The problem here is that no job will cover enough paid leave for a person's chronic health issues. We get 10 days of personal leave a year in Australia outside of our annual leave. I use almost all of my personal leave just to go to medical appointments for my chronic issue let alone take a day off because it's flaring up. It's safe to assume that being able to host a stream within your choice of working hours and in your own space is already making work far more comfortable than what most people with chronic health issues experience at work.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Yes.
> 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.
I think the article author is engaging in the exact same clickbait online bullying. They emailed asking for higher resolution copies, but either didn't bother to ask her if the photos were manipulated or decided to not include her response.
> 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.
If you actually want to help improve the culture around provenance disclosure, bullying minor artists is not a good way to do that.
The french magazine article wasn't clickbait. It makes a claim and then strongly backs it up with detailed analysis. Did you even read the whole thing? They first asked for jpeg copies that they received along with metadata and EXIF details. Some of these made them wonder, along with other things, so they asked for two original RAW file copies. and plainly state that she then didn't reply at all.
>If you actually want to help improve the culture around provenance disclosure, bullying minor artists is not a good way to do that.
You're right. bullying minor artists isn't a good thing to do for fostering a good artistic culture in this broad space. However, calling out artists who tacitly or even plainly lie to multiple organizations and private buyers for monetary gain is a very different thing. Giving those a free pass because they're supposedly amateurs definitely doesn't help anyone or anything honest. I made my reasoning for it very clear previously.
> 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.
So if you register a new domain name, you have to go back and edit your site's publication dates to be on or after the date in your whois record? lol?
Well, if your site was created on that date according to ICANN records, and you have multiple posts implying that it existed before that, it's one more little piece of a wider pattern of misdirection such as the stuff discussed above. So yeah, it does seem a bit odd.
> if your site was created on that date according to ICANN records
But that's not what the record indicates. You are confusing the concepts of a site and a domain name. A name points to a site. A site can exist before a name is registered.
It looks like her site used to be hosted at studiokittiya.com[1] which was registered in 2020.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Please read the rest of my comment. There's no "stricture," but if one engages in an artistic form without even the most basic awareness of its context, then one opens oneself up to a wide variety of criticism.
If anyone is trying to impose strictures, it is the comments above who try to declare criticism off-limits because there was not a "journalist" label or something.
Simply faking an animal portrait is not groundbreaking or "outsider." It's been done, and it's boring.
Who said "correct or incorrect" besides you? This conversation is about whether a photographer can be criticized for posting faked pictures (they can).
I know from family in NZ that the stress test banks apply is very similar to stress test we apply in Australia. As of the latest rate rise, rates are now above what banks were required to stress test for at the lowest rate loaned in 2021. I imagine New Zealand is reaching that number as well. For 90% of households this won’t matter as they purchased pre 2020/2021 so they were means test for higher rates but for households who took loans on during Covid they could theoretically really struggle when their fixed rates are up.
I can’t speak exactly for NZ but I assume it’s similar to Australia; it is normal to get charged a discharge fee from the bank your leaving and there maybe an establishment fee at the bank your refinancing with, along with another small cost to change the official register of state government. This could all amount to a couple of thousand dollars every time you refinance.
There is obviously the right tool for the right job, ie. Moving car and you're looking for a clear photo you need a camera that can shoot at a high ISO and produce little noise. But the reality is you are either a poor or lazy photographer. Part of being a good photographer is working within the constraints of the tool that you have at the time.
Given the state of rent prices globally in western countries I really have to question if the increases you're seeing are attributed to 'superblocks' or just general inflation. If the rent is increasing due to 'superblocks' it's going to be because people prefer living within them rather than traditional blocks, hence they can command more rent, not because there is suddenly spare change that was once spent on a car.
Also I don't think pollution is specific to this type of construction. Any type of full scale construction in urban environments causes terrible pollution and pest issues for the adjacent blocks.
Why can't it be both? By moving there, you're effectively signaling you don't have a car. Those without cars (all else being equal, not sure why it wouldn't be) will have extra money. If the place is desirable, what is to stop those with that new "extra money" from using that to outbid those with less money?
I don't at all doubt its also inflation at play. It seems perfectly reasonable tho that a place that generally has car-less renters would have higher prices as those without cars could afford that added price. To an extent of course.
So the problem is really that regulations have constrained the supply of housing to the point that rents are set as high as people can afford, rather than at the price of replacement.
Well, how much more could realistically be built? I agree, not a fan of housing supply being kept artificially low... but as they say "someone has to have the beach houses."
If there's only 100 units in a car-less block and 500 ppl that want them, what could be done if you've reached the limit of what can be built?
I guess you could go up, making sky scrapers... but now I have to admit I'm out of my element. Not sure if that's viable.
I think this is missing a lot of nuances of digital advertising and the environment that business now operate in. The two major types of ads that used to exist were local and brand. Local is pointless for vast majority of today's digital businesses. Brand is very expensive from both a production and spend perspective, it is only suitable for already large businesses, there is also a lot of research that suggest it is very ineffective in actually generating sales for B2C.
Third option was to take out ads in a specialist publication to reach an audience that would mostly be aligned with your product (ie. business that makes chess boards taking out an ad in a chess magazine). This is probably the closest equivalent of targeted advertising today.
The barrier to entry for retail has dropped ridiculously with Shopify, allowing for niche and specialised retailers in a way that was previously not feasible. Acquiring new customers is still the hardest thing for a business to do, always has been and always will be, without the ability to reach new customers and connect with the audience who is interested in the businesses niche that is all dead in the water.
Apron buses are very common in large airports and I always found it really efficient. From memory I’ve used them at Haneda, Narita and KL. Perhaps the ones in Germany are just altered metro buses though, which would be terrible. Apron buses are efficient due to being low to the ground, having very wide doors to accomodate quick loading and unloading, typically no seats.
They may be efficient given the layout of the airport (which can't be changed), but if you are to design a new airport, you cannot beat the efficiency of jetways. Hundreds of people just walking down the hallway.
European low-cost airlines are terrible. They do everything they can to lower the fees they pay. That often involves skipping major airports, unless they can negotiate a cheap enough deal with the airport. Those deals tend to involve things that make the passenger experience worse, because the airports don't want normal airlines to choose the same deal.
If you choose a normal airline and fly to any reasonably big airport that's not overcrowded, you'll get a jetway outside exceptional situations.
A decent new airport or significant airport reconstruction costs probably $5B+ (DEN cost $4.8B in the 90s; Beijing Daxing cost $11.5B) In austerity-minded Europe there really isn’t money for this. Even if there was, NIMBYs and green campaigners mean there is very little appetite to pursue it politically.
I think some of this is the result of how terrible Google search has gotten, although it maybe a chicken and the egg issue. It is just so much easier to find small businesses/individuals on social media/aggregators than on Google.
We used to have access to individual demographic data for breaking down your analytics and ad targeting, as well as being able to target users based on their specific email address or phone number. We could also target your friends.
From memory this has now all been rolled up into cohort demographics and 'look-a-like' audiences so you can no longer break your data down by specific users demographic attributes or target ads by say an email list unless they are already your users (and it's used for specific types of ads; retargeting).
From memory some of the more unsettling breakdown/targets were
- Ethnicity
- Life events
- Politics
- Pages (so other businesses) they had liked
I worked for a pure play furniture retailer you used to be able to do things like buy email lists from price comparators of gas/eletricity/home insurance with additional data like your postcode and then upload it to facebook and specifically target everyone with a FB account under that email/phone number with furniture ads. As the assumption is that if your looking for gas/eletricity/home insurance your likely to be moving home or at least be a person who had some need for furniture.
Now they just use the facebook pixel to put you into look a like audiences because they can see you went to the home insurance website and the real estate website (they all have the pixel installed) and make the same broad assumptions we were previously making but on the cohort and not your specific unique identifier.
You should be able to advertise to people that are Yankee fans on facebook, but you shouldn't be able to get John Doe's email address from the Yankees fan club directory (not on facebook) and directly target them with ads if they have zero relationship to your business.
You also shouldn't be able to upload a list of email addresses, target your ads to them, and then use Facebook's analytics to see how many of those people have divorces or an investment property via the segmentation analysis. Depending on how small that list is, a lot of that data starts getting very specific to an individual.
Facebook obviously also thought you shouldn't be able to do this since now you can't. Everything is now cohort and look-alikes.
Additionally your acting like Facebook is only putting you in the ‘recently married’ bucket if you marked yourself as married. Facebook is smarter than that, they are putting you in these buckets based on your messages, instagram activity, and browsing behaviour, not necessarily based on public information you expose in your profile.
>- Ethnicity
- Life events
- Politics
- Pages (so other businesses) they had liked
The above, is all frowned up (for the record, I 100% agree) what is interesting is, our civilization has evolved to frown up the above "categorizing" of people, but from that list (only ethnicity) is not "choose able" by the person.
I.e I can mostly choose when I get married and to whom and which party I support but I def cannot choose my race. Yet the above is all considered 'equally bad'.
