Nature Photographers or Digital Deceivers?

I am not aware of this topic having been posted while I have been on this forum but if it has then I would still like members to voice their opinions.
The main reason that I took so long to move from film to digital was that I didn't like a lot of the manipulation and trickery that was going on. Through reading books, magazines and looking at images on forums this is obviously now the norm. The article in the current edition of 'Outdoor Photographer' magazine which asks proffessional nature photographers the question, 'Does truth matter anymore in nature photography?' has really surprised me with some of the answers they gave.
I love nature in all it's forms, I always have for as long as I can remember and I go out with my camera gear with the intention of either coming back with a specific type of image or images of things I have seen on a walk. Obviously I like to come back with pictures that are as perfect as I can get them but I don't go out to get material I can take home and use to create a digital masterpiece on my computer! To me, the image should be made in the camera and not the computer. I don't like the practice of adding sky or cloning missing wingtips on. It's one thing to tweek the levels and sharpness in Photoshop but removing and adding things to improve an image is quite often taken to extremes. I certainly don't agree with using captive or even dead animals to create an image and pass it off as being a wild animal going about it's usual business. Should we be trying to create a work of art or capture some of the wonders that nature provides in an artful way?
I would like to know your own thoughts on this and also, for anyone who has read the article mentioned above, your thoughts on the replies given.

Photography is a broad church and there is room for everyone to do what they want.

I agree that photography is a broad church Andrew but I believe that nature/wildlife photography is a way of recording nature as it happens, where it happens and not in the computer. I feel that too much emphasis is put on what can be done in Photoshop and not enough on understaning your subject and learning the craft of observation and stealth in the field. I have nothing but admiration for the things that can be done with today's digital imaging programes but it is the way in which they are sometimes used in nature photography that I dislike.

One thing i have noticed since moving to the States is that it is common practice to add and remove bits from an image-cleaning it up, They have a different style from Europeans as well prefering large in the frame images, I once put up an image of a bird in habitat and it was instantly cropped to how they liked it, Some pros out here also teach how to add wing tips etc but are open about it so it doesnt bother me, I have written a few times on my blog about being honest in your photography, I dont mind what you do to YOUR images as long as you tell people if you have cloned or cropped, Personally i think there is too much of it going on and its not a good sign for new people coming into photography to who will think its the standard thing to do

Dave

Hi Dave, I don't know if you are refering to Arthur Morris amongst others. I think that he produces some superb images but I have been surprised at just how much some of his origanal images change during processing on the computer with cloning out of background stuff and adding sky and wing tips. At least he calls it 'Birds As Art' which they are but he certainly wouldn't get the recognition he does with some of his untouched images. This is all a personal gripe but it is one I feel strongly about.

A sore subject for me right now having questioned the validity of a captive image elsewhere recently

I've not read the article in question, but this is an issue that is simply not going to go away and as I've been reminded of several times (and most recently by Steve K) and that is that PS etc., should be used as a tool and not a crutch !

Whether we like it or loathe it we should understand that it's here and it's here to stay.
Personally, what others are doing and how they're doing it doesn't interest me in the slightest, as long as I'm happy with my own submissions (and more importantly as long as the picture desks I submit images to are happy with my stuff) then others can do what they like.

I've had several images published which were seriously touched up by the photo desk, not to my liking, but I wasn't gonna start going off on one at the folk who pay me well regularly.

Andy is absolutely right - unfortunately if you want to sell your images, then you will be up against people that do at the very least clone stuff out. I doubt if you will see many images in any magazine on any subject that haven't been altered if it was required. Who's going to use a photograph of a national monument with litter in the shot or a wheelie bin next to it when the next guy can produce one without these distractions? Actually I have seen plenty of articles telling you how to do this in Outdoor Photographer!
It isn't just wildlife photography, that does this and maybe it isn't quiet photography any more - perhaps imaging is a better word. That, whether you or I like it or not is the world that we live in.
If you don't want to sell your images, then you have nothing to worry about - just plough your own furrow; but I'm not sure why you think that using one computer to produce an image is better than using another? Your camera produces fake images every time you stick a lens on the front to make the subject appear closer than it really was or to blur a background; or to give a field of view wider than you could see without it. Presumably you don't approve of using filters to adjust the sky? or to reduce reflections?
Please don't think I am having a go, I just get tired of hearing about it these days, because there is no answer and because everybody will draw their line in the sand in a different place, there never can be an answer. The rules are - whatever the person buying your pictures wants, they will get.

Thanks Eric. It is quite obvious that I have had the desired effect of stirring up the old 'can of worms'. Digital imaging is here to stay and will be around a lot longer than I will. I just hope that I can retain my integrity and honesty while getting out there doing what I like best, nature photogrpaphy.
Thanks to everyone who replied to this thread. Now let's look forward to a year of taking great images of the natural world, digitally enhanced or not.

Andy this isn't NEW just because of the development of Digital, 'retouching' as it was known, was used way back with transparencies and therefore any form of 'doctoring' isn't new in relation to images. In addition, as we all know, 'Wildlife' isn't the only area where this form of 'enhancement' is used, take fashion magazines for example.

Digital whether we like it or not it is hear to stay as John quite rightly states, however how do software developers know what photographers want when they make their upgrades or create new software like PS? Is it a 50/50 between the two. We all use the software, it's just to what degree do we take it to!

So far there have been some excellent and varied comments in reply to your post, but for me, could I leave with a heavily retouched image, NO. Therefore, for me it's down to the individual and their conscience, but also not forgetting the pressures that papers, magazines etc wanting that perfect picture put upon Photographers.

To conclude, I understand that I have collected another award for this year, you will be glad to hear all done 'in camera', but it was with a Digital camera.

Sorry, bit of a ramble, and I see Graham very kindly has used my phase.

Congrats on the award and thanks for the comments Stephen

Interesting topic.

I shoot a lot of film but I never photoshop any of my film images it seems wrong other than dust removal, I don't even crop. It will only make the image worse when I come to make a print of it in the darkroom.

But when shooting digital I will crop, remove annoying bits and add canvas because its considered the norm. I agree with you about the american websites, everything has to be cropped so that only the bird can be seen

I wonder what the future will bring in digital imagery, I bet 3D cameras will be here soon.....

I agree with you Andy. I will remove dust spots, crop for composition and alter levels but as I dont use photoshop am unable to add or subtract items. I was recently told about Steve Bloom's images being heavily photoshopped and was pointed to his famous chimp in the rain shot. Which when you look at it closely can see the rain has been replicated all over the image to such an extent that i doubt it was even taken in the rain. The animal itself doesn't seem to have a drop of rain on it. Also there are a couple of polar bear shots with exactly the same overlay of falling snow on both shots.

Whats cheating - removing a coke can in Photoshop or walking into the scene to remove it physically?

And if walking into the scene to remove it means standing on an incredibly delicate carpet of plants and damaging them, is it not better to remove it in Photoshop?

But then - if what you're wanting to show is the world as it really is, then the coke can should stay there. If you remove it surely your're portraying an untruth?

Yes its complicated!

As Eric W said:

"Please don't think I am having a go, I just get tired of hearing about it these days, because there is no answer and because everybody will draw their line in the sand in a different place, there never can be an answer."


SO you're one of the guys drawing all those bl**dy lines in the sand that I have to keep removing in Photoshop!

Bottom line.

Do what you want, all that is at stake is a reputation.

Go to far and you get publicly hanged, don't be seen to go far enough and publicly your a Luddite.

Akin to; Reputation = WMD, Photoshop = the British Government, Public = Fickle

Balance it, if possible, so you are happy with the outcome.

T

Hi

I posted some thoughts on this on my website in January:

Altered States (Cameras never lie, but a computer can)

- David

Hi David, I have read your blog and it echoes my sentiments exactly.