Wildlife Photography Ethics Discussion

While traveling recently, my mates sat in on a few critique sessions where it was suggested that the photographer should take a grizzly bear ear from another photo and replace the one on the existing photo. Other things included changing the hair color on the head so it stands out from the body, and more minor things such as cloning out grass from the bear's body. There was no mention of the importance of disclosure.

I have no doubt that these things could "improve" the image sometimes but that sort of manipulation is not what I want to see nor think about when I am viewing wildlife photos. This led me to thinking about the transgressions that occur too often in wildlife photography so I wrote the resulting blog post from it:

Wildlife Photography Ethics

There have been several interesting comments left on my blog post, and I got more on Facebook including this interesting Audobon article from Paul Marcellini:

Picture Perfect

Hi Richard,

I agree with you in terms of finding some practices distasteful, such as swapping out a bear's ear or replacing an entire background. However, I think that your assertion that those practices (and that even something simpler like cloning out a grass stem) are unethical (morally wrong) deserves a little more rigorous examination. I think we should start by making some finer distinctions. Some of the things you single out are certainly unethical. Others, I think, are more a matter of personal philosophy.

First, I would begin with the following as premises, which I think we can agree on:

1. It is unethical to misrepresent your work. Lying is morally wrong.
2. It is unethical to take actions that harm your subjects.

Notice that these don't have to do with what we do to the actual photographs though--they pertain to our actions while we are photographing and how we represent our final work.

After those premises, I think it becomes more fuzzy. The next important distinction begins with how you view nature photography. If you see nature photography as photojournalism, an unbiased and objective representation of things as they are, then cloning and altering is wrong. It would be the same as making up facts for a newspaper story.

However, if you see nature photography as an art, then I think that the application of ethics is largely misguided. It seems to me presumptuous to say that one school of art (that which clones and alters) is unethical or morally wrong. We don't describe Picasso's paintings as unethical since they didn't depict reality exactly as we see it. Instead, I think it is more appropriate to think in terms of personal philosophy.

Personally, my own philosophy of nature photography is still developing. I'm pretty new to this. I do minor cloning, but nothing that I feel changes the essence of the photo. But I don't think that people who do extensive cloning, or blend 3 exposures, or even photograph captive animals are doing anything unethical (as long as the first two caveats are met).

There isn't anything unethical with the manipulations of the grizzly bear image noted nor any other as long as photographers presents such work honestly up front to their public audience. For instance when one views an SUV automobile product advertisement billboard with bears in an idealic outdoor scene, anyone viewing such is quite aware that what they are looking at is likely a Frankenstein like creation manipulated by pro graphic artists. But the same base scene minus the cloned in SUV but with graphic manipulations presented as a fine art print to a public audience without explanation is another ethical situation. And that is where the real problem lies as the status quo of many photographers, particular professionals, media, and those instructing the current generation has been to not say anything about what they are creating. With the enormous rise of digital camera users in this decade, that has only lead to a free for all anything goes attitude. One face of that change is when on web forums, many members eagerly post advice on how to improve images by manipulation of base graphics. Even a few years ago such attitudes would have been marginally acceptable by peers on these same boards.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html

Brian - I think we are mostly on the same page. Perhaps I should reword my 2nd paragraph above but moving on to the 2nd part of your response - While how much you decide to clone (from dust to body parts) is a personal philosophy of course, I believe that the ease of which one can abuse this has the potential to cheapen photography in the eyes of the viewing public. The art in nature photography is capturing a real moment in the world. That is how most non-photographers view nature photography. Does the extensive use of the healing brush on a scene offer the same level of satisfaction to the photographer (and the viewers) as knowing you nailed the perfect shot?

Picasso doesn't apply to this situation because no one looks at his work and expects that they are viewing a representation of an actual event. Same goes for Playboy magazine. It's airbrushed. Everyone knows that. Nature photography on the other hand implies that it is about the real world so like it or not, it is should be held to different standard than other types of art.

David - I believe your point is about context. In that regard, I agree with you. In commercial photography, it is a free-for-all and that is to be expected. In a nature print / exhibition / etc... though things start to get dicey if one does the same things with the healing brush and doesn't reveal their methods as part of the presentation.

Playboy is airbrushed??? No way--say it aint so! And all this time i thought i was in love----you just ruined my day, Richard!

I feel it is necessary to chime in on this one. When out in the field, it is the environment, your knowledges, your equipment and the placement of the camera for the shot. Some of us have faster cameras and longer lenses than others, therefore have distinct advantages.
Once the photo is taken, it is taken. To replace the bear, or any part of it, or move a tree I believe improper, unethical. We to do the best we can do in the light we have and with the equipment we use.
I think even sharpening, after the photo is taken, comes into play in this discussion.
However, after all is said and argued, it is the individual phtographer that puts forth his/her photo.

Richard, I posted a slightly different perspective on your blog. No need to repeat it here. Let me know what you think.

This is a subject that requires scrutiny as more people become familiar with photo editing programs. As alluded to above, the ethical considerations revolve around the purpose of the photo. Certainly, if the photo is to be incorporated into a photography magazine, contest or scientific journal, the photo should be edited as little as possible. However, if the photographer wishes to alter it for his/her own enjoyment or wishes to present it as an artistic item, I see no problem with this type of alteration, provided that it is indicated as such. In fact, the addition of complementary colors and elimination of unwanted features by cloning or other means often serve to enhance the beauty of the creature, and draw others to appreciate it as well, thereby contributing to increased knowledge and appreciation of nature. Traditional photographers in the days of film altered their results by burning, dodging, use of lens and filters, etc.
My two cents worth
RGA

Like most issues in our world this one is not black and white. Shades of gray are everywhere. Fundamentally I agree that lying is wrong and clearly in a competition one must follow the rules to the letter in terms of the degree of image manipulation allowed. Outside of that type of venue I have trouble deciding what shade of gray I want to call white vs black. Clearly even sharpening is digital manipulation but virtually every digital camera capturing a jpeg image applies some proprietary mix of sharpening, contrast, etc. and to me that is still clearly white, not black. Cloning an errant twig to accentuate a beautiful bird pushes it a bit further but if someone wanted to buy one of my photos where I've done some "minor" ( oops, more shades of gray) cloning, I wouldn't feel morally bankrupt for not disclosing the alteration. That said, when in a group where it is understood that mentioning such manipulation is good etiquette (like our avian forum), I do so.

I have seen any number of fine art photography booths at art fairs where the images are clearly manipulated in ways that are obvious even to John Q public and there was no statement made to substantiate the obvious. I don't feel these people were misrepresenting their work. So If this is white then how about those where the manipulation wasn't so obvious? I don't know where to draw the line for black.

It leads me to wonder if, in the fine art photography world, we have evolved to the point where it's better to publicly certify which of your images have not be manipulated than it is to fully disclose whatever manipulations may have been perfomed. Of course that still leaves lots of room for disagreement as to what constitues manipulation (i.e. sharpening, dodging, burning, changing exposure, HDR, stitched panoramics, etc.).

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

OK, I'll play. IMHO, a bit of cloning to clean up the image in the way of stray branches or debris in the FG is fine with me and does not alter the essence of the image. Moving an ear from one image to another is more than I can accept as ethical unless disclosed. In the same vein a bit of color adjustment using the existing image and using the color mixer to me is OK as long as the intent is to render the image as a representation of the real animal.

I realize that very reasonable photographers have alternate opinions. However, that's what makes the world go around.

Richard, you're right, I think that we do mostly agree. I'll add though, that when you say:

While how much you decide to clone (from dust to body parts) is a personal philosophy of course, I believe that the ease of which one can abuse this has the potential to cheapen photography in the eyes of the viewing public.

I think that, for better or worse, we are closing the barn door when the cow is already out of the barn. If not for the general public, then it will be soon. I, for one, am no longer impressed or interested in any movie special effects however breathtaking, because I simply assume that they can do anything they want, using digitized effects and so on. Unfortunately, nature photography (or what is presented as such) may soon fall in the same category, and there's not much that we can do about it. (Though perhaps that (what we should do about it) is what we should be talking about, and in fact, is what you wanted to talk about in your original post. I'm sorry if I've turned this into a rehashed debate over whether or not you should clone, when my intent was only to parse out the notions of ethics vs personal philosophy.)

I don't usually join the "manipulation" discussion -- I think it has been "beaten to death" on the internet over the past few years. However, I am interested in one comment that seems to have been oft repeated in this thread. There are a number who say "its ok" as long as its disclosed. Certainly there are circumstances where that make sense (i.e., the Avian Forum). But otherwise, why? If its an artistic presentation, why does there have to be some form of "disclosure"?

And I guess, as a follow up, how?

I don't usually join the "manipulation" discussion -- I think it has been "beaten to death" on the internet over the past few years. However, I am interested in one comment that seems to have been oft repeated in this thread. There are a number who say "its ok" as long as its disclosed. Certainly there are circumstances where that make sense (i.e., the Avian Forum). But otherwise, why? If its an artistic presentation, why does there have to be some form of "disclosure"?

And I guess, as a follow up, how? If I hang a print in a store, gallery, or show it online, do I have a "disclosure sheet."

I am playing "devils advocate" here. I personally don't disclose what I did in post-processing unless there is a reason to do so.

I've yet to have a Big Mac that looks as thick as the one pictured on my way through the drive-thru.