This reminded me of that famous reddit post of the guy who used ingenious mirrors and extra devices to keep taking the same picture from different perspectives
I would say fake is accurate, as the intent is to look like the lava made it combust, which it didn't. The flames are real, but the combustion from the lava is fake.
I think the distinction is that in a fake photo, something you can see in the photo wasn't really there. In a staged photo, the story the photo tells isn't true to life.
I don't think intent matters here really. People making marvel movies aren't intending to deceive that it's real. That doesn't make it not fake though.
I think if the photographer did intend to deceive then it'd clearly be fake, but saying he didn't doesn't give us insight into if it's fake or not. It isn't part of the definition.
It's an argument of semantics though. Neither are definitely correct. Most people would agree that adding effects in photoshop is "fake" but it still produces an image. Is it still "fake" when you use physical means to manipulate the image, like they used to do before CGI? If so, isn't this fake? If not, what makes digitally manipulation fake? I can argue either direction, so the headline isn't wrong —it just might not be the best choice of words.
Whenever The Verge interviews people from companies that have something to do with photography or image processing, they ask "what is a photograph?". There doesn't seem to be a consensus.
As a photographer, I've thought a fair amount about it. Many of the most famous pre-digital photographers did a lot of adjustment in the darkroom, and all digital photographs involve decisions about how photoreceptor data gets transformed into a viewable image, even if the photographer didn't make them intentionally. Most of the time, most people still consider it photography and "real" with significant editing.
Where it becomes something else in my mind, or "fake" is if the image doesn't reasonably represent light that reached the lens in the moment being depicted. There's a whole lot of wiggle room there of course - photography is art, not math. Adding fire to something that wasn't burning using editing software, however clearly crosses the line into "fake" for me if presented as a photograph, or digital art if it's not.
For me, it depends on the context. Is it trying to portray something that actually happened?
That's why, for me, I'd argue this is fake. Yes, the fire is real, but it's trying to portray that he ignited from the lava. He didn't. It was faked.
It's a real photo representing something that isn't real. Saying the headline that says it's fake is wrong is taking a step too far into certainty. I wouldn't say it's wrong, even if the word choice could better represent the truth. That's my point. I'm not arguing it is fake, but that calling it fake isn't necessarily incorrect.
So you agree that, as with this statement, it can come across as a tad condescending when people narrate the tautologically obvious as a way to make a point in an argument?
When I was a kid there was a volcanologist couple that used to do stuff like this with volcanos. I remember thinking how cool they were and how I wanted to do that someday. They ended up getting vaporized in a pyroclastic blast
On 3 June 1991 at 4pm local time, Mount Unzen erupted, forming pyroclastic flows that rushed down its slopes, killing 43 people including the Kraffts, as well as their fellow volcanologist Harry Glicken, who had accompanied them to observe the eruption.
This is why you can't walk on lava, even when you've poured water over it to cool it down and turn it into stone, because it's still hella hot and you'd burn your feet, unlike in computer games like minecraft.
Shout out to Noita for having the same mechanic. In the default mode, you start with a flask of water, and if you get to the bottom of the first biome and go to the right, there's a lake of lava. A full flask is just enough to make a bridge of lava.
Worse, IRL molten lava is mostly solid like you see in the photo, not red water. If it's as viscous as water (or close to that), it's MUCH hotter and the air nearby would kill you. But that's how it's portrayed in the game. In a lot of games. Like Mario 1.
Getting back to Noita, to be fair to it, it is a pixel physics simulator. Every pixel's physics are simulated in real time. So it's not a pure bridge. Some pixels stay lava, and if you touch them, you take a slight amount of damage. Mostly if you're conservative with your water. Me, I like burrowing through the ceiling and dumping the lake above on it. Then again, if you can get under the lava, there's a nice little present waiting for you... best to get to the third biome and come up from under, though.
59 Comments
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 74 pts · 301d
... Was the 2nd photographer also on fire?
brsrklf@jlai.lu · 56 pts · 301d
We need someone to take the picture of the second photographer to be sure.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 301d
Okay and then the 1st photographer takes a photo of the 3rd photographer...
dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 23 pts · 301d
This reminded me of that famous reddit post of the guy who used ingenious mirrors and extra devices to keep taking the same picture from different perspectives
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 301d
https://web.archive.org/web/20170806233157/https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/hey_reddit_what_tattoos_do_you_have/c0tpyls/
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 301d
An ancient reddit thread, but I witnessed this one in real time it was cool: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/hey_reddit_what_tattoos_do_you_have/c0tpyls/
moody@lemmings.world · 5 pts · 301d
I remember that one. That was peak Reddit content.
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 301d
I remember that! It truly is incredible. God's reddit was good in those days
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 301d
I'll do it, but only if someone sets me on fire
AlexisFR@jlai.lu · 50 pts · 301d
Better source:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/photographer-admits-to-faking-viral-lava-photographer-on-fire-photo/
Zak@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 301d
The headline is unfair; the photo is staged, not fake.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 301d
I would say fake is accurate, as the intent is to look like the lava made it combust, which it didn't. The flames are real, but the combustion from the lava is fake.
Zak@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 301d
I think the distinction is that in a fake photo, something you can see in the photo wasn't really there. In a staged photo, the story the photo tells isn't true to life.
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 11 pts · 301d
Also, the intent was never to deceive, but to take a cool picture
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 301d
I don't think intent matters here really. People making marvel movies aren't intending to deceive that it's real. That doesn't make it not fake though.
I think if the photographer did intend to deceive then it'd clearly be fake, but saying he didn't doesn't give us insight into if it's fake or not. It isn't part of the definition.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 301d
It's an argument of semantics though. Neither are definitely correct. Most people would agree that adding effects in photoshop is "fake" but it still produces an image. Is it still "fake" when you use physical means to manipulate the image, like they used to do before CGI? If so, isn't this fake? If not, what makes digitally manipulation fake? I can argue either direction, so the headline isn't wrong —it just might not be the best choice of words.
Zak@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 301d
Whenever The Verge interviews people from companies that have something to do with photography or image processing, they ask "what is a photograph?". There doesn't seem to be a consensus.
As a photographer, I've thought a fair amount about it. Many of the most famous pre-digital photographers did a lot of adjustment in the darkroom, and all digital photographs involve decisions about how photoreceptor data gets transformed into a viewable image, even if the photographer didn't make them intentionally. Most of the time, most people still consider it photography and "real" with significant editing.
Where it becomes something else in my mind, or "fake" is if the image doesn't reasonably represent light that reached the lens in the moment being depicted. There's a whole lot of wiggle room there of course - photography is art, not math. Adding fire to something that wasn't burning using editing software, however clearly crosses the line into "fake" for me if presented as a photograph, or digital art if it's not.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 301d
For me, it depends on the context. Is it trying to portray something that actually happened?
That's why, for me, I'd argue this is fake. Yes, the fire is real, but it's trying to portray that he ignited from the lava. He didn't. It was faked.
It's a real photo representing something that isn't real. Saying the headline that says it's fake is wrong is taking a step too far into certainty. I wouldn't say it's wrong, even if the word choice could better represent the truth. That's my point. I'm not arguing it is fake, but that calling it fake isn't necessarily incorrect.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 300d
Sometimes semantics are worth talking about.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 300d
Which is why I did...
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 301d
An argument about the usage and contextual meaning of an aspect of language is very literally a semantic argument.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 301d
That's literally what I said...
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 301d
So you agree that, as with this statement, it can come across as a tad condescending when people narrate the tautologically obvious as a way to make a point in an argument?
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 301d
When I was a kid there was a volcanologist couple that used to do stuff like this with volcanos. I remember thinking how cool they were and how I wanted to do that someday. They ended up getting vaporized in a pyroclastic blast
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 300d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katia_and_Maurice_Krafft
credo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 300d
Well.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 300d
They have a cool documentary called 'The fire within'
Rooty@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 300d
They died doing what they love, which is cool as hell.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 300d
Yes that’s a great point
PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space · 18 pts · 301d
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 301d
Hell yeah, loved this album. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyj1K5Lyr_Y
capuccino@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 301d
MagisterSieran@discuss.tchncs.de · 11 pts · 301d
Not sure I understand why they’re being called a bot, that explanation makes perfect sense.
RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 301d
Guess he never played the floor is lava as a kid.
Apeman42@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 300d
On the contrary, he spent the last few years building up an immunity to lava.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 300d
This is why you can't walk on lava, even when you've poured water over it to cool it down and turn it into stone, because it's still hella hot and you'd burn your feet, unlike in computer games like minecraft.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 300d
You also don't know how strong the shell is and you could break it and fall into lava.
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 300d
This picture is staged
Obi@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 300d
Yep I remember this picture and reading about how they put lighter fluid or something like that on the tripod legs and his shoes.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 299d
Shout out to Noita for having the same mechanic. In the default mode, you start with a flask of water, and if you get to the bottom of the first biome and go to the right, there's a lake of lava. A full flask is just enough to make a bridge of lava.
Worse, IRL molten lava is mostly solid like you see in the photo, not red water. If it's as viscous as water (or close to that), it's MUCH hotter and the air nearby would kill you. But that's how it's portrayed in the game. In a lot of games. Like Mario 1.
Getting back to Noita, to be fair to it, it is a pixel physics simulator. Every pixel's physics are simulated in real time. So it's not a pure bridge. Some pixels stay lava, and if you touch them, you take a slight amount of damage. Mostly if you're conservative with your water. Me, I like burrowing through the ceiling and dumping the lake above on it. Then again, if you can get under the lava, there's a nice little present waiting for you... best to get to the third biome and come up from under, though.
Smoogs@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 300d
It would have been funny if the person taking picture of that person was surrounded in flames
s08nlql9@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 300d
Praise the cameraman
EfreetSK@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 301d
He's just a dude and he's on fire
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 301d
When I'm filming or taking a photograph of something I swear my brain simply shuts down.
fox2263@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 301d
It’s only a bit of fire nothing to worry about
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 301d
I'm over here 10 feet behind this guy like "I'm going to grab the 200mm, this 100mm zoom isn't cutting it.
DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 301d
But....but...who took THAT picture!?
wieson@feddit.org · 1 pts · 300d
You're defence is terrified
46_and_2@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
Shit's on fire, yo
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz · 0 pts · 301d
Still shows his dedication to taking great pictures
untorquer@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 300d
I don't usually AI jacket but even if this were somehow real despite the absurdity it's presented in an album with other clearly generated images.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 300d
I believe those pictures were from NatGeo before the AI craze.
But I have no source.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
I could maybe be convinced this one is fine but several of the other images in the linked source have wrong poses, deformed feet.
x00z@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 300d
In many cases one would definitely get deformed feet in this situation.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 300d
Yep. Tennis shoes on 300C+ rock not particularly good protection