A bit of strange title to a post, but It's become apparent over the last few months that a number of people on the forum are becoming somewhat lax regarding stating the details on the shots that are being posted in the forum. There have been a number of shots posted that have been taken under baited and controlled scenarios, and a number of other shots which have been heavily photoshoped or cloned - but haven't been stated as such .
Now there's nothing in the forum guidelines that prohibits such photos being posted, but we do ask that they are marked for what they are. UKNP and NPN are all about nature photography and the skills and techniques of getting good shots of our subjects, and it isn't all about photoshop or post processing!
I would think most of us would agree that it would be common courtesy to other forum users if the shots where stated for what they are - for example, PhotoArt, Controlled, Captive, studio etc etc (Qudos to those of you who already state if they're captive or controlled). That way, we don't all go away thinking that amazing shots of osprey sitting on the end of your lens are easy to get, and that every shot taken can be done with a totally clean background and pristine subject. There are many people on the forum who are here to learn and they're going to go away mightily disillusioned if they find out that their favourite photog on the forum is heavily manipulating stuff, or can only get the shots because they've been set up for them by someone else.
There is a more serious side to this too - if you post an image that is a composite, or heavily 'photoshoped', and don't state as much, then you run the risk that you will gain a name for PS'ing your work. In an age where the truth of photos is being doubted more and more, this may not be a good name to have as it may lead to you being sidelined or disqualified from competitions and to having your submissions rejected from magazines and photo libraries . Once you aquired a name for doing such work, then it may stick more than you think - witness the discussions that followed on from Steve Bloom's last book.
I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think about the ethics of information disclosure - or not...
Posted by writepic on October 16, 2006 at 11:21 AM
hi nick,
i think it´s an interesting topic. you´ve quite rightly said that many people want to learn from the postings of others and that it´s quite possible to get disillusioned by seeing images from people that aren´t really real. it is really frustrating in the early days to see all these amazing images, and then trying to go out and emulate such work, especially when it is presumed as i first did that every wildlife image was taken totally and utterly in natural situations.
it was quite a revelation to me in my early days that feeding stations were regularly used by bird photographers. this may sound quite naive, and probably the key to why i gave up bird photography or never really got into it because i never had the time to devote to setting something like that up. not that i´m saying i don´t agree with feeding stations, i´ve no problem at all with them, as long as they are ethically done, but just that it´s one clear example of information about material changing a photographers viewpoint. incidentally thats one reason i enjoy underwater photography so much, is that fish etc seem to accept people far more readily than land animals and so feels that what i am doing is not at all forced into existence.
as for manipulation without stating, i think that if it´s beyond sharpening which is a pretty much run of the mill for net use, then it should be stated as a matter of decency. i´d even suggest that it should be a requirement of the forum to state such things at the risk of being removed if not. but then would i state it every time i cloned out a spot of backscatter in my underwater work?
i look forward to reading more of this thread.
mark.
Posted by Rob Ashton on October 16, 2006 at 11:40 AM
I agree in principle with your thoughts Nick.
However, there is still an ongoing debate as to what constitutes manipulation and what is acceptable or not in digital imaging. Some would say that sharpening and basic colour correction are going too far. Others have no problem with noise reduction and cloning of dust spots etc. Some on here even advocate the removal of extraneous branches etc., or blurring BG more than the DOF of the lens.
The line (IMO) is drawn when you start to alter the scene - to put things in, or to remove things other than simple dust spotting. ie - the intention is to deliberately mis-represent the scene from that which was taken.
Posted by David Kjaer on October 16, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Hi Nick
I will keep it short and sweet - I don't have a problem with any altered images as long as the photographer is honest and declares what he or she has done and in the case of captive or controlled wildlife the same would apply.
I don't really want to know if a small OOF part of the image has been cloaned out but would if it substantially altered the image. I know some find this unacceptable and I respect that view - this is only my opinion.
Perhaps we should have more rigid guide lines but within these guide lines I feel most things should be allowed as long as the photographer is honest.
Just to illustrate a point with my recent post of a Red Deer Stag, it has been suggested it would look better warmed up and most would probably agree. That said that is not how I shot it so you could argue to do so would 'substantially' alter the image. The arguements can be never ending!
As a relative newcomer I agree that it can be very frustrating to see images without explanations of any work done on them in PS etc because by default I assume them to be 'as taken'. However the biggest problem to me is when an image is cropped but no detail of that is given, I then assume it is full frame and wonder at the amazing technique used to get the shot, we all know that you can get away with a very heavily crop for images shown on the net but they wouldnt print very well even at at 6*4. I am not saying that anyone here crops that heavily but mentioning the amount of crop would help me enormously
In the end I dont mind what is posted or altered but I would just like to know what I am really looking at
I would agree with that the inclusion of what was not there is always a no-no for a 'straight nature shot'. The inclusion of anything makes the image a composite and should be labeled accordinging. There is a place for composites as sometimes they are the only way to acheive what the eye sees and the camera cannot capture because of technical reasons, duck siloed on a full (in focus) moon for example - just label them comp's.
I am thinking further about the selective removal of pixels and will post more later.
This should be a interesting debate to read, the only real issue for me is how honest is the photographer going to be in stating what they have or have not done to the image, a classic cases is the image I tweaked for John the other day boosting the contrast and saturation, the curve I used and the settings I could load as default to my camera ? would that be a true representation of what I really saw at the time is that classed as manipulated, even in the film days we chose films for different purposes some highly saturated high contrast films, films that gave very true to life rendition of colour.
I prefer to do as little as I can get away with I don't even change my Web images to srgb I do clone out the odd dust spot but not always and I nearly always crop all my images for tighter framing but this is nothing that I wouldn't do when I had my darkroom.
Phillip.
Posted by John Gardner on October 16, 2006 at 1:06 PM
I have no problem with altering the image to make a better final result so long as people are honest. There was a recent picture on here that was obviously a composite but was never admitted to but had the photographer done so, I wouldn't have thought much about it - I'm more agrieved when people blatently try and pass off what is not true as true.
I don't think cloning dust spots, blemishes or minor amendments mean a great deal these days, nor adjusting any of the EXIF data on a RAW image such as tone, colour balance or saturation etc.
Just to answer Dave's point seeing as I suggested he should warm up the image:
"Just to illustrate a point with my recent post of a Red Deer Stag, it has been suggested it would look better warmed up and most would probably agree. That said that is not how I shot it so you could argue to do so would 'substantially' alter the image. The arguements can be never ending! "
Warming up an image is nothing new and I wouldn't class that as altering the image. It's easy to forget in these digital days what we used to do with film, but I for one would often use an 81A or 81B filter to warm up an image. Nothing different to what I suggested with DK's picture.
Its a huge subject but for me if its captive or cropped then state it and if there is any major cloning/alterations then state it but if you have removed a small twig from the bottom that doesnt bother me,As for baiting well most fox,badger,garden bird/kingfisher images etc are so dont think it needs to be stated unless asked
As most regulars probably know, this is a real worry for me, and one major reason (other than time) that I've stopped posting on here. I do think that many photographers are "relaxed" with the truth. One reason could be due to forums! There is such a massive amount of feedback relating to cloning such and such out that newcomers, not just to wildlfie photography but many like me that are simply new to digital, begin to believe that such "cheating" is now normal.
I have heard others having the opinion that a "small" alteration is ok. Others are ambiguous with statements such as "significant". We need definitions of these terms or are we to assume small and insignificant is normal and should go unmentioned on this forum? Other forums spell out what manipulation is and therefore what should be confessed. I agree we the below definition:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
Digital photography has completely revolutionised wildlife photography and has never been easier. Skills of learning proper exposure, composition and light have largely been relegated. The hardest thing we now have to tackle is finding the subjects in the first place (which of course, many take short cuts with this as already stated above). It therefore seems over the top to then alter the "CONTENT" of an image. Today we clone out branches and so on, tomorrow we will add in inventions such as dinosaurs (something I have recently commented on, but here is the link again for those that missed it:
www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/prevhtm/index2.htm
All of this is a symptom of today's western culture of quick results at any cost, not to mention a need to stand out from the crowd in an increasingly faceless and boring society that wants to control our every thought and movement.
And before I get the usual feedback of having much to learn and so on, I admit I have "slightly" manipulated the content of an "insignificant" number of the shots that appear on my website. It is a number less than 10 out of a 1,000.
Thanks for that link as I have been trying to find it.
In essence I agree with what is written in that, I have however a question around the following two bullet points.
1st quote...
Pre-exposure manipulations such as staging scenes before the camera are OK...
Basically I can clean up the site (wild or fabricated) before I press the button, e.g tie any twigs back etc
2nd quote
Cloning/airbrushing tools may only be used to remove miniscule processing artifacts, ... [but not] to move or remove unwanted features that were captured.
Hence I am not allowed to remove these twigs, after the button is pressed, in PS.
The issue I have with this is that to remove features before the button is pressed I have to disturb the environment of my subject and obviously enter its space; if I remove them digitally afterwards it means less disturbance (potentially none) as I don't have to invade the subjects space.
Hence why I feel OK, morally, to do the 'clean up' after the button is pressed.
What do you think about the above from a potential interaction/scent/disturbance point of view?
A book could be written about this Nick and even then it wouldn't cover all the bases.
Regarding cloning, colour adjustment, adding and subtracting things, I feel that if the photographer can live with it then why not, personally I try to avoid this at all costs because I'm crap at it and invarioubly the original will look better.
Regarding shots being set up by someone else for a photographer to just turn up and shoot the scene that will unfold? It's a bit like calling one of my clients a stalker when they are really just a person willing to pay my boss a lot of money to shoot something I guide them in to.
The praise in this case shouldn't go to the rich button presser, but to the person who set the scen in the first place.
Cropping? Again fine, but what happens if someone sees that shot on this forum and decides they want to buy it as a big print? If it's been cropped too severely then the print will suffer, as will the photographer's wallet.
I think we all know pro nature photographers that do "cheat". It's the way of that world and it is accepted in that world w/o even a blink. Bread on the table comes before high moral ground. Sure it's good if you can have both bread and high morals, but not many do.
John
Posted by Sean Bolton on October 16, 2006 at 4:39 PM
Hi All
Basic digital manipulation to me is the modern equivalent of wet darkroom techniques (Un-Sharp Mask is actually an old darkroom technique for enhancing edge contrast).
Converting a negative (B&W or colour) into an exhibition quality print used to be an artform in itself and many printers earned a living (and reputation) for printing other photographers work.
Converting a RAW file into a TIFF file, or a print to hang on the wall, is the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Give two people the same RAW file to process and they won't produce the same output file (or print).
So stuff like white balance, dust spot removal, sharpening, cropping, saturation, etc is just a normal part of photography, digital or film.
Small amounts of cloning are also acceptable to me as long as they don't change the intrinsic nature of the shot.
Anything beyond that should be stated on the forum and I think that is in keeping with the ethos of the forum.
I believe Sean has hit the nail on the head here... The 'basic' digital manipulations are so very similar to what we used to do in the darkroom, I have no problem with these or the simple removal of a distracting element that could not be avoided, I am perhaps a little more versed in the use of photoshop etc than many here (I use them every day) and normally I can pick up if an image has been IMO overly manipulated and often say so, my advice when teaching etc. is that if you are unable to do it well then don't.
However when any major manipulation has been undertaken I firmly believe that this should be stated as should major crops, I, as I am sure others do appreciate as much detail as possible in particular the tips as to how an individual achieved that stunning image... where possible I try to include info.
I try to achieve the image that I see within the camera, I try to get the best image as possible in the conversion from RAW, i.e contrast, colour etc so that I do less destructive editing in PS.
So yes I agree with you Nick, as much info as possible... it all helps the learning process and gives you a good basis for offering advice.
(Just lost my train of thought, had a client come in asking if I can join the Mitten Crab boat at 5.00am Friday so hope I make sense)
All the best
Phil
Posted by Graham Bailey on October 17, 2006 at 9:08 AM
I think all the important points have been made so just to say where i stand on this.
I don't consider any manipulation to be cheating, ethically I have no problem with any post shot editing (better than pre shot editing of sensative environments) so long as the photographer acknoledges it. It may be a different art and skill but IMO it is still art. It is not a scientific record and so if this is the aim then editing should be much more limited or non-existent but if the aim is to produce an aesthetically pleasing image then it doesnt matter to me how its done. Over manipulation will look unrealistic and in naturephotography that usually means it is less appealing anyway.
As for what people should declare when they post a photo I like as much info as possible so that I can learn from the info but I think saying that people have to give every little detail on what I would consider routine processing - colour corection, minor exposure adjustments, dust spotting and USM, is unreasonable as it would make posting take a lot longer and would become unnecessary clutter. Any major changes such as composites and significant background cleaning should be mentioned so that people are not disilusioned. I was under the impression that the forum rules say that captive subjects must be stated as such so people really should be doing this already.
I think over the next decade or so, for better or worse, photographers and the general public will accept that these kind of things are part of the normal workflow for digital photography - I often get asked by people whether i photoshop my images, but (and i know this isn't very PC) its always older people who ask this and not my friends my age (early 20s)
Thanks Nick for bringing this up. The conclusions seem to be the same as all the other times this debate has appeared. However, I think most people don't read the initial comments - your worry over "heavily" photoshoped images and baited wildlife etc.
I don't think anyone has any qualms about using curves, saturation, unsharp mask and cloning out dust. Just look at the big competition rules who allow such changes PROVIDED they are applied to the image as a WHOLE.
I would suggest that "heavy" manipulation starts with removal of objects (the original content of the image), as well as applying selective alterations using the lasso tool. It is these commonly used manipulations that should be confessed on a forum where many people want to learn and be inspired. Normal workflow stuff needn't be stated.
As far as those who use the argument of saving the environment by post shoot removal, I think you are overstating the point. As an example, there was a recent shot of a deer with a branch through its nose on here - do people want me to believe you would have removed the branch before the shot but worried about the environment so advocate removal in PS? I can only think of shots at a nest where you may have a small point.
I also agree with Nick's serious point. I have had images rejected for use by BBC Wildlife because they suspected baited conditions even when there wasn't. I lost out because of other people's bad ethics and dishonesty!
Good luck Nick,
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Posted by Paul Gibbs on October 18, 2006 at 7:39 AM
I think the issue comes down to PURISTS, those, who take the picture as it is "the final image" and "ARTISTS" (in want of a better word) who take a picture but do not see that as the image but the elements of the image, and add or subtract from that till they have "the final image" they desire.
Are either wrong? No, but each will look at the other guardedly as the purist will see the “work done” by the "artist" and the “artist” will see the flaws which could be changed on the purists.
I my self think i’m more purist than artist, though, i would happily crop an image to best suit my composition, i don’t see that as being an “artist” though...
Not unsuprisingly the subject of 'baiting' has come up again, with David saying that he lost a sale because "they suspected baited conditions even when there wasn't."
This lost of sale alarms me for it implys a imposition of moritity by those who buy ( no bad thing) but what is the basis of that morality - what constitutes baiting.
To start the conversation, one dictionary defination of 'baiting' is "To entice, especially by trickery or strategy" www.dictionary.com
As I have said before if you want to get close to an animal one strategy is to provide for one of three primary needs namely, nutrition, breeding or rest.
I strategically, and looking at the subject of feeding stations assume that many of you also, place feeders in strategic places.
Is this baiting? Literally, probably; so is it acceptable?
Is the use of electronic tapes acceptable, if not, is the use of a wooden 'call', if not, what about mimickry (i.e. I can call some Deer, Fox and Geese species by mouth).
Assuming that I am not calling these animals to a food source (i.e. it is a parasitic relationship) is there a difference between using an Electronic call or, simply, my mouth?
FYI - I will not use Electronic Calls for my reasons whcih I may post at a later date.
So, is baiting only accpetable when there is a at least a symbiotic relationship which results from the act of baiting, or can it be a parasitic relationship. Or is luring a bird or animal to an artifical food source simply a no-no as it could possiblly induce a dependence upon that source (if it is frequently supplied)
On the subject of location; is it OK to relocate carrion to attract a subject, or do we have to leave it in-situ? If so, what happens if the carrion is in the middle of a road?
All these questions, but the fundimental one is "What constitutes Baiting?"
Is there a definative answer, if not, how is a consistant policy to be applied by buyers - what goal are we shooting at?
If either of the above answer is not full encompasing, what is 'too far' from your ethical view point.
In closing I would point out that this post is was not intended to open up the issue of 'live bait' for we discussed the legalities (or not as the case may be) of this on UKNP some time back.
Well, I've just had a quick scan of the images that I've posted here and am happy to declare myself not guilty... of anything major
I do crop, adjust colour balance, work on bringing up selective shadow detail and killing highlights where necessary. And I'll get rid of a blade of grass if it annoys me, and am happy to declare this if it's classified as heavy cloning?
I don't think I would ever manipulate to the extent of placing objects/backgrounds together (oh, except for the flying penguin catching a frisbee that I had to do for a client, but that's another story...) as this defeats one of the fundamental strengths of photography. I love to experience amazing animals and events in nature, and would be thrilled if I ever got a photo that matched my ambition, but to fake it would just leave me embarrassed and empty. People look at an image before reading the caption. Even if you declare "the cheetah was in Kruger, the Wildebeest was in Kalahari", what's the point? You just create disillusionment.
I'm happy to accept that baiting is a complex issue - one of my best images is of a pelican catching a fish in mid air, but only because the boat owner does this on every trip he makes... I don't routinely feed any animals myself, but I'll photograph those that are being fed because with or without me this goes on. I'll also mention this if it's a factor in getting the image. A moral ambiguity perhaps, although I justify this to myself by adopting the line that I will try not to do anything to compromise the welfare of an animal and will try to educate those who do compromise welfare within the law. Those who do so outside of the law, and in the UK that includes many forms of live baiting, will find me more included towards getting them nicked so declare this at your peril...
I should have clarified the BBC position (as of some 5 years ago and I suspect still stands): Images in that magazine have to be of wildlife taken in wild and free conditions. The assumption of baiting in my instance (Macaques feeding on yams in a plantation in Sulawesi) automatically led to a suspicion of controlled conditions (which in many instances is true). I do agree with all your points above and I am happy to bait wild animals in wild settings for short periods of time. Bird feeding stations comply with this, although I accept this isn't ideal in terms of ethics and wild animals.
I was recently verbally attacked for throwing peanuts to ground squirrels in Namibia. Many people don't like it. They fear the animals will become a pest. Do photographers have the right to upset others? We are all a part of the ecosystem and as such perhaps we should be able to do as we like, after all, the Bible states that wild animals are our servants!
David - BBC Wildlife must have changed their stance since you had a problem - their latest edition (Oct 06) states that the mag 'prefers to use images of wild animals their natural habitat. Photographers, please help us by indicating clearly if you submit images of captive or semi-captive/rehabilitated animals.'.
There is also at least one article that uses images of captive animals in that same edition. And it's interesting to note that while the photogs are asked to state provenance, the mag itself doesn't in its photo captions.
So, take a look at the title of this post guys - "On the ethics of posting...".
I don't really care if a photograph is of a captive/baited/controlled subject, or if it has been cloned/adjusted/altered/tweeked/had the loch ness monster inserted - just so long as people own up to the changes they've done. That is the point I am trying to make. The rights and wrongs of baiting et al are for other discussions
I'm not trying to be "purist" over this - just asking that we at least have some respect and common courtesy towards each other on the forum and say what has been done. After all, the forum is here to help all of us develop our photography through critique of the shots and information sharing - we can't do that if people don't say what they're doing - how they got close to the subject (car/hide/stalked/baited/habituated/called in/zoo etc); what filters/reflectors/lighting they used; what sort of post-processing they did; how many wings/eyes/legs/teeth etc they've cloned in/out...etc etc.
Discussion
21 repliesA bit of strange title to a post, but It's become apparent over the last few months that a number of people on the forum are becoming somewhat lax regarding stating the details on the shots that are being posted in the forum. There have been a number of shots posted that have been taken under baited and controlled scenarios, and a number of other shots which have been heavily photoshoped or cloned - but haven't been stated as such
Now there's nothing in the forum guidelines that prohibits such photos being posted, but we do ask that they are marked for what they are. UKNP and NPN are all about nature photography and the skills and techniques of getting good shots of our subjects, and it isn't all about photoshop or post processing!
I would think most of us would agree that it would be common courtesy to other forum users if the shots where stated for what they are - for example, PhotoArt, Controlled, Captive, studio etc etc (Qudos to those of you who already state if they're captive or controlled). That way, we don't all go away thinking that amazing shots of osprey sitting on the end of your lens are easy to get, and that every shot taken can be done with a totally clean background and pristine subject. There are many people on the forum who are here to learn and they're going to go away mightily disillusioned if they find out that their favourite photog on the forum is heavily manipulating stuff, or can only get the shots because they've been set up for them by someone else.
There is a more serious side to this too - if you post an image that is a composite, or heavily 'photoshoped', and don't state as much, then you run the risk that you will gain a name for PS'ing your work. In an age where the truth of photos is being doubted more and more, this may not be a good name to have as it may lead to you being sidelined or disqualified from competitions and to having your submissions rejected from magazines and photo libraries
I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think about the ethics of information disclosure - or not...
i think it´s an interesting topic. you´ve quite rightly said that many people want to learn from the postings of others and that it´s quite possible to get disillusioned by seeing images from people that aren´t really real. it is really frustrating in the early days to see all these amazing images, and then trying to go out and emulate such work, especially when it is presumed as i first did that every wildlife image was taken totally and utterly in natural situations.
it was quite a revelation to me in my early days that feeding stations were regularly used by bird photographers. this may sound quite naive, and probably the key to why i gave up bird photography or never really got into it because i never had the time to devote to setting something like that up. not that i´m saying i don´t agree with feeding stations, i´ve no problem at all with them, as long as they are ethically done, but just that it´s one clear example of information about material changing a photographers viewpoint. incidentally thats one reason i enjoy underwater photography so much, is that fish etc seem to accept people far more readily than land animals and so feels that what i am doing is not at all forced into existence.
as for manipulation without stating, i think that if it´s beyond sharpening which is a pretty much run of the mill for net use, then it should be stated as a matter of decency. i´d even suggest that it should be a requirement of the forum to state such things at the risk of being removed if not. but then would i state it every time i cloned out a spot of backscatter in my underwater work?
i look forward to reading more of this thread.
mark.
However, there is still an ongoing debate as to what constitutes manipulation and what is acceptable or not in digital imaging. Some would say that sharpening and basic colour correction are going too far. Others have no problem with noise reduction and cloning of dust spots etc. Some on here even advocate the removal of extraneous branches etc., or blurring BG more than the DOF of the lens.
It is difficult to decide where to draw the line.
Rob
I will keep it short and sweet - I don't have a problem with any altered images as long as the photographer is honest and declares what he or she has done and in the case of captive or controlled wildlife the same would apply.
I don't really want to know if a small OOF part of the image has been cloaned out but would if it substantially altered the image. I know some find this unacceptable and I respect that view - this is only my opinion.
Perhaps we should have more rigid guide lines but within these guide lines I feel most things should be allowed as long as the photographer is honest.
Just to illustrate a point with my recent post of a Red Deer Stag, it has been suggested it would look better warmed up and most would probably agree. That said that is not how I shot it so you could argue to do so would 'substantially' alter the image. The arguements can be never ending!
David
In the end I dont mind what is posted or altered but I would just like to know what I am really looking at
Terry
I am thinking further about the selective removal of pixels and will post more later.
I prefer to do as little as I can get away with I don't even change my Web images to srgb I do clone out the odd dust spot but not always and I nearly always crop all my images for tighter framing but this is nothing that I wouldn't do when I had my darkroom.
Phillip.
I don't think cloning dust spots, blemishes or minor amendments mean a great deal these days, nor adjusting any of the EXIF data on a RAW image such as tone, colour balance or saturation etc.
Just to answer Dave's point seeing as I suggested he should warm up the image:
"Just to illustrate a point with my recent post of a Red Deer Stag, it has been suggested it would look better warmed up and most would probably agree. That said that is not how I shot it so you could argue to do so would 'substantially' alter the image. The arguements can be never ending! "
Warming up an image is nothing new and I wouldn't class that as altering the image. It's easy to forget in these digital days what we used to do with film, but I for one would often use an 81A or 81B filter to warm up an image. Nothing different to what I suggested with DK's picture.
John
I have heard others having the opinion that a "small" alteration is ok. Others are ambiguous with statements such as "significant". We need definitions of these terms or are we to assume small and insignificant is normal and should go unmentioned on this forum? Other forums spell out what manipulation is and therefore what should be confessed. I agree we the below definition:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
Digital photography has completely revolutionised wildlife photography and has never been easier. Skills of learning proper exposure, composition and light have largely been relegated. The hardest thing we now have to tackle is finding the subjects in the first place (which of course, many take short cuts with this as already stated above). It therefore seems over the top to then alter the "CONTENT" of an image. Today we clone out branches and so on, tomorrow we will add in inventions such as dinosaurs (something I have recently commented on, but here is the link again for those that missed it:
www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/prevhtm/index2.htm
All of this is a symptom of today's western culture of quick results at any cost, not to mention a need to stand out from the crowd in an increasingly faceless and boring society that wants to control our every thought and movement.
And before I get the usual feedback of having much to learn and so on, I admit I have "slightly" manipulated the content of an "insignificant" number of the shots that appear on my website. It is a number less than 10 out of a 1,000.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Thanks for that link
In essence I agree with what is written in that, I have however a question around the following two bullet points.
1st quote...
Basically I can clean up the site (wild or fabricated) before I press the button, e.g tie any twigs back etc
2nd quote
Hence I am not allowed to remove these twigs, after the button is pressed, in PS.
The issue I have with this is that to remove features before the button is pressed I have to disturb the environment of my subject and obviously enter its space; if I remove them digitally afterwards it means less disturbance (potentially none) as I don't have to invade the subjects space.
Hence why I feel OK, morally, to do the 'clean up' after the button is pressed.
What do you think about the above from a potential interaction/scent/disturbance point of view?
Have I lost the plot
Regarding cloning, colour adjustment, adding and subtracting things, I feel that if the photographer can live with it then why not, personally I try to avoid this at all costs because I'm crap at it and invarioubly the original will look better.
Regarding shots being set up by someone else for a photographer to just turn up and shoot the scene that will unfold? It's a bit like calling one of my clients a stalker when they are really just a person willing to pay my boss a lot of money to shoot something I guide them in to.
The praise in this case shouldn't go to the rich button presser, but to the person who set the scen in the first place.
Cropping? Again fine, but what happens if someone sees that shot on this forum and decides they want to buy it as a big print? If it's been cropped too severely then the print will suffer, as will the photographer's wallet.
I think we all know pro nature photographers that do "cheat". It's the way of that world and it is accepted in that world w/o even a blink. Bread on the table comes before high moral ground. Sure it's good if you can have both bread and high morals, but not many do.
John
Basic digital manipulation to me is the modern equivalent of wet darkroom techniques (Un-Sharp Mask is actually an old darkroom technique for enhancing edge contrast).
Converting a negative (B&W or colour) into an exhibition quality print used to be an artform in itself and many printers earned a living (and reputation) for printing other photographers work.
Converting a RAW file into a TIFF file, or a print to hang on the wall, is the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Give two people the same RAW file to process and they won't produce the same output file (or print).
So stuff like white balance, dust spot removal, sharpening, cropping, saturation, etc is just a normal part of photography, digital or film.
Small amounts of cloning are also acceptable to me as long as they don't change the intrinsic nature of the shot.
Anything beyond that should be stated on the forum and I think that is in keeping with the ethos of the forum.
my two penneth.
cheers
Sean
I believe Sean has hit the nail on the head here... The 'basic' digital manipulations are so very similar to what we used to do in the darkroom, I have no problem with these or the simple removal of a distracting element that could not be avoided, I am perhaps a little more versed in the use of photoshop etc than many here (I use them every day) and normally I can pick up if an image has been IMO overly manipulated and often say so, my advice when teaching etc. is that if you are unable to do it well then don't.
However when any major manipulation has been undertaken I firmly believe that this should be stated as should major crops, I, as I am sure others do appreciate as much detail as possible in particular the tips as to how an individual achieved that stunning image... where possible I try to include info.
I try to achieve the image that I see within the camera, I try to get the best image as possible in the conversion from RAW, i.e contrast, colour etc so that I do less destructive editing in PS.
So yes I agree with you Nick, as much info as possible... it all helps the learning process and gives you a good basis for offering advice.
(Just lost my train of thought, had a client come in asking if I can join the Mitten Crab boat at 5.00am Friday so hope I make sense)
All the best
Phil
I don't consider any manipulation to be cheating, ethically I have no problem with any post shot editing (better than pre shot editing of sensative environments) so long as the photographer acknoledges it. It may be a different art and skill but IMO it is still art. It is not a scientific record and so if this is the aim then editing should be much more limited or non-existent but if the aim is to produce an aesthetically pleasing image then it doesnt matter to me how its done. Over manipulation will look unrealistic and in naturephotography that usually means it is less appealing anyway.
As for what people should declare when they post a photo I like as much info as possible so that I can learn from the info but I think saying that people have to give every little detail on what I would consider routine processing - colour corection, minor exposure adjustments, dust spotting and USM, is unreasonable as it would make posting take a lot longer and would become unnecessary clutter. Any major changes such as composites and significant background cleaning should be mentioned so that people are not disilusioned. I was under the impression that the forum rules say that captive subjects must be stated as such so people really should be doing this already.
I think over the next decade or so, for better or worse, photographers and the general public will accept that these kind of things are part of the normal workflow for digital photography - I often get asked by people whether i photoshop my images, but (and i know this isn't very PC) its always older people who ask this and not my friends my age (early 20s)
Graham
I don't think anyone has any qualms about using curves, saturation, unsharp mask and cloning out dust. Just look at the big competition rules who allow such changes PROVIDED they are applied to the image as a WHOLE.
I would suggest that "heavy" manipulation starts with removal of objects (the original content of the image), as well as applying selective alterations using the lasso tool. It is these commonly used manipulations that should be confessed on a forum where many people want to learn and be inspired. Normal workflow stuff needn't be stated.
As far as those who use the argument of saving the environment by post shoot removal, I think you are overstating the point. As an example, there was a recent shot of a deer with a branch through its nose on here - do people want me to believe you would have removed the branch before the shot but worried about the environment so advocate removal in PS? I can only think of shots at a nest where you may have a small point.
I also agree with Nick's serious point. I have had images rejected for use by BBC Wildlife because they suspected baited conditions even when there wasn't. I lost out because of other people's bad ethics and dishonesty!
Good luck Nick,
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Are either wrong? No, but each will look at the other guardedly as the purist will see the “work done” by the "artist" and the “artist” will see the flaws which could be changed on the purists.
I my self think i’m more purist than artist, though, i would happily crop an image to best suit my composition, i don’t see that as being an “artist” though...
This lost of sale alarms me for it implys a imposition of moritity by those who buy ( no bad thing) but what is the basis of that morality - what constitutes baiting.
To start the conversation, one dictionary defination of 'baiting' is "To entice, especially by trickery or strategy" www.dictionary.com
As I have said before if you want to get close to an animal one strategy is to provide for one of three primary needs namely, nutrition, breeding or rest.
I strategically, and looking at the subject of feeding stations assume that many of you also, place feeders in strategic places.
Is this baiting? Literally, probably; so is it acceptable?
Is the use of electronic tapes acceptable, if not, is the use of a wooden 'call', if not, what about mimickry (i.e. I can call some Deer, Fox and Geese species by mouth).
Assuming that I am not calling these animals to a food source (i.e. it is a parasitic relationship) is there a difference between using an Electronic call or, simply, my mouth?
FYI - I will not use Electronic Calls for my reasons whcih I may post at a later date.
So, is baiting only accpetable when there is a at least a symbiotic relationship which results from the act of baiting, or can it be a parasitic relationship. Or is luring a bird or animal to an artifical food source simply a no-no as it could possiblly induce a dependence upon that source (if it is frequently supplied)
On the subject of location; is it OK to relocate carrion to attract a subject, or do we have to leave it in-situ? If so, what happens if the carrion is in the middle of a road?
All these questions, but the fundimental one is "What constitutes Baiting?"
Is there a definative answer, if not, how is a consistant policy to be applied by buyers - what goal are we shooting at?
If either of the above answer is not full encompasing, what is 'too far' from your ethical view point.
In closing I would point out that this post is was not intended to open up the issue of 'live bait' for we discussed the legalities (or not as the case may be) of this on UKNP some time back.
I do crop, adjust colour balance, work on bringing up selective shadow detail and killing highlights where necessary. And I'll get rid of a blade of grass if it annoys me, and am happy to declare this if it's classified as heavy cloning?
I don't think I would ever manipulate to the extent of placing objects/backgrounds together (oh, except for the flying penguin catching a frisbee that I had to do for a client, but that's another story...) as this defeats one of the fundamental strengths of photography. I love to experience amazing animals and events in nature, and would be thrilled if I ever got a photo that matched my ambition, but to fake it would just leave me embarrassed and empty. People look at an image before reading the caption. Even if you declare "the cheetah was in Kruger, the Wildebeest was in Kalahari", what's the point? You just create disillusionment.
I'm happy to accept that baiting is a complex issue - one of my best images is of a pelican catching a fish in mid air, but only because the boat owner does this on every trip he makes... I don't routinely feed any animals myself, but I'll photograph those that are being fed because with or without me this goes on. I'll also mention this if it's a factor in getting the image. A moral ambiguity perhaps, although I justify this to myself by adopting the line that I will try not to do anything to compromise the welfare of an animal and will try to educate those who do compromise welfare within the law.
Anyway, your reminder is noted Nick, with thanks.
A
I should have clarified the BBC position (as of some 5 years ago and I suspect still stands): Images in that magazine have to be of wildlife taken in wild and free conditions. The assumption of baiting in my instance (Macaques feeding on yams in a plantation in Sulawesi) automatically led to a suspicion of controlled conditions (which in many instances is true). I do agree with all your points above and I am happy to bait wild animals in wild settings for short periods of time. Bird feeding stations comply with this, although I accept this isn't ideal in terms of ethics and wild animals.
I was recently verbally attacked for throwing peanuts to ground squirrels in Namibia. Many people don't like it. They fear the animals will become a pest. Do photographers have the right to upset others? We are all a part of the ecosystem and as such perhaps we should be able to do as we like, after all, the Bible states that wild animals are our servants!
Dave
There is also at least one article that uses images of captive animals in that same edition. And it's interesting to note that while the photogs are asked to state provenance, the mag itself doesn't in its photo captions.
So, take a look at the title of this post guys - "On the ethics of posting...".
I don't really care if a photograph is of a captive/baited/controlled subject, or if it has been cloned/adjusted/altered/tweeked/had the loch ness monster inserted - just so long as people own up to the changes they've done. That is the point I am trying to make. The rights and wrongs of baiting et al are for other discussions
I'm not trying to be "purist" over this - just asking that we at least have some respect and common courtesy towards each other on the forum and say what has been done. After all, the forum is here to help all of us develop our photography through critique of the shots and information sharing - we can't do that if people don't say what they're doing - how they got close to the subject (car/hide/stalked/baited/habituated/called in/zoo etc); what filters/reflectors/lighting they used; what sort of post-processing they did; how many wings/eyes/legs/teeth etc they've cloned in/out...etc etc.