• blackbrook@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    Caption writer seems to be confused about what a real photograph is and what conceptual means.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      I just commented this somewhere else:

      I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time “not a real photograph” was the equivalent to the statement “a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be”.

    • Wolf314159@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Fake and real photograph used to have a very different meaning indeed.

      This is a “real” photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker:Denise Richards and Paul Walker

      This is a “fake” photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker (in the body of a cybernetic T-Rex): Fake Photo of Denise Richards and the soul Paul Walker in the body of a cybernetic T-Rex

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In case I wasn’t clear about this in my other reply, my main point is that a photo of something fake is not the same thing add as a fake photo. If the dinosaur is animatronic, it’s not a fake photo. If the dinosaur is CGI, yeah fake photo.

        • Wolf314159@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, that’s why my comment was basically words and phrases have shifting connotations as time passes and contexts change.

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, this is sloppy use of language, which worked the same 50 years ago. The only thing different today is the range of things that exist that we can infer that they really mean by their sloppy language. There were still ways to manipulate photos, before CGI. One might have called such a manipulated photo a ‘fake photograph’ in that day (though even that is arguably a little sloppy). But a non manipulated photo of a real physical model is not in any way a ‘fake photograph’. You could say a photograph of a fake Gigantopithecus, or of a fake scene but that’s not the same thing. Yes, we can infer what’s meant when people carelessly slap adjectives on the wrong nouns, but it is sloppy writing.

        Notice how much more accurate and well written OP’s description is: “Paleo-anthro sculptor Bill Munns with his Giganto reconstruction”

        • Wolf314159@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Dude I’m not arguing that it’s correct or not, I’m saying that this is the way many people used to (and how some still do) use the language.

          • blackbrook@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Oh, sure, no disagreement from me on that. But this looks to me like something from a magazine, so one expects some level of professionalism. Now if this is some 12 year old’s fanzine or something, ok, I feel bad for giving them shit, but a professional journalist should be embarrassed.