Right or wrong?

Hi everyone,

This is my first post although I have been an avid visitor to the site for ages, One thing I have become aware of is that everyone who posts on here has their own view on whats right or wrong.

There appear to be two subjects that regularly pop up for debate,

1. Image manipulation (anything that changes the picture from that produced by the camera)
2. Behaviour of persons involved in photography.

I have always believed that there are people who try to make us believe that they are great photographers when really they are great computer users, it is fair to say that anyone can take a photo, but not everyone can use a computer with the same competency. I think that everyone should be honest and state if and how they have altered the image they post, I know a lot of you do this already.
However there will always be the one person who isn't honest, this is life, we have to accept it.

I have been watching wildlife for all of my life, only recently have I started to photograph what I see. I would hope that my behaviour towards the subject I am viewing hasn't changed, however there have been times when the desire to get a shot has been almost overwhelming, it is easy to understand that this can make people behave in ways that they wouldn't usually. If this is the case then we all have a duty to politely point out what it is we have witnessed that was wrong, but we have to accept that there will always be the individual who will see things differently or even not care, again it's life.

I really enjoy looking at the pictures posted here, I do so hoping that what I am viewing has been obtained correctly and not "altered" so much that it is not a true representation of what was captured in the moment. Keep up the great work and keep posting.

Thanks for listening.

Brian.

Brian,

Welcome.

You are right and the guidence of the forum is pretty clear on what needs declared or not..

Entries to the forum should convey the essential truth of what the photographer saw at the time it was taken. All radical changes, or additions, to the original image, particularly to the primary subject, should be disclosed. The removal of blemishes or distractions is permissible but in presenting images members are requested to declare any deviation for routine* manipulation in an informative way for the benefit of other members.

*Routine manipulation includes adjustments to parameters such as levels, brightness, contrast, sharpness, saturation, shadows and highlights, the removal of dust spots etc. These changes need not be mentioned. The cropping of an image is also seen as routine but members are requested to indicate – as a percentage - how much of the original captured image has been left in the final image presented.

As for errant behaviour well, it is undoubtably undesirable but what constitutes errant behaviour depends on your own ethics and alas that differs per person.

Again there is a "code of Conduct" suggested by the Nature Group of the RPS which has been (generally) adopted by most wildlife/nature photographers and it can be found here or the NPN version here

I wish all nature/wildlifephotographers would adopt at least

There is one hard and fast rule, whose spirit must be observed at all times -
"The welfare of the subject is more important than the photograph.”

Welcome to the forum ...

T

Tom,

Thanks for your words. Clearly there are some who don't adopt the codes of conduct.
On the whole the pictures put on here are fantastic and for a learner like me they are both an inspiration and a guide to what I need to do to obtain what I want to show.

Thanks again,

Brian

Hi Brian and welcome.
My philosophy on altering images is quite simple, if it takes more than a couple of minutes, bin it and go take a better one. As my photoshop skills are not that great two minutes doesn't allow for much especially as I have no interest in being good at photoshop.
I generally do the same to all my images if they don't look decent after my usual work flow they are normally discarded. I like photography not computing, although, I do see it as an essential part of digital photography over using film.
It would be very interesting to see some before and after posted images.

Regards

Hi Brian,

Well said. Start your account with a sensitive / controversial subject, at least to many of us (and it tends to be those who started life using film).

I've found the vast majority of photographers agree with you and think that manipulation, especially cloning, is unecessary and verging on "cheating". Almost everyone who as attended my workshops agree, as do most non-photographers. Many folk are shocked when I tell them of the tactics used by nature photographers to get that awesome shot (which includes trapping small animals and putting them in glass tanks under glaring spotlights - surely this is disturbance?).

Anyone who thinks cloning and image manipulation is normal could do well to look at the images posted on birdguides - some superb photos and rarely any cloning. I agree that too many people compensate "average" photography with excellent photoshopery and this should be disclosed so that folk new to this hobby can judge themselves more accurately.


Dave

Welcome Brian.

Totally agree with your posting/thoughts Colin. I have often thought it would be interesting to see before & after images. I would love to see, say 12 photographers given 'film' cameras, the same subject content to see what results they would achieve. No hiding then

Steve

Welcome Brian,

Like Dave Slater I grew up in the age of film, and suspect that my attitudes to film colour my attitudes to digital. Basically I would never do anything in digital that could not be done by a competent technician working with a colour negative. This would include exposure adjustment, cropping and removal of the odd technical blemish. I remember some 30 years ago sitting one evening working with a fine paintbrush on a 2 1/4" transparency painting out peanuts on a log in an badger picture for a professional photographer who needed to make a print for a client, but who did not have a steady hand himself. Surely this is just just the equivalent of cloning today.

I believe all these things to be within the site guidance that Tom has quoted above. Personally I would no more wish to see before and after shots than I would wish to see a film print made at Boots compared to one from the same negative made by a professional photographer - I would simply take it for granted that the latter was better.

Interesting first post, but now show us a picture or two - I assure you from experience that you will find this site a steep, but good, learning curve.

David

Hi Brian,

Agree with your thoughs too. I disagree that anyone can take a photograph though. And it doesn't make a difference that you are great in photoshop either. If the image is mediocre, it can be improved in photoshop certainly, but it will never be a great image (in terms of quality). This is what sorts the men out form the boys if you like. Exposure is the key and the better photographers will nail the exposure and have little to do in photoshop and the difference in quality will be apparent to all regardless of their photoshop skills.
Cloning is out of my comfort zone, but there are times when it can be used... ie dust spots, maybe a bright spot on a leaf for example but other than that, it is manipulation to a high degree in my view and something I'm not comfortable with personally.
One of the issues is that we all pretty much shoot raw these days and these files need image processing. This is the digital age and there are tools at our disposal and some use the features more than others....... I don't think there's right and wrong, just how far your own comfort level sits with your images.
And film could be manipulated in a darkroom by better dark room users so it's not entirely a saints world in the velvia communities is it
Look forward to seeing your images

Someone said to me the other day that the answer to every question was either a) it depends; b) the internet or c) China. Not sure if he's right, but in this case I think that he was - it just depends (and this is on the internet and some of my kit was made in China - maybe he's a genius?!).

To put my cards on the table, I use Photoshop/Capture NX to 'develop' my images - I occasionally will clone out the odd distracting highlight, but that's about it beyond cropping, dodging and burning, curves and sharpening. However I also use Helicon Focus to merge images for extreme depth of field, and some people like producing HDR images. None of these are 'real', they all help us get to the point we're trying to get to. We all know that a typical RAW image needs developing, just like the production of any decent print from a negative. To suggest that there is a real image there that's changed just isn't true, any more that the JPEG produced by a camera is real - it's just been through different processing.

There is a scale of intervention with the original file, and where you stop depends on you. Nobody surely would argue that cloning out dust spots is wrong? But most people here would agree that adding a major component would be (e.g. adding a new interesting sky). But there are then some whose jobs rely on sales - perhaps from their perspective it would be fine. In this context, on NPUK, though, it's not about sales, it's about sharing and feedback, and therefore we need to be clear about what posters have done so that we can make informed judgements about their images.

It's the same with the captive/lured/wild debate. Essentially pointless. People should do what helps them get the shot they're happy with (obviously with the strict caveat of welfare of the subject) - some will be happy with a remote trigger set up, some with living in a hide for 6 months, some with going to a feeding station for a weekend and some with photographing captive or honeypot animals. Usually we would all like to be in the sitting in a hide for 6 months group, but real life gets in the way, and we do what we can to enjoy this fantastic obsession we have.

In other words, all of these things are on a scale, and where we are on that scale depends on time, finances, experience and our personal attitudes. The posting rules here are pretty clear about what is acceptable, and it is up to posters to tell us how they made the image, so that we can then judge its merits.

I have had people accuse me of cheating, because I have a garden feeder set up, rather than using fieldcraft to hunt down blue tits in hedgerows. I have had people accuse me of cheating (i.e. Photoshopping) because I had a blurred background (not realising that this is what you get with a long lens wide open). You just can't win, simply because there is sometimes a tendency for people to just want to find a negative. But at the end of the day, who cares?! It's the image which lasts, and the pleasure you get from making it.

Finally, can someone show me how to make a mediocre image brilliant by using Photoshop - I have a large supply waiting I haven't figured out how to turn coal into diamonds yet



Mark

How about a great artist working in oils that paints a scene but leaves out the telegraph poles,tree,branch,pylon.house.............etc perhaps he shouldnt try to sell his work or hang it in a gallery.

I feel that I am among the older group of forum members and having worked in film processing for over 25 years, can tell you that I have seen image manipulation done with negatives,slide,film,prints that the younger generation would not have thought possible without photoshop.

In some of my labs I had retouching Depts that were a dozen staff strong. Was it wrong? no I dont think so, you do to an image what you feel needs to be done or what a client requests. I do believe it is wrong though to deliberately mislead people by saying thats how the image was shot.......tell them what you have done....why not?

Take a look at Andy's GSW shot and read what he has done to the image, would I have done the same? Yes of course I would, without a seconds thought.

Brian says in his original post
"I have always believed that there are people who try to make us believe that they are great photographers when really they are great computer users,"

I referred to artists, people painting in oils or water colours or some other medium to create an image. perhaps we are "Image Creators" in our own way, with digital files being our medium.

The debate will go on.......

Tony

Hi Brian,

Welcome to UKNP!

Hi,
this is as old as photography is. More than hundred years ago photographers started scratching and
painting on their glass negatives.
Photoshop is a very powerful instrument. Sometimes its hard to hold yourself back.
welcome to the forum Brian
Bertl

Hi,

Thanks everyone for your welcomes and opinions and views. The debate will clearly go on. I hope that my comments were taken in the spirit which they were intended, I guess, as i said, everyone's rights and wrongs are different.

I did not mean to imply that no manipulation should be done, merely that when it is it should be stated,

Do I now have the testicular fortitude to post some of my work????

Regards

Brian

Hi Brian,

We met last year in Gloucestershire if you remember watching the Short Eared Owls, which are back by the way

I`ve seen your images before, stick them up on here you got some crackers thats for sure!