How much manipulation to allow?

I am working on the rules for a photography contest for a local nature center. One item that came up is how much computer manipulation to allow. I know this topic has come up frequently, but I would like to hear comments. At this time we are looking at only allowing adjustments for more or less standard items such contrast, lighting, some sharpening. I will appreciate any comments.

IMHO you should only allow the basics such as adjustments in density, color balance, contrast, sharpening, dodging and burning and cropping. Cloning should only be allowed for dust spots. You'll probably get lots of opinions on this question. It will be interesting to see what people have to say.

Hi John, it might be a good idea to see what the rules are for other nature photography contests so you have an idea of what they allow, and what they think is standard editing. Heres the links to some well known nature photography contests. Hope this helps...

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy-entry/Rules.jsp

http://www.naturesbestphotography.com/upload/contest_pdf/Guidelines_NBPAwards2010.pdf

How would you distinguish a photograph from a fauxtograph? Google up Dave Hill Effect and check out some of his portraiture. Then realize that his entire post processing technique is manipulation of standard items like contrast, exposure, and sharpening. My suggestion is to leave it alone because the determination that something was done to the image, or that too much was done to the image, is very subjective and extremely difficult to prove.

I agree with Kelly--anything goes! That may not be the way other contests handle the issue, but it is the trend of the future, so you might as well follow the trend. Creativity should be rewarded, as should photographic skills and even the luck of getting a great subject or conditions. How to weigh those factors is the responsibility of the judges--and that is always going to be subjective.

One way to determine a photo from a fauxto would be to require photographers to supply the original unworked file to compare to the final product. Stan and Kelly from your reply I assume that you would allow major digital manipulation such as cloning out distracting branches or grasses or such things as a man made telephone pole in a landscape or wildlife shot or anything else that distracts from the aesthetic perfection of the image. IMHO what that gives you is a picture that is not telling the whole truth. My background is as a newspaper photographer and about the biggest no-no you could do was to manipulate or influence the subject in any way (with the exception of posing people for obvious portrait shots). Doing so would get you fired from most newspapers and many photographers did get fired for doing it. With the arrival of the digital age it has gotten very easy to manipulate after the fact and with so many people doing it just because they can it has gotten to be a very prevalent practice as is indicated by the critques here on NPN and I am sure on many other websites. So now we have many half true and untrue photos out there which IMO is not so good. Nowadays everytime I see a photo I look at it with a jaded eye wondering if it was digitally manipulated or not. I'm not condeming anyone who does it I'm just saying it's something to think about. There is a critique in the fauna gallery by moderator Brad Hill on this subject right now that sums it up pretty well. I don't remember the title of the picture but it's a grizzly in the rain and I think it's by Zack Clothier. You should check it out.

I totally disagree with "anything goes" for photo contests and I think the rules for most legitimate nature contests are somewhat similar to the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year rules. You can have the finalists, (the shots you have narrowed it down to considering) email you their raw files to see how their jpegs or tiffs match up to the real image and that can be part of the way you determine the winners.

I agree with Nate. I strongly believe the "anything goes" attitude is ruining photography as an artistic medium. There is a place for excessively manipulated photography, but it should be called something else.

I am with Kelly and Stan - and I would argue strongly that digital manipulation of photographs is opening up photography as an artistic medium, not ruining it. I always chuckle when I hear how newspapers are so precious about the veracity of their photos, when every time I have been involved in the production of a newspaper photograph (never as a photographer) it has been fake from beginning to end: the selection of the 'talent', the supply of props, the poses, the lies in the captions.

I agree with Nate as well. But, I think allowing panoramic stitches and exposure blends should be allowed. Having finalists send you all the raws used will still let you verify that the image is indeed a 'photograph', and not a 'fauxtograph' even when allowing exposure blends and panoramics.

Ah... a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm a photographic storyteller, probably a photographic jester. I manipulate the hell out of images... I use composites. I make up stuff. I do all sorts of fun things. What I don't do is enter nature contests with these kinds of images. Over in the Photo Art category, I just posted some examples of how I feel some folks sneak in images in the ES&S gallery that shouldn't belong there. Though photo manipulation ( I prefer photo enhancement ) may not get the respect it deserves. Those that manipulate, for the most part don't respect the nature photographer and their craft. Many times it appears they've discovered a trick they can use to pull the wool over the viewers eyes and bypass some hard work. When they do that, they may as well walk up to a tent on a freezing night and kick a snoozing nature photographer in the kidneys. That nature photographer was going to get up before dawn and hike to a set-up point and wait for a perfect sunrise.

There is a line. All forms of photography are wonderful... it's just easy to blur the lines. Blurring the lines is not a bad thing for photographers... it can challenge us to try new things, but when the line is blurred for the viewer, you lose their trust. And, I think that has already happened for imagery in our society. But, that brings into question the mental acuity of the viewer... that's a whole different topic. All that said here's my take on some of the comments;

I have to agree with Robert Bunch's rules. These are the old darkroom rooms and represent the old school approach to producing an image... And, I believe, when you have a nature contest, you're talking old school and that is what your audience expects... and that is what should be demanded by the judges.

Kelly's reference to "fauxtograpgh" is as denigrating to the wonderful and talented works of photo illustrators as "the wolf jumping over the fence" image is to nature shooters. It's a big world. We all need to play nice!

Stan has the best attitude, "Creativity should be rewarded, as should photographic skills and even the luck of getting a great subject or conditions. How to weigh those factors is the responsibility of the judges--and that is always going to be subjective. " Maybe all nature photography contests should have a judge that manipulates images for their livelihood. All the judges for the Natural History Museum gave their top prize to a "fake image". Obviously they wanted to believe in the image and didn't have the skills to see past their self imposed boundaries.

Brad mentions his experiences as a photojournalist. And, what he says is spot on, but there is a glaring omission. Journalism is one component of presenting information. Storytelling is another. They also give "Pulitzer's" for fiction. The biggest problem lies in the fact that some storytellers try to pass off their story as fact while reporters think everything has to be "just the facts".

Dan quoted Nate about the "anything goes" attitude is ruining photography as an artistic medium. I feel the artistic floodgates have been opened with digital photography. This is a wonderful time to be a photographer. Photography as a artistic media is enhanced by the digital revolution. But, the craft and technique of nature photography are under attack. As a college art major and someone that has spent 30+ years making my living in the art world, I have thought long and hard about the differences between art and craft. Sometimes the two are confused and interchanged. To go out and capture an image that shows just what you see... is that art or a exquisite craft? I believe Artists don't set many boundaries. Craftsmen, though they are artisans, work within set parameters.

So, after all my verbal wanderings, here's what I think;

A nature contest should have rules about what's permitted... it must, or the nature (pun intended) of nature photography is in trouble. Anyone that enters should be able to provide original or RAW images if there are questions. Traditional darkroom techniques should be allowed... Burning, dodging, contrast, etc. And there should be someone very familiar with photo enhancement on the jury panel. Because, there are none as easily tricked as the true believers....

Anyone that enters should be able to provide original or RAW images if there are questions.

I agree in general with this, but with smaller photo contests meant to be open to everyone, odds are a lot of folks just shoot JPGs. I definitely think that nature photography should be closer to the journalistic ideal, unless there's full disclosure. (But that's partly because in my experience, that's what most people expect it to be, and would consider lots of manipulation to be "dishonest".)

My thinking is that "nature" photography is more artistic than journalistic. Post processing has given us tremendous freedom. Sure, the folks with a journalist background might cringe, but the equally valid POV from folks with a portrait/wedding background fully embrace the possibilities. I say don't hold photography back, leave it up to the photographer.


Kent in SD

I think it would depend on what you are looking for in the contest. Can you have a couple catagories one for manipulated and one for not?

I don't mind manipulating colors or what not, half the time it's overdone anyway so it's not fooling anyone. But if it's called a photo contest then at least the subject matter should have been in the original frame as opposed to photoshopping in stuff that wasn't there. There has to be some standards in a contest otherwise what's the point in calling it a photography contest?

I would look at NPN as an example of how to set up a nature photography contest. NPN has a "Photo Art" forum for more heavily manipulated nature images. If you as a contest organizer want to ensure everyone has a place in your contest then set up categories like NPN has with specific rules for each category. No you don't need to include all the categories NPN has, just the ones you feel are needed to give potential participants a place in your event. That way you do not stifle anyones artistic visions of nature photography. For the finalists in each category require the origianl file, even for the Photo Art category. It will help the judges see what the artist started and ended with giving them a better appreciation for the artists abilities and vision. For the other categories it will allow you to make sure everyone followed the rules. For me, there is a place for all forms of nature photography and art, but viewers have the right to know what they are looking at. In some instances it is obvious the photo was manipulated heavily to create that artist's vision, in other instances it is not obvious at all and its done to disceive without any attempt at disclosure by the photographer. The later should not be allowed. Requiring complete disclosure by the photographer/artist should be required in all contests. If it is determined that the photographer did not disclose all the manipulations to an image, then they should be disqualified. In the end I like the idea of setting up the categories to let everyone have a chance, then if they try and pass off an image for something it is not they really have no excuse. Just my thoughts.

I'm a firm believer that a nature photo should be natural. That means: no objects removed by cloning; no objects added by montage or cloning.

I even go further in my own views: no manipulation of the subject: no set ups, no bait, no tapes.

I like Ron's suggestion of a separate category for Photo Art where the creative manipulations can be entered and appreciated and judged for what they are.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I will comment on the types of submissions latter in the year regarding ones that are or appear to be highly "enhanced " beyond what we consider routine adjustment.

sincerely,

John Tobias

Photographs that look natural are just well manipulated.
If you want reality, you have to be there.

But regarding your question:
For such a contest, I would forbid the addition of anything from a separate frame. Simple. Everything else is within the rules. However, weird colors, freaky saturation, B&W, personal aversion to reptiles, etc. should and would be judged by preference, not rules. I've been in the position of getting judges for a photography organization and I always told the judges that we were seeking their opinion about the photographs and the the organization would worry about the rules.

Pete D.

I love taking photos as close to nature as you can get....but I do not have all the filters that others may have. I think you should be able to do the basics , sharpening, etc.

But I, also, believe that you should be able to use Photoshop filters and effects (such as softening of flowers) to achieve that perfect photo.

I, too, think of my photographs as works of art, not snapshots. The light and composition are essential, but, somethime photoshop effects really help the photo become more beautiful.....without altering the subject and composition of the photo.

What Nate said earlier:

I totally disagree with "anything goes" for photo contests and I think the rules for most legitimate nature contests are somewhat similar to the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year rules. You can have the finalists, (the shots you have narrowed it down to considering) email you their raw files to see how their jpegs or tiffs match up to the real image and that can be part of the way you determine the winners.

Post processing of photographs, or manipulation in the digital age, is the genie that has been let out of the bottle... and has a chance of ruining the art of photography (which it took so long to fight for to get labeled as such). While Photoshop skills I respect, and being able to manipulate or enhance images is an art form in itself, it is in NO WAY photography when taken beyond the basics of contrast, cropping, sharpening, etc. I would even give you removing things like a man-made telephone wire that ruins so many photo ops, or something similar.

To say "anything goes" for a nature photo contest is just mind-boggling to me. NPN handles it as best they can, by having a "Photo Art" gallery--that's the art of it. Captuing that brief second, or fraction of a second in nature, is the art of a photographer. Anything beyond making up for the shortcomings of the lens and camera, or even removing a man-made structure, is not. IMO.

Fine art nature photography is not photojournalism, it is art. The real question is how much editing to allow, and still call it a photograph, as opposed to a 'creative edit'. Do you want to reward someone for a great photograph, or for great photoshop skills? ...but even that's not simple -- personally, my feeling is that, these days, to compete and consistently put out top-notch work, good photographers have to know how to use photoshop well in order to 'optimize' their images. For me, that includes anything that does not substantially change the important content of the image - basic adjustments, exposure blending, and cloning out distractions (within reason). If something substantial is added, which was not in the original frame, such as a moon, etc, then it should be placed in the 'creative edit' category, and has no place in a pure nature photography contest.

Since a number have people have repeated my 'anything goes' statement--let me clarify: I am only referring to the contest that is in question here--which i am assuming is a general nature contest and is not designed to be something more specific (as the BBC contest mentioned was, for example). I personally was apalled at the recent Pop Photo choice for action photography, for example--but there is an easier solution than banning that type of photo from the competition--the judges simply could have passed on it!

When it come to competitions I am fan of as little as possible manipulation allowed. However, what I like to see in competition rules when it comes to landscapes is the use of blending multiple exposures. I always make my landscapes using 2, 3 or more sequential exposure. IMO this is in principle the same as using a NGD filter only with generally much beter results due to more control. Unfortuntely most competitions do not seem to allow these blended images, which I think is simply ridiculous and a denial of the digital age...