Photography

The Art of Deception

Irakly shanidze Russian Photographer of the Year

How to Reveal the Truth by Deceiving the Eye

photography

Copyright © 2016 by Irakly Shanidze.

All rights reserved.

All photographs by the author unless otherwise noted.

Published by:

Amherst Media, Inc., PO Box 538, Buffalo, NY 14213

www.AmherstMedia.com

Publisher: Craig Alesse

Senior Editor/Production Manager: Michelle Perkins

Editors: Barbara A. Lynch-Johnt, Beth Alesse

Acquisitions Editor: Harvey Goldstein

Associate Publisher: Kate Neaverth

Editorial Assistance from: Carey A. Miller, John S. Loder, Roy Bakos

Business Manager: Adam Richards

ISBN-13: 978-1-68203-092-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938269

Printed in The United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise, without prior written consent from the publisher.

Notice of Disclaimer: The information contained in this book is based on the author’s experience and opinions.

The author and publisher will not be held liable for the use or misuse of the information in this book.

www.facebook.com/AmherstMediaInc

www.youtube.com/AmherstMedia

www.twitter.com/AmherstMedia

Dedication

I dedicate this book to my wonderful wife, Irina, for she keeps supporting me in utter defiance of common sense.

Author a Book with Amherst Media!

Are you an accomplished photographer with devoted fans? Consider authoring a book with us and share

your quality images and wisdom with your fans. It's a great way to build your business and brand through a

high-quality, full-color printed book sold worldwide. Our experienced team makes it easy and rewarding for

each book sold—no cost to you. E-mail [email protected] today!

contents 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Fundamentals of

Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

What Is a Good Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

What Makes a Photograph Happen? . . . . . . . 10

What Makes a Photograph Visible?

Part 1: The Properties of Light . . . . . . . . . 15

What Makes a Photograph Visible?

Part 2: When the Sun Is Not Enough . . . . 25

What Holds a Photograph Together? . . . . . . 35

What Puts the Third Dimension

into a Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

What Is Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2. Tools of

Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Knowing Your Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Bending the Truth: Why and How . . . . . . . . 61

Withholding Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Taking Things Out of Context . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Smoke Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Getting Emotional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Telling the Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3. The Art of

Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Black Belt in Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Face to Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Better than Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Staged Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Through the Fly’s Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

4. Photographing the Inanimate . . . . . 120

Spontaneous Versus Meditative . . . . . . . . . . 120

Playing on the Heart Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Getting Close . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Deception Is a Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Final Thoughts

Ethical Decption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Contents “I always tell the truth. Even when I lie.”—Al Pacino

4 photography: Art of deception

Photography is a lie. Just think about it: pho￾tographers create two-dimensional images that

sometimes even lack color and then expect ev￾eryone to believe that this is how it was in real

life. What is truly amazing is that people fall for

it way too easily—almost like they want to be

deceived. It gets better: people still believe that

you can only photograph what is really there.

I am certainly not going to deny that a lens

(an optical system that focuses light inside a

camera) sees only what is in front of it, but be￾lieve me, it is not that simple. It just so happens

a photographer and a camera standing between

the viewer and reality inevitably distort the lat￾ter, intentionally or not. The individual features

of a photographer’s perception and the techni￾cal limitations of his equipment make him do

things that may eventually make a picture look

very different from how a viewer would see the

same scene with their naked eye. Consequently,

a photographer who is not aware of his inher￾ent ability to distort reality can ruin a picture

simply by taking it. Fortunately, there are some

good photographers out there. Who are these

people? They are the ones who understand the

aforementioned constraints and use them de￾liberately to adjust the level of truthfulness in

their pictures.

Introduction

Additional Materials

Additional materials to accompany this book are available for

download at www.AmherstMedia.com/downloads. Password:

deception.

fundamentals of photographic deception 5

Photography is an illusion. It all starts with a

notion: if it is in a photo, then it must have ap￾peared before the lens at some point. Howev￾er, in a photo nothing is what it seems. Things

may look closer or farther apart than they are

in real life. They can be invisible despite being

there. Something that is not there we seem to

notice—an object on a flat piece of paper some￾times looks so real that we are compelled to

look behind it. And the list goes on.

1

Fundamentals of Photographic Deception

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”—Albert Einstein

Figure 1.1

6 photography: Art of deception

Once, I was sitting in a coffee shop and wait￾ing for an art director who was late for our

meeting. I had absolutely nothing to do but to

eavesdrop on a conversation at the table next to

mine. The dialogue unfolded as follows:

Person 1: Do you remember a picture that I

showed to you last week?

Person 2: Vaguely. What was it?

Person 1: Well, it was a blond woman—a real

babe. And some trees.

Person 2: Nope, doesn’t ring a bell.

Person 1: But . . . She looks you straight in the

eye and she’s got this dress. You know.

Person 2: Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s right! Listen,

Stanley Cup is on tonight. Wanna come

over to watch it on my 55-inch flat screen?

Person 1: Cool, I’m in! The girl’s hand is on

her lap. It is just so beautiful, right?

Person 2: Yeah, it’s cool. Just wanted to ask

you, who is she? Quite a looker! Hook me

up, will you?

Person 1: She is just a coworker. Married and

all.

Person 2: Why the hell did you take her pic￾ture then?

Person 1: What do you mean “why”? It is just

so beautiful!

Person 2: How often do you have to change

the front tires on your RX7?

This surreal conversation carried on for anoth￾er good twenty minutes or so, until they had

paid up and left. Listening to them was quite

a treat; one kept trying to talk about a photo,

which he apparently had taken recently, while

the other was desperately trying to steer the

conversation in some other direction. It was

Figure 1.2

What Is a Good Photograph?

fundamentals of photographic deception 7

really farcical and, at the same time, very seri￾ous from a photographer’s point of view. Why

didn’t the guy want to talk about the picture? I

mentally placed myself in his shoes. Obviously,

he wasn’t interested. That could be caused by

two things: either photography just wasn’t his

thing or this particular portrait of a blonde in

a dress in front of trees did not tickle his fancy.

I am inclined to accept the second version as

the more plausible explanation. In my experi￾ence, a good photo can touch anyone with eye￾sight, no matter how well he or she can handle

a camera.

What Is “Good”?

So why do we all seem to agree that one photo

is great while another one is a flop? What are

the criteria that allow us make a clear distinction

between the two—and why is this important at

all? Essentially, all of these questions boil down

to a fundamental one: “How can photographers

succeed in achieving global recognition?” This

perspective leaves no doubt about the relevance

of the question, does it?

Of course, when it comes to photography,

not everyone sets out to conquer the world,

but I have yet to meet a person who wouldn’t

like his pictures to be seen with genuine interest

rather than polite impatience.

What is good? And how is it different from

bad? There is no universal recipe for “quality” in

art. Moreover, due to the subjectivity of human

perception, it is impossible to create a master￾piece that will be equally (or even just a little bit)

liked by everyone. However, a knowledge of the

basic criteria of visual harmony really helps you

to consistently take pictures that will not make

spectators drowsy.

Artistic and Technical Criteria

Back in my high school, our compositions were

graded with two marks on a scale from 1 to 5.

The first mark was for content, while the sec￾ond one was for presentation. It always hurt

so badly to get something like 5/2—or, even

worse, the other way around! Well, it just so

happens that the grading system in photogra￾phy is practically the same: a combination of

artistic and technical criteria.

At this point, you may be thinking, “Shouldn’t

we be talking about lies?” Well, yes! Essentially, a

basic activity of almost any photographer is ma￾nipulating the viewer’s consciousness for money

or for personal enjoyment. In order to do that,

there is a set of technical and creative means that

must be used flawlessly to make the lies convinc￾ing and thrilling (figure 1.2).

Technical Excellence

The fundamental criterion of technical excel￾lence is whether the photo conforms to your

intentions of how it should look. Besides that,

particular criteria such as sharpness, exposure,

composition, cleanness (absence of sensor

dust, spots, scratches, etc.), and print quality

(smoothness of color gradations, color fidelity)

will help you determine objectively whether or

not there is something wrong with the techni￾cal quality of your picture.

In most cases the image (or at least its se￾mantically important part) must be sharp, ex￾hibit a full tonal range, and present a balanced

composition. On the other hand, motion blur

can make the picture more dynamic and a pre￾dominance of black or white tones will greatly

affect its emotional content. A slight misbal￾ance in the composition or clashing colors may

change the perception of the image immense￾ly. It is important that any “wrongness” lend

a predictable contribution to the viewer’s per￾ception of the picture. (It is useful to remem￾ber, by the way, that statements like “this is my

artistic vision” are just excuses that do not make

the photograph even a bit finer. If you want to

8 photography: Art of deception

use some unconventional approach, you better

be sure that it is indeed going to improve your

picture.)

For a photographer, presenting a picture

before an audience is not unlike an oral exam

in which technical excellence is expected. It is

there, before the audience, that it becomes clear

that a good photo is something more than, say,

a telephone directory that is beautifully laid out

and printed without a single spelling mistake.

If your picture causes responses like “great

composition” or “wonderful lens choice,” you

may safely consider it a failure. Techniques are

just means of expressing an artistic vision in

visual metaphors. In this sense, photography

is amazingly similar to poetry; the ability to

rhyme words is clearly not sufficient to be able

to come up with something like this (from The

First Kiss of Love by Lord Byron):

When age chills the blood, when our plea￾sures are past—

For years fleet away with the wings of the

dove—

The dearest remembrance will still be the last,

Our sweetest memorial, the first kiss of love.

This example is rather straightforward, so al￾low me to make a parallel with Pushkin’s Eu￾gene Onegin. Despite radically different for￾mats and styles, both pieces are similar in the

sense that no one in their right mind would say

that Byron was actually talking about the

temperature-lowering effects of age—or that

Pushkin’s story was about one good-for-noth￾ing playboy shooting another because of a

neighbor’s daughter. Good poetry is never lit￾eral; neither is good photography.

Figure 1.3

fundamentals of photographic deception 9

A good portrait is never about a sharp

and well-exposed image of a face, beautifully

turned into the light. A spectator will see not

just an eye color and the shape of a nose, but

also the character—wisdom, vanity, kindness,

deceit, bravery, femininity, etc. A good land￾scape is not about a sunset, or a waterfall, or

a mossy stone. It is about freshness, heat, sol￾itude, danger, tranquility, etc. A good report￾age image goes beyond a picture of an airborne

paratrooper shooting his machine gun left and

right. It shows heroism, or perhaps the sense￾lessness of violence.

Subjective Perception

You must have figured out by now that a work

of art should operate by abstract, universal

ideas. Why? Because your spectator is a lazy,

self-centered egoist who is not going to spend

a second on something that he or she does not

find interesting and easy to comprehend. Peo￾ple are interested in things that are significant

to them, and it is universal ideas that have an

ability to feel important on a personal level. It

means that a viewer is more interested in what

a picture conveys than what it shows.

Some readers may object along these lines:

“How can they not like this sunset? I took a

picture of it eight years ago, and every time I

see it, the memories take my breath away! How

come they do not feel it? It’s probably because

I’m so refined and sensitive and they are just

pachydermatous ignoramuses!” Astonishingly,

such an opinion may be completely legitimate.

The photographer, indeed, feels more while

looking at this picture than anyone else does.

This is not, however, because the viewers are

insensitive morons.

The secret here lies in what is called sub￾jective perception. The photographer feels

passionate about this picture because it is an

anchor to events that happened when it was

taken: the wash of waves, the smell of seaweed,

a sense of freedom because it was the first day

of a vacation, etc. The rest of humankind, how￾ever, was not there when the photo was taken;

for them, it is just a sunset. That is where an

advantage of working with general concepts

really shows. They are universally understood

and cannot be argued. Therefore, anyone can

identify with them.

Looking at a picture that conveys a fun￾damental concept—for instance, joy, sorrow,

boredom, or suspense—the viewer feels an

emotion caused by perceiving it, just like any￾body else seeing the image would (figure 1.3).

That, of course, includes the person who took

the picture. As a result, the viewer ends up

sharing an experience with the photographer.

It is the sharing that makes them both feel like

they have something in common.

This is always a powerful and profoundly

pleasant experience. You must have had it more

than once—that moment when you suddenly

felt a tide of sympathy for a total stranger who

happened to share your musical preferences or

who liked the same movie. When it comes to

showing a photo to someone, this effect may

be even more powerful because a viewer real￾izes that only you and nobody else could give

him this pleasure, since you took the picture.

You, in turn, are grateful to the viewer for his

sincere appreciation of your work of art.

The emotion caused by such an experience

is profound enough to become associated with

the image, which makes it stick in the viewer’s

memory for a long time. Emotions are easy to

memorize, as they are registered directly; infor￾mation is perceived only by association.

“That’s easy for you to say!” you may just

have thought. “All you have to do is shoot con￾ceptual visual metaphors and you are fated for

success. But how do I do it?” Just calm down—

there is a book full of tricks ahead!

10 photography: Art of deception

Attention! The next few sections touch on as￾pects of photography extensively described

by many authors, starting with Ansel Adams

himself. Hence, they will be discussed only in

terms of their relevance to the deceptive nature

of photography. The remainder of the chapter

(even though it also addresses topics extensive￾ly covered elsewhere), is more detailed due to

its importance to the subject.

Exposure

One principle of the photographic process is

simple: an image is projected through the lens

onto an image-recording medium of some sort.

For more than a century, photographers relied

upon the light-sensitive properties of silver ha￾lides to record images. These days, most camer￾as are digital (i.e., instead of capturing images on

film covered with tiny grains of silver bromide

Figure 1.5

Figure

1.4

What Makes a Photograph Happen?

fundamentals of photographic deception 11

entrapped in gelatin emulsion, they employ a

high-tech, light-sensitive device called a sensor).

In order for all the colors and tones to look real,

a precise quantity of light must reach the sensor.

Now, what happens if the quantity of light

reaching the sensor is less than is needed for

things to look real? The picture looks darker,

and the colors are more saturated (figures 1.5,

1.6). If more light gets to the sensor than was

required, the picture will look brighter and the

colors will lose their punch. So, things will not

look the way they really are. (By the way, do

you remember the definition of a lie?)

Basic camera settings essentially determine

how the resulting image looks. By altering the

aperture and shutter speed, we can change real￾ity and create the illusion of motion (figures 1.5,

1.6)—or the lack of it. Responding to changes

in the exposure settings, unnecessary details in

the background can disappear into a complete

blur (figures 1.7, 1.8), or hide in a shadow, or

blend with a highlight.

Understanding how these changes in cam￾era settings affect the image is what makes our

results predictable—at least to a degree. For

instance, the sinusoidal pattern in figure 1.5 is

the result of a wavy camera movement com￾bined with a 1/4 second shutter speed. The fair￾ly well-defined silhouettes on a blurred back￾ground in figure 1.6 were created by panning

the camera in sync with the figures’ motion at

1/10 second.

Balancing a studio (or other) flash with

ambient light is another way to create an illu￾sion (figure 1.7). It is the fact that shutter speed

has no effect on flash exposure that enables

tricks of this nature. The flash duration is usual￾ly shorter than 1/600 second, and its light output

can be adjusted. Hence, its exposure depends

only on the flash power output and camera

lens aperture. The amount of ambient light, on

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

12 photography: Art of deception

the other hand, is a function of aperture and

shutter speed. So, setting the exposure for the

ambient light first and then adjusting the flash

output as desired enables full control over how

bright the foreground and background will

come out.

Figure 1.8