[John Kavanaugh]

https://nppa.org/code-ethics

[Steve Lang]

   Good taste and consideration for privacy seem to have worked so far... but the continuing demand for content and copyright will certainly lead to breakdown (or is it evolution) of past practices. 


Who's going to hold anyone with a camera, drone, or phone accountable?

[John Kavanaugh]

Who's going to hold anyone with a camera, drone, or phone accountable?

Anyone who has been burnt or is just a natural nut job. Over 20 years ago I agreed to sit down for our one and only family picture. The photographer painted extra eyelashes and darkened the eyebrows of my wife. One thing a French woman does not need is more hair!!!


Since that day I have been a champion of truth in photography.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There needs to be some thoughtfulness, courtesy, and respect. I never take pictures when I am a guest of a member. When I play alone or with my wife, I will ask the club if it is ok to take photos. I have played with guys who slow the game up because they want to get just the right shot and angle. I took a bunch of pictures at Vic National when we were there last year.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think anything you write would be enforceable, since photographers are mostly freelance, and not members of a union or association.


I do admit to wishing they would stop doctoring photos so much.  Certain guys like to add a player into the picture, or deer on the fairway, or things like that.  You think "what a cool shot" until you see the same deer somewhere else, and then pffft, I don't like that guy's work so much anymore.

[Ira Fishman]

Please don't tell me that the sheep on the photograph of Brora 17 that I purchased are "fake".


Ira

[Kyle Harris]

If this is about your comment on the Hollywood thread I would suggest that the person codifying these ethics might want to know a thing or two about photography in the digital age to start! 

[John Kavanaugh]

If this is about your comment on the Hollywood thread I would suggest that the person codifying these ethics might want to know a thing or two about photography in the digital age to start! 

Maybe I take it personal when a cart path is not appreciated for it’s beauty.

[Tom_Doak]

If this is about your comment on the Hollywood thread I would suggest that the person codifying these ethics might want to know a thing or two about photography in the digital age to start! 

Maybe I take it personal when a cart path is not appreciated for it’s beauty.

John:


Back in the boom of building golf courses in Japan, I was shocked upon visiting to see the giant power lines than ran alongside some of the courses.  Somehow, in the marketing materials, they had airbrushed all of them away -- even in the days before digital photography! 


I never understood how they managed to do that, but of course, even a ten-year-old can do it now.

[John Kavanaugh]

Should trick photography that creates a new reality be treated as photoshop? I don't want to sabotage the Hollywood thread but who is harmed by the trickery of the berm hole shot?

[Kalen Braley]

John,

I don't think this is any different than anyone trying to put their best foot forward whether it be a company with slick ads with actors, a tinder profile pic, or a National Park website. Does your company have an online presence and if so do you show pics of a road all tore up with guys sitting around on a smoke break and empty pop cans, or a recently finished road meandering across a beautiful meadow framed by a beautiful sunset?

Hell, misleading ads and false advertising is basically an American tradition...

[John Kavanaugh]

Art and architecture are different. If I get to 17 expecting to see a perfectly framed berm hole and come away subliminally disjointed I may go away disliking the course without even knowing why.

[Alex Miller]

Should trick photography that creates a new reality be treated as photoshop? I don't want to sabotage the Hollywood thread but who is harmed by the trickery of the berm hole shot?

The uninformed? The ignorant?


Unless the golf course photography can be classified as news, it would seem the photojournalistic ethics you've linked to would be irrelevant. There is not harm in art being deceptive, but in news it is.

[John Kavanaugh]

I grew up in the midwest and as such the Arch in St. Louis was the most influential piece of architecture in my young life. It still gets me to this day. I was born in 1960 and it was completed in 1965. I wish I had memories of it during construction but do not. My parents are not around to tell me if I ever went and asking would only bring up the bad memory of them attending the 68 World Series and leaving me at home. But, unlike my parents, the Arch never disappointed. I was also left home for the 68 Rose Bowl between OJ and Indiana.


Back to truth in photography and architecture. There wasn't the saturation of photos in the early 60's that there is today but I bet it would have been possible to use trick photography to make the Arch more impressive looking than it is and always has been. I wonder how my experience and lifelong love of the structure might have been changed if a trickster took a picture that lead me to believe that I could climb up the side and touch the moon. Worse yet, presented it as the truth.

Does truth matter when documenting art and architecture for the ignorant or uninformed. My gut says yes and even more so for the innocent.

[Blake Conant]

If this is about your comment on the Hollywood thread I would suggest that the person codifying these ethics might want to know a thing or two about photography in the digital age to start! 

Maybe I take it personal when a cart path is not appreciated for it’s beauty.

What cart path are you suggesting was photoshopped out?

[Tom_Doak]

Art and architecture are different. If I get to 17 expecting to see a perfectly framed berm hole and come away subliminally disjointed I may go away disliking the course without even knowing why.

I get this.


Several people have told me they were "disappointed" in seeing Cape Kidnappers in person, because all they'd seen of it were aerial photos, and they didn't get the same perspective from the ground.  I don't know how to respond to that.  Expectations are a bitch.  But Cape Kidnappers is a spectacular place even without a drone.

[Tim Martin]

Art and architecture are different. If I get to 17 expecting to see a perfectly framed berm hole and come away subliminally disjointed I may go away disliking the course without even knowing why.

I get this.


Several people have told me they were "disappointed" in seeing Cape Kidnappers in person, because all they'd seen of it were aerial photos, and they didn't get the same perspective from the ground.  I don't know how to respond to that.  Expectations are a bitch.  But Cape Kidnappers is a spectacular place even without a drone.

It’s tough to control what pictures on social media frame the discussion for courses today. The drone picture at sunset(add backdrop of Hudson River or Peconic Bay for extra points) is the money shot for an aspiring instagrammer, book cover or holiday calendar. The perspective from the ground is the best evidence of what to expect.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Art and architecture are different. If I get to 17 expecting to see a perfectly framed berm hole and come away subliminally disjointed I may go away disliking the course without even knowing why.

I get this.


Several people have told me they were "disappointed" in seeing Cape Kidnappers in person, because all they'd seen of it were aerial photos, and they didn't get the same perspective from the ground.  I don't know how to respond to that.  Expectations are a bitch.  But Cape Kidnappers is a spectacular place even without a drone.

I think this may be the most important message on here.
With all the drone photography out there , giving a visual perspective that one cannot achieve when playing can indeed create an expectation that cannot be attained.


Drones have taken golf course photography to a whole different level, and the views achievable from 'up there' are simply so stunning.
The entirety of the landscape that can be viewed is spectacular but does create a image that one cannot attain on the course, and as such places like Cape Kidnappers risk that 'disppointment"label.


I think this is when one has to appreciate the architecture at landlevel and understand what the architect intended the PLAYER to see and play rather than what the drone presents.


Most of us on here will get that, the thrill seekers will not.

[John Kavanaugh]

If this is about your comment on the Hollywood thread I would suggest that the person codifying these ethics might want to know a thing or two about photography in the digital age to start! 

Maybe I take it personal when a cart path is not appreciated for it’s beauty.

What cart path are you suggesting was photoshopped out?

Just blow up the pic that proves the angle does exist. I believe that I see a cart path next to the tree. I would also suggest that a limb was removed to make the photoshop easier. Further I find it odd that a wind strong enough to raise a flag is not strong enough to bend the prairie grass. Looks like a heavy pole to boot.

[Jim Hoak]

Another aspect of this issue--which has been discussed elsewhere on GCA--is the unwanted, uninvited intrusion of drones over private property.  Any code of ethics should prohibit drones from entering airspace above a course and photographing without permission.
It is distracting to golfers--and a breach of ethics and courtesy, if not law--for drones to enter a space over a golf course and photograph without invitation.

[Tom_Doak]

Another aspect of this issue--which has been discussed elsewhere on GCA--is the unwanted, uninvited intrusion of drones over private property.  Any code of ethics should prohibit drones from entering airspace above a course and photographing without permission.
It is distracting to golfers--and a breach of ethics and courtesy, if not law--for drones to enter a space over a golf course and photograph without invitation.

A couple of years ago I spent a day in St. Andrews with an NBC film crew working on a documentary about The Old Course.  [I guess the release will have been pushed back until The Open in 2021.]  They said they'd had a great idea for an opening shot of the course from a drone flying in over the castle and the town, but the drone pilot wouldn't do it, because of the possibility of a mishap.  Sure enough, they told me one of the drones dropped a camera on the course while filming, and they all instantly understood why you don't fly over town with a big drone.

[Blake Conant]

Just blow up the pic that proves the angle does exist. I believe that I see a cart path next to the tree. I would also suggest that a limb was removed to make the photoshop easier. Further I find it odd that a wind strong enough to raise a flag is not strong enough to bend the prairie grass. Looks like a heavy pole to boot.

Here's a link to a photo with a similar angle, and you can see the tree that's showcased in Jon's photo. https://www.instagram.com/p/CPF8gPlt0JA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link










With a telephoto lens Jon could make that tree appear closer to the green than it actually is. Looks accurate to me, and I'm not sure how you could say the angle doesn't exist. Did you think it was another tree?

[Kalen Braley]

This mysterious tree angle dilemma reminds me of the Keith Hernandez spit ball Seinfeld episode...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz3PqA2Fmc   

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks. Wow...I was wrong about that one. I did not know that with a camera alone you could create whatever image you want from almost nothing. While accurate in theory I still believe the picture to be make believe in reality.

[Mike Hendren]

Barney, I should have known you were a fellow Cardinals fan.  I have a baseball autographed by the 1967 World Series champs.  Everyone signed except Curt Flood.  Given to me by reliever Ron Willis.  Only two names remain legible. 


Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()