was mentioned. And individual pages were trying to pass fake collages as "Photography by Kittiya Pawlowski" - see https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/prints/ghost-of-the-himalayas https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiy...
helloworld11 4y ago
Sorry but I call bullshit. Considering how these images were presented to the public and accepted by many, and later even sold, the level of editing and composite work this photographer does (if she even exists as the person she claims to be) is grossly dishonest even if she never said she was a photo journalist. Nobody who takes photography seriously as a profession or way of showing the world would call what she did photography in the way the images implicitly are presented as being true to in her own blog post. There's enough doubt here to wonder if she even made the trip or took any photos of a leopard at all. Also worth noting that her own website, registered in July of 2022, has posts backdated to April and March of 2021, which is strange to say the least.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  I think it is fine to encourage peope to be more clear about the provence of their work. Calling someone "grossly dishonest" for not doing it in the way you want is not productive and, frankly, seems like bullying. > if she even exists as the person she claims to be Now you are simply being mean for no reason. There is evidence that she has been submitting work under thus name for several years and nowhere does she claim anything about this linking to any real world identity. https://annualphotoawards.com/winners/apa-2020/fine-art/ https://annualphotoawards.com/winners/apa-2020/fine-art/ > Nobody who takes photography seriously as a profession Which she doesn't. It is a side hobby, one which you have decided it is OK to bully her for because she isn't up to your professional standards. Seriously, take a moment, pretend this isn't a stranger on the internet but one of your friends and have some fucking empathy.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    Take a moment yourself and try not to react emotionally to a series of completely valid arguments. Were this some other context, or possibly were it a man accused of this, would you be so understanding? The french magazine itself suspected that the photographer may not exist as a real person by that name. Given the many inconsistencias and empty spots in numerous parts of their work biography and the present circus, it's far from being "just mean" to speculate the same. >Which she doesn't. It is a side hobby, one which you have decided it is OK to bully her for because she isn't up to your professional standards. Im not bullying anybody. This is casual discussion here on this site, not emails or messages sent directly to this photographer. What's more, whether a person does photography as a hobby or professionally doesn't change the very definitely gross dishonesty of presenting their work as something it wasn't to multiple major organizations, selling it to numerous buyers under that strongly implied presentation and then only later very vaguely admitting to some editing and some composite work (without specifying that these shots were composites even though they very clearly were) only because she was called out for it in extremely specific detail by a professional magazine's analysis. So yes, I repeat, perfectly calmly, that this was indeed gross dishonesty. If you were one of the people who saw her work presented on Saatchi Art for over $1500 per print (a damn good price for a photo by a recent unknown), and then paid for it because your reading of her original narrative very strongly encouraged you to think of the photos as real and very unique nature photography examples, I doubt you'd have so much "fucking empathy" either. For those of us who take photography seriously enough to try being as honest as possible about its provenance and disclosing how our editing process works for the sake of sustaining respect among the public for photographers, things like this self-serving photographer's implicit bullshittery are simply annoying. AI is already letting people simulate images with increasing accuracy and pass them off as real. Someone very publicly being mendacious by more traditional means doesn't help that for others who still want to have their hard-won profession taken seriously still.
xbar 4y ago
This is nonsense.
snowwrestler 4y ago
One should not produce photographic art without being at least aware of its history as a representational medium, a context which still strongly surrounds the experience of viewing any photograph today. The appeal to a "journalist" label (or lack thereof) is a shallow defense that does not stand up to any informed critique. Artists who use the language of photographic representation to present fictional scenes would do themselves a huge favor by being transparent about it. Whether disclosed in advance or afterward (for example in satire), it's essential to being taken seriously as an artist, and not just an everyday boring faker. There is certainly nothing inherently artistic, interesting, or special about using software to manipulate the objects within the frame of a photo. Anyone can do it, just like anyone can take a snapshot with a camera. And of course anyone can call themselves an artist and do whatever they want. But it's also true that anyone can critique their work. It's all fair game.
- brookst 4y ago
  > One should not produce photographic art without I'm very wary of any claims abut what artists "should" do. There's good art, bad art, wise art, dumb art. Declaring that anyone who picks up a camera is implicitly agreeing to be bound by this kind of stricture. Outsider art is a thing. Most of it is terrible, some of it breaks new ground. But I wouldn't say any of it is "doing art wrong" because they took the outsider approach.
  - nimajneb 4y ago
    I agree, there is no correct or incorrect way to do art or express yourself (with some obvious exclusions like racism, harassment, etc)
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      Who said "correct or incorrect" besides you? This conversation is about whether a photographer can be criticized for posting faked pictures (they can).
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
mannykannot 4y ago
Is it not usually the case that, in photography competitions, there are separate categories for pictures showing situations and events that actually occurred in places that actually exist, and those produced by montage? The article alleges that examples of the latter were entered into competitions as the former. If this is so, then the very act would have been a falsehood, regardless of what she did not say elsewhere. This is so regardless of whether the competition rules permit certain post-processing of the image, unless the actual manipulations used fell within the rules.
matkoniecz 4y ago
> never attempting to pass her work as unmanipulated to her peers Lying to non-photographers is also lying. > An artist does not have to put a disclaimer on their own website saying their work is not manipulated, they can also tell whatever STORY they want next to it. They presented it as real and were fine with it presented as real by others and selling photos as real until they were caught. See https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-the-times-of-london https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-...
matkoniecz 4y ago
On https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/prints/ghost-of-the-himalayas https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiy... they were peddling fake collages as "Photography by Kittiya Pawlowski" Had > Member of the World Photography Organization since 2016 in footer. Had > Help fund Kittiya's next photography expedition to Antarctica in sidebar.

by Atsuii 4y ago

dEnigma 4y ago

> She never claims to be a 1) Photojournalist or 2) Reporter. She might never explicitly claim that, but the page is clearly written in photojournalist style. A photo of snow leopard tracks with coordinates, talking about and documenting the process of her search and how she finally managed to snap a photo of the leopard. Reading that page I certainly would think the images are unaltered (i.e. not stitched together). That is not to say that the publications that took the photos were in the right. But the false impression is not entirely on them.

tantalor 4y ago
> I certainly would think the images are unaltered You should consider developing your critical thinking skills.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  The parent explained exactly how their critical thinking skills led them to believe the images are unaltered. Instead of belittling them, do you have examples of things which they could have picked up to imply that the images were altered?
  - tantalor 4y ago
    I'd start by reading the disclaimer at the very top of every page.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      Note that this disclaimer is barely visible - and just got added, it was not there for example on 2022-11-27. See https://web.archive.org/web/20221127123427/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/snow-leopard-series https://web.archive.org/web/20221127123427/https://kittiyapa... What was displayed before was "WORLDWIDE SHIPPING AVAILABLE FOR PRINTS" and only on general print page disclaimer was mentioned. And individual pages were trying to pass fake collages as "Photography by Kittiya Pawlowski" - see https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/prints/ghost-of-the-himalayas https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiy...

helloworld11 4y ago

Sorry but I call bullshit. Considering how these images were presented to the public and accepted by many, and later even sold, the level of editing and composite work this photographer does (if she even exists as the person she claims to be) is grossly dishonest even if she never said she was a photo journalist. Nobody who takes photography seriously as a profession or way of showing the world would call what she did photography in the way the images implicitly are presented as being true to in her own blog post. There's enough doubt here to wonder if she even made the trip or took any photos of a leopard at all. Also worth noting that her own website, registered in July of 2022, has posts backdated to April and March of 2021, which is strange to say the least.

shkkmo 4y ago
I think it is fine to encourage peope to be more clear about the provence of their work. Calling someone "grossly dishonest" for not doing it in the way you want is not productive and, frankly, seems like bullying. > if she even exists as the person she claims to be Now you are simply being mean for no reason. There is evidence that she has been submitting work under thus name for several years and nowhere does she claim anything about this linking to any real world identity. https://annualphotoawards.com/winners/apa-2020/fine-art/ https://annualphotoawards.com/winners/apa-2020/fine-art/ > Nobody who takes photography seriously as a profession Which she doesn't. It is a side hobby, one which you have decided it is OK to bully her for because she isn't up to your professional standards. Seriously, take a moment, pretend this isn't a stranger on the internet but one of your friends and have some fucking empathy.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  Take a moment yourself and try not to react emotionally to a series of completely valid arguments. Were this some other context, or possibly were it a man accused of this, would you be so understanding? The french magazine itself suspected that the photographer may not exist as a real person by that name. Given the many inconsistencias and empty spots in numerous parts of their work biography and the present circus, it's far from being "just mean" to speculate the same. >Which she doesn't. It is a side hobby, one which you have decided it is OK to bully her for because she isn't up to your professional standards. Im not bullying anybody. This is casual discussion here on this site, not emails or messages sent directly to this photographer. What's more, whether a person does photography as a hobby or professionally doesn't change the very definitely gross dishonesty of presenting their work as something it wasn't to multiple major organizations, selling it to numerous buyers under that strongly implied presentation and then only later very vaguely admitting to some editing and some composite work (without specifying that these shots were composites even though they very clearly were) only because she was called out for it in extremely specific detail by a professional magazine's analysis. So yes, I repeat, perfectly calmly, that this was indeed gross dishonesty. If you were one of the people who saw her work presented on Saatchi Art for over $1500 per print (a damn good price for a photo by a recent unknown), and then paid for it because your reading of her original narrative very strongly encouraged you to think of the photos as real and very unique nature photography examples, I doubt you'd have so much "fucking empathy" either. For those of us who take photography seriously enough to try being as honest as possible about its provenance and disclosing how our editing process works for the sake of sustaining respect among the public for photographers, things like this self-serving photographer's implicit bullshittery are simply annoying. AI is already letting people simulate images with increasing accuracy and pass them off as real. Someone very publicly being mendacious by more traditional means doesn't help that for others who still want to have their hard-won profession taken seriously still.

xbar 4y ago

This is nonsense.

snowwrestler 4y ago

One should not produce photographic art without being at least aware of its history as a representational medium, a context which still strongly surrounds the experience of viewing any photograph today. The appeal to a "journalist" label (or lack thereof) is a shallow defense that does not stand up to any informed critique. Artists who use the language of photographic representation to present fictional scenes would do themselves a huge favor by being transparent about it. Whether disclosed in advance or afterward (for example in satire), it's essential to being taken seriously as an artist, and not just an everyday boring faker. There is certainly nothing inherently artistic, interesting, or special about using software to manipulate the objects within the frame of a photo. Anyone can do it, just like anyone can take a snapshot with a camera. And of course anyone can call themselves an artist and do whatever they want. But it's also true that anyone can critique their work. It's all fair game.

brookst 4y ago
> One should not produce photographic art without I'm very wary of any claims abut what artists "should" do. There's good art, bad art, wise art, dumb art. Declaring that anyone who picks up a camera is implicitly agreeing to be bound by this kind of stricture. Outsider art is a thing. Most of it is terrible, some of it breaks new ground. But I wouldn't say any of it is "doing art wrong" because they took the outsider approach.
- nimajneb 4y ago
  I agree, there is no correct or incorrect way to do art or express yourself (with some obvious exclusions like racism, harassment, etc)
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    Who said "correct or incorrect" besides you? This conversation is about whether a photographer can be criticized for posting faked pictures (they can).
- snowwrestler 4y ago

mannykannot 4y ago

Is it not usually the case that, in photography competitions, there are separate categories for pictures showing situations and events that actually occurred in places that actually exist, and those produced by montage? The article alleges that examples of the latter were entered into competitions as the former. If this is so, then the very act would have been a falsehood, regardless of what she did not say elsewhere. This is so regardless of whether the competition rules permit certain post-processing of the image, unless the actual manipulations used fell within the rules.

matkoniecz 4y ago

> never attempting to pass her work as unmanipulated to her peers Lying to non-photographers is also lying. > An artist does not have to put a disclaimer on their own website saying their work is not manipulated, they can also tell whatever STORY they want next to it. They presented it as real and were fine with it presented as real by others and selling photos as real until they were caught. See https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-the-times-of-london https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-...

matkoniecz 4y ago

On https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiyapawlowski.com/prints/ghost-of-the-himalayas https://web.archive.org/web/20221127122923mp_/https://kittiy... they were peddling fake collages as "Photography by Kittiya Pawlowski" Had > Member of the World Photography Organization since 2016 in footer. Had > Help fund Kittiya's next photography expedition to Antarctica in sidebar.