Yes, those were pretty much my thoughts, hence the reason I included his info.
Btw, I strongly disagree that the butterfly looks faked. Countless times I’ve seen insects flying near larger animals’ faces, sometimes rather comically. Butterflies are unpredictable fliers, and alpha predators aren’t driven like house cats, who are far more prone to take a swing or nip.
EDIT: The broader point is that sometimes things don’t -need- to be directly, 100% true, such as staged and scripted TV. As long as it can be representational, amusing and maybe even insightful, it can be ‘true’ in representational and allegorical ways.
Things don’t need to be true to be insightful, but many viewers will feel disrespected if they get served something fictional that is presented as something real. I have no issues with a photoshopped or AI generated image of it’s clearly marked as such, they can be gorgeous and insightful all the same. But when something looks (partially) fictional but is presented as a real thing, it feels incredibly deceiving. Capturing a one in a million moment has great value, but photoshopping or using AI to mimic such a moment makes it all worthless.
The butterfly was probably just being goofy, and the light weird. But if it was photoshopped into the picture then the picture would absolutely not have the same value to me and presumably many other viewers. A large part of this photo’s allure is the fact that the photographer got such a rare moment perfectly framed. If it turns out to be faked then that would be a major deception.
Another Rabbit Hole is “how much editing is too much” ofc. Personally I obviously don’t mind colour adjustments, sharpening, some retouches etc. Even moving the butterfly ever so slightly around to get it perfectly aligned with the eyes would be kinda okay. But if it’s significantly moved, enlarged, or just straight up pasted in it would be an unacceptable deception imo.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of that. Guess I’m just more chill about it. As in, there are some areas of my life that require great attention to detail, and many not worth that level of effort.
Also, when you have a public figure like this, then: 1) the fact that they have professional reputation at stake and 2) the fact that thousands (or more) of eyes are on their work is generally a powerful reinforcing effect upon not ‘cheating.’ And in life, since I don’t have the luxury of looking at everything through a microscope, I have to trust that process, much of the time.
Yes, those were pretty much my thoughts, hence the reason I included his info.
Btw, I strongly disagree that the butterfly looks faked. Countless times I’ve seen insects flying near larger animals’ faces, sometimes rather comically. Butterflies are unpredictable fliers, and alpha predators aren’t driven like house cats, who are far more prone to take a swing or nip.
EDIT: The broader point is that sometimes things don’t -need- to be directly, 100% true, such as staged and scripted TV. As long as it can be representational, amusing and maybe even insightful, it can be ‘true’ in representational and allegorical ways.
Things don’t need to be true to be insightful, but many viewers will feel disrespected if they get served something fictional that is presented as something real. I have no issues with a photoshopped or AI generated image of it’s clearly marked as such, they can be gorgeous and insightful all the same. But when something looks (partially) fictional but is presented as a real thing, it feels incredibly deceiving. Capturing a one in a million moment has great value, but photoshopping or using AI to mimic such a moment makes it all worthless.
The butterfly was probably just being goofy, and the light weird. But if it was photoshopped into the picture then the picture would absolutely not have the same value to me and presumably many other viewers. A large part of this photo’s allure is the fact that the photographer got such a rare moment perfectly framed. If it turns out to be faked then that would be a major deception.
Another Rabbit Hole is “how much editing is too much” ofc. Personally I obviously don’t mind colour adjustments, sharpening, some retouches etc. Even moving the butterfly ever so slightly around to get it perfectly aligned with the eyes would be kinda okay. But if it’s significantly moved, enlarged, or just straight up pasted in it would be an unacceptable deception imo.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of that. Guess I’m just more chill about it. As in, there are some areas of my life that require great attention to detail, and many not worth that level of effort.
Also, when you have a public figure like this, then: 1) the fact that they have professional reputation at stake and 2) the fact that thousands (or more) of eyes are on their work is generally a powerful reinforcing effect upon not ‘cheating.’ And in life, since I don’t have the luxury of looking at everything through a microscope, I have to trust that process, much of the time.