Dear All, I'm a new member of your esteemed forum for a week but I've not been able to work out how to post images. I've had to add a higher than usual res image to my website to do this. This is a trial posting of a picture so critique very welcome. Hope it arrives and you enjoy the change from bird portraits! (Still to work out how to use the silly faces things).
I hope you can welcome someone who may be a bit old fashioned! I'm quite new to digital and find your critiques interesting and respect quite a few of you already. I still very much use digital like I use slides, and still unsure about adding or subtracting objects (IMO, cloning something out is no different to pasting something in). I'm sure this must be boring to many of you to hear but I think that in the long term this 'fashion' of cloning / masking / oversaturating, etc, will turn wildlife photography into an illusion where nothing is true to life or at best questioned. For instance, I see many images admitedly taken in dull light yet the final image looks to be taken in full sun with the same colour balance as every other image. I don't think the final image is all that counts, but realism is. Hope I'm not alone and maybe I'll change my opinion with time?!! Should I paste a bigger bee into the photo or a predatory crab spider on top of the flower (if i can ever afford all the new computer gizmos and plug-ins that is). Crickey, just hope the image arrives now!
From one David to another welcome, I dont think the guys on this forum alter their images that much from the original, Cloning would only be done on a minimal amount,Take for instance your image above,which i might add is a beatifully executed nicley composed image but if it were mine would take out the small blue blob on the bottom edge which i find distracts from the overall beauty of the image,You would not be changing the image in anyway just enhancing it,Look forward to seeing more of your work,Im sure its been a while since a bee appeared on this forum and its a refreshing change
Hi David,
Welcome. My opinion on cloning is straight forward, if you're in the business of creating a picture then its OK, if you're in the business of making a scientific record then it's a no no.
I like your photo and agree with the tidying up suggested.
Hi David, welcome to the forum. It's a very pleasing image you are starting out with. My only change would be like the others said (the cloning bit)
You are making some valids points, I used to think much like you - but I think after guidance and inspiration from members here at NPN and UKNP I'm more into the grey area now. I think the final output should in general look like you remember the scene.
Posted by Peter Barritt on March 24, 2006 at 7:14 AM
welcome David and a beautiful first image. the points you make are valid. I came from Fuji Velvia territory which is of course the equivalent of boosting saturation and contrast well above perceived levels. It depends what you are taking photos for. If it is to encourage the general public to take an interest in the natural world which is threatened at every conceivable level then I don't have a problem with making the pictures as beautiful as possible. Photography as art justifies pointing our viewfinders at pristine-looking nature, avoiding vapour trails in the sky, electricity pylons etc. Indeed most of landscape photography is about taking nature in unusual circumstances...picking exceptional light that may last only a few minutes a month for example. I think most of us on the forum are keen to get the best possible image at the time it is taken. taking out the odd tiny distraction seems reasonable to me. Personally I am not a fan of photography that involves cloning in moons.
The use of artificial lighting in this picture has greatly improved matters, even giving the bee a nice catchlight! what flower is this?
Thanks for the quick input, phew, not sure I can take the pace! I'm off for the weekend now but should reply in case it looks rude not to. Regards to cloning the blue blob, is it not more ethical to crop the image? Re: photography as art or photography as education (or science). This is a grey area to me as well Helge, but I think we have a duty to show wildlife with realism rathar than let our prejudices of what looks pretty rule. Who agrees with Steve Bloom's images? Was it you Helge who did the stuffed owls? Very clever point - stuffed animals in a realistic setting. Is Tim ok with faking "wild" life to this extent to justify his art? Are the public bothered? We already live in world of fake wildlife documentaries, not to mention illusions created by politics and the media, so do we need to add to the illusion? And Peter, a clever comment at artificial lighting (although the catchlight is the sun - the flash was reflected from underneath to give detail under the flower). Point taken. The flower is borage. Thank you all. I hope to give you more fodder soon.
Hi David,
The debate over whether a photo is a better photo if it's been left as shot or re-touched is one that will never be concluded.........if found view is how you like it that's super, but if you're making a living from selling shots then you do what your market expects or wants.
I like your shot, and instead of cloning out the bloom at the base, just crop it........that way it is still found view.
John
Edit.......you beat me to the cropping suggestion, just as I was typing
Posted by David Kjaer on March 24, 2006 at 8:27 AM
Hi David
Welcome to the forum and I love your image. To enter the debate and I will keep it brief, I feel as long as you state how the image was achieved then anything goes and as John says if you do it professionally you often shoot and colour manage etc for certain markets. That said you should also remember that the eye sees far more than the camera at first appears to record for example we can see shadow detail and tone down highlights with our eyes, which film cannot. Now with digital we can compensate in these areas, so processed well I believe digital images are a more accurate way to record the natural world!
Just a quick welcome, as I am flying through at the moment, nice first image, will try to comment more later but agree with much of what you say, also agree with getting rid of the small bit of petal at the base..
Ah that old chestnut, do we clone it out, or crop it out, or for that matter remove it before we take the photo! Each has its merits and demerits. Each it advocates and adversaries; and in this new world of 'digital' nature photography a potential problem that proves (as always) that old adage wrong 'That the camera never lies'
We have, saturated, dodged, burned, cropped, masked, superimposed, double exposed since the advent of photography; the only thing that has changed is that we now do in daylight rather than darkness.
What remains important is that we do not present a false sense of reality to the public and do not misrepresent our subject - without generally notifying everybody that we have done so.
Captive or Wild anybody?
I would clone out the little intrusion of that small petal at the bottom, it would not constitute a misrepresentation of your intended subject or its environment IMHO.
Clone out the blue flower, and while you`re at it, clone the diagonal OOF grass stalk in the central background. They both detract from the aesthetics of the shot! Ultimately, photography is all about aesthetics: if you can`t create the ideal shot in situ, why not create it in computer?
Hello Gavid
Welcome to the forum. I like your first post, it makes a refreshing change too and will have us all reaching for the macro macro lenses for the belated springtime rush of insects.
Your dialogue has certainly encouraged a good deal of dicussion. All I would add is that I feel that images should reflect what was seen at the time, and a little improvement of the image is no big deal. After all, many of our images are contrived anyway, for instance by attracting birds to the area of the hide by putting out their favourite food.
Best wishes
Phil
Posted by Danny Green on March 24, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Hello Dave
Welcome to the forum, you said you would post an image and a cracking image to start of with. Regarding your questions I think the market is now more competetive than ever and
photographers that have to sell their images are under more pressure now to come up with perfect images on a regular basis. As the digital age advances photographers will be able to do more things to an image and it is really going to be a hard decision on that indivduals part to see whether he or she will follow that route, I also developed my photography using slide film but I have been bowled over by this digital revolution.
Good Points, keep them coming.
A pleasure to see an insect image and a fine one it is at that.
A very valid point you raise and an interesting discussion.
Personally I feel getting the image as good as possible 'in camera' is always preferable and to be strived for,however I don't see a problem cropping,selectivly adjusting or even cloning out minor imperfections.
Thanks for all your comments on the photo and topic. After a wild weekend catching up with mountaineering friends and learning of who climbed Everest, who's died, who's marriages have failed, who's had heart attacks, etc, it makes discussions about ethics a bit trivial. However, this link explains my views on manipulations:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
One comment I would make to Dave K and John M, is that the market doesn't demand any photo style - it merely takes what is on offer (another ILLUSION of our capitalist system is that markets are driven by demand - not always true). If manipulated photos are deemed prettier by editors who don't care (and most editors aren't photographers or naturalists) that is what becomes the fashion. We at grass roots determine the style and ethics. Did editors cry out for colour in the B&W days or demand Eric Hoskins cloned out those unsightly flash highlights in the bird's eyes? No. They took colour when photographers offered it, and the same goes for manipulated images.
I've surprisingly enjoyed all of the feedback and hope to provide more soon. However, I need to catch up on some sleep now!!!!
David, you're probably sleeping now, but I'll talk anyway;
Magazine photo editors tend to go round a circuit, some start life on wildlife mags and end up in fashion, and the opposite can be equally as true.
Whilst image manipulation was fairly uncommon in all spheres of photography until a few years ago, it started to make big inroads in the fashion world..a little blemish removed here, a slight mascarra smudge removed there, a beauty spot added, etc, etc...
When the photo editors from the fashion world started getting jobs in magazines that took wildlife images they were demanding the same type of things from their togs' photos, and if they never got it they would do it themselves. This is where my comment about the "market demanding them" comes from.
The manipulation started with the editors and has spilled over to the togs who are intent on giving the market what it wants. There are some (a lot) of editors who only want non manipulated files, but the vast majority now do not care in the slightest if you have removed a little distraction here and there, or added an attraction.
The world of photography has changed (for the better or worse, depending on where you stand) and with these changes in styles will come changes in attitudes and eventually it will all change around again...if selling images is your game, then you will need to change and bend with the times, or else watch your sales go to others who will change
Interesting times, but then again what times aren't interesting
Obviously I agree with your statement ... editors can only buy what's for sale.
However, if an object is desireable, it only takes one person (for whatever personal reasons - competitive? ) to produce it for sale and then the rest will follow suite or, potentially, sell less.
One would hope that as nature photographers we do not misrepresent our subject for to do so would be a folly.
It all depends on your view of misrepresentation and I am gald to say that the vast majority of the photographers on this forum would cringe at misrepresenting nature. They may however alter the raw result captured but there is nothing new in this either.
Manipulation, IMHO, is "sitting at a computer and synthesizing images from various bits and pieces of photos and other image resources, using one's imagination and lith masks, chemicals, drawing and painting skills, or software" and it also encompasses doing most things that you could NOT have reasonably done, in-situ, pre-shutter press - either manually or with some photo-kit, if if it could be acheived then we have just moved the time when we do it.
I agree with most of the 'rules' in the above link but the grey area is in the use of the clone tool.
Do you think that the cloning out of that small blue bud at the bottom of your photo would alter the photography so greatly to label it as a manipulation of the intend subject?
Responding to your question I want to first remind people that cloning isn’t the only issue I have. Of course your right and I agree that removing the blue blob is insignificant. But where is the line drawn? I've seen significant manipulations, even on this forum (please don't ask which). Wildlife photography will become poorer and photographers unnecessary if the industry is ruled by people like Jeremy (respondee above) who presumably have little ethics with personal preferences of pretty. If he becomes rich and clever enough he may produce vitual wildlife images without leaving the corner of his bedroom! IMO, we pros will all lose our income then.
Even though you think this is an old chestnut, I think this is now is the time to roast it.
I have roughy answered that ( w.r.t. me at least ) above but would be interested others views on how far is too far?
However, in the broader context, it is defined by the buyers of the mags influencing the print run number sold, which in turn can influences an editors tenuture. Given this, and it is prodominently Pros that submit editorial images (directly or via librarys), is the Pro brigade (bowing to commercial influence) not probably the biggest threat to the natural image? They have the motive and the most opportunity.
Ethics are a personal, transitory, thing which can be influenced by many external factors; to suggest that, on the basis that somebodies differ from yours, that they have little of them is, well, awkward. Ying and Yang and in the end the answer is always a balance - its a bit like the use of bolts
To finish, and reiterate, I would say that the vast majority of this forum don't manipulate their images. They do however probably clone out .... dust spots, some grass, a distracting highlight etc.
PS interesting topic, with expressed views that have changed over time, thanks for starting it.
Posted by David Kjaer on March 27, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Hi David
We could debate this subject for ever and a day but my views are simple - as long as the person who has produced the image is 'up front' as to how he achived it, then it is acceptable! I may not agree with it but I will always respect honest work. Where do I stand on what is acceptable for me, I agree with Tom 'as long as you don't misrepresent your subject' We all know that Steve Bloom is a master at 'digital manipulation' and although I do not own any of his books from the images I have seen he doesn't really misrepresent his subject matter. You may well say that shot is impossible but at the same time appreciate that it is an image that could have been glimpsed in the natural world. Indeed you could argue that images shot with a wide angle with a good DOF where you add the subject after, although impossible to take, actually are closer to what the human eye sees. To prove a point I gave a farmers wife a print I had taken of a Buzzard taken in a field outside her kitchen window. She had been watching it for weeks and when she saw my print she said 'that doesn't look real' she was referring to the soft OOF BG that as photographer we love but non photographers don't see!
I think we would all prefer to take the perfect image in the field, but I would not reject an image if I could improve it by removing say a blade of grass from in front of my subject. If you feel this is not acceptable that is fair enough I respect your views.
I do not agree with your comment that people like Jeremy have 'little ethics' just take the time to look at the images he has posted on the forum! Also did you not notice the at the end of his reply!
Re your comment 'another illusion of our capitalist system is that markets are driven by demand - not always true' whether you like it or not this is largely true and many very successful photographers shoot with this in mind. Yes we could change this if we all thought like you - but we all have different views which should be respected!
I cannot think of one image I have seen on this forum during the last year that has offended me, indeed many are very inspirational and I look forward to many more.
Discussion
21 repliesI hope you can welcome someone who may be a bit old fashioned! I'm quite new to digital and find your critiques interesting and respect quite a few of you already. I still very much use digital like I use slides, and still unsure about adding or subtracting objects (IMO, cloning something out is no different to pasting something in). I'm sure this must be boring to many of you to hear but I think that in the long term this 'fashion' of cloning / masking / oversaturating, etc, will turn wildlife photography into an illusion where nothing is true to life or at best questioned. For instance, I see many images admitedly taken in dull light yet the final image looks to be taken in full sun with the same colour balance as every other image. I don't think the final image is all that counts, but realism is. Hope I'm not alone and maybe I'll change my opinion with time?!! Should I paste a bigger bee into the photo or a predatory crab spider on top of the flower (if i can ever afford all the new computer gizmos and plug-ins that is). Crickey, just hope the image arrives now!
Canon 10D
1/1000 sec F5.6 0ev. 550EX @ -1.6ev. Reflector.
Sigma 105mm macro
A fine photo to start with. Good composition, with the bee perfectly positioned. Good timing there.
I wouldn't add a larger bee, or a crab spider. But I would clone out that little blue flower that's poking into the bottom of the frame
Regards,
Michael S
Welcome. My opinion on cloning is straight forward, if you're in the business of creating a picture then its OK, if you're in the business of making a scientific record then it's a no no.
I like your photo and agree with the tidying up suggested.
Tim
You are making some valids points, I used to think much like you - but I think after guidance and inspiration from members here at NPN and UKNP I'm more into the grey area now. I think the final output should in general look like you remember the scene.
The use of artificial
Thanks for the quick input, phew, not sure I can take the pace! I'm off for the weekend now but should reply in case it looks rude not to. Regards to cloning the blue blob, is it not more ethical to crop the image? Re: photography as art or photography as education (or science). This is a grey area to me as well Helge, but I think we have a duty to show wildlife with realism rathar than let our prejudices of what looks pretty rule. Who agrees with Steve Bloom's images? Was it you Helge who did the stuffed owls? Very clever point - stuffed animals in a realistic setting. Is Tim ok with faking "wild" life to this extent to justify his art? Are the public bothered? We already live in world of fake wildlife documentaries, not to mention illusions created by politics and the media, so do we need to add to the illusion? And Peter, a clever comment at artificial lighting (although the catchlight is the sun - the flash was reflected from underneath to give detail under the flower). Point taken. The flower is borage. Thank you all. I hope to give you more fodder soon.
David J Slater
Forest of Dean, UK
The debate over whether a photo is a better photo if it's been left as shot or re-touched is one that will never be concluded.........if found view is how you like it that's super, but if you're making a living from selling shots then you do what your market expects or wants.
I like your shot, and instead of cloning out the bloom at the base, just crop it........that way it is still found view.
John
Edit.......you beat me to the cropping suggestion, just as I was typing
Welcome to the forum and I love your image. To enter the debate and I will keep it brief, I feel as long as you state how the image was achieved then anything goes and as John says if you do it professionally you often shoot and colour manage etc for certain markets. That said you should also remember that the eye sees far more than the camera at first appears to record for example we can see shadow detail and tone down highlights with our eyes, which film cannot. Now with digital we can compensate in these areas, so processed well I believe digital images are a more accurate way to record the natural world!
David
We have, saturated, dodged, burned, cropped, masked, superimposed, double exposed since the advent of photography; the only thing that has changed is that we now do in daylight rather than darkness.
What remains important is that we do not present a false sense of reality to the public and do not misrepresent our subject - without generally notifying everybody that we have done so.
Captive or Wild anybody?
I would clone out the little intrusion of that small petal at the bottom, it would not constitute a misrepresentation of your intended subject or its environment IMHO.
By the way ...welcome
Welcome to the forum. I like your first post, it makes a refreshing change too and will have us all reaching for the macro macro lenses for the belated springtime rush of insects.
Your dialogue has certainly encouraged a good deal of dicussion. All I would add is that I feel that images should reflect what was seen at the time, and a little improvement of the image is no big deal. After all, many of our images are contrived anyway, for instance by attracting birds to the area of the hide by putting out their favourite food.
Best wishes
Phil
Welcome to the forum, you said you would post an image and a cracking image to start of with. Regarding your questions I think the market is now more competetive than ever and
photographers that have to sell their images are under more pressure now to come up with perfect images on a regular basis. As the digital age advances photographers will be able to do more things to an image and it is really going to be a hard decision on that indivduals part to see whether he or she will follow that route, I also developed my photography using slide film but I have been bowled over by this digital revolution.
Good Points, keep them coming.
Dan
A pleasure to see an insect image and a fine one it is at that.
A very valid point you raise and an interesting discussion.
Personally I feel getting the image as good as possible 'in camera' is always preferable and to be strived for,however I don't see a problem cropping,selectivly adjusting or even cloning out minor imperfections.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
One comment I would make to Dave K and John M, is that the market doesn't demand any photo style - it merely takes what is on offer (another ILLUSION of our capitalist system is that markets are driven by demand - not always true). If manipulated photos are deemed prettier by editors who don't care (and most editors aren't photographers or naturalists) that is what becomes the fashion. We at grass roots determine the style and ethics. Did editors cry out for colour in the B&W days or demand Eric Hoskins cloned out those unsightly flash highlights in the bird's eyes? No. They took colour when photographers offered it, and the same goes for manipulated images.
I've surprisingly enjoyed all of the feedback and hope to provide more soon. However, I need to catch up on some sleep now!!!!
David J Slayter
Forest of Dean, UK
Magazine photo editors tend to go round a circuit, some start life on wildlife mags and end up in fashion, and the opposite can be equally as true.
Whilst image manipulation was fairly uncommon in all spheres of photography until a few years ago, it started to make big inroads in the fashion world..a little blemish removed here, a slight mascarra smudge removed there, a beauty spot added, etc, etc...
When the photo editors from the fashion world started getting jobs in magazines that took wildlife images they were demanding the same type of things from their togs' photos, and if they never got it they would do it themselves. This is where my comment about the "market demanding them" comes from.
The manipulation started with the editors and has spilled over to the togs who are intent on giving the market what it wants. There are some (a lot) of editors who only want non manipulated files, but the vast majority now do not care in the slightest if you have removed a little distraction here and there, or added an attraction.
The world of photography has changed (for the better or worse, depending on where you stand) and with these changes in styles will come changes in attitudes and eventually it will all change around again...if selling images is your game, then you will need to change and bend with the times, or else watch your sales go to others who will change
Interesting times, but then again what times aren't interesting
John
Dave
Obviously I agree with your statement ... editors can only buy what's for sale.
However, if an object is desireable, it only takes one person (for whatever personal reasons - competitive? ) to produce it for sale and then the rest will follow suite or, potentially, sell less.
One would hope that as nature photographers we do not misrepresent our subject for to do so would be a folly.
It all depends on your view of misrepresentation and I am gald to say that the vast majority of the photographers on this forum would cringe at misrepresenting nature. They may however alter the raw result captured but there is nothing new in this either.
Manipulation, IMHO, is "sitting at a computer and synthesizing images from various bits and pieces of photos and other image resources, using one's imagination and lith masks, chemicals, drawing and painting skills, or software" and it also encompasses doing most things that you could NOT have reasonably done, in-situ, pre-shutter press - either manually or with some photo-kit, if if it could be acheived then we have just moved the time when we do it.
I agree with most of the 'rules' in the above link but the grey area is in the use of the clone tool.
Do you think that the cloning out of that small blue bud at the bottom of your photo would alter the photography so greatly to label it as a manipulation of the intend subject?
Responding to your question I want to first remind people that cloning isn’t the only issue I have. Of course your right and I agree that removing the blue blob is insignificant. But where is the line drawn? I've seen significant manipulations, even on this forum (please don't ask which). Wildlife photography will become poorer and photographers unnecessary if the industry is ruled by people like Jeremy (respondee above) who presumably have little ethics with personal preferences of pretty. If he becomes rich and clever enough he may produce vitual wildlife images without leaving the corner of his bedroom! IMO, we pros will all lose our income then.
Even though you think this is an old chestnut, I think this is now is the time to roast it.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
I have roughy answered that ( w.r.t. me at least ) above but would be interested others views on how far is too far?
However, in the broader context, it is defined by the buyers of the mags influencing the print run number sold, which in turn can influences an editors tenuture. Given this, and it is prodominently Pros that submit editorial images (directly or via librarys), is the Pro brigade (bowing to commercial influence) not probably the biggest threat to the natural image? They have the motive and the most opportunity.
Ethics are a personal, transitory, thing which can be influenced by many external factors; to suggest that, on the basis that somebodies differ from yours, that they have little of them is, well, awkward. Ying and Yang and in the end the answer is always a balance - its a bit like the use of bolts
To finish, and reiterate, I would say that the vast majority of this forum don't manipulate their images. They do however probably clone out .... dust spots, some grass, a distracting highlight etc.
PS interesting topic, with expressed views that have changed over time, thanks for starting it.
We could debate this subject for ever and a day but my views are simple - as long as the person who has produced the image is 'up front' as to how he achived it, then it is acceptable! I may not agree with it but I will always respect honest work. Where do I stand on what is acceptable for me, I agree with Tom 'as long as you don't misrepresent your subject' We all know that Steve Bloom is a master at 'digital manipulation' and although I do not own any of his books from the images I have seen he doesn't really misrepresent his subject matter. You may well say that shot is impossible but at the same time appreciate that it is an image that could have been glimpsed in the natural world. Indeed you could argue that images shot with a wide angle with a good DOF where you add the subject after, although impossible to take, actually are closer to what the human eye sees. To prove a point I gave a farmers wife a print I had taken of a Buzzard taken in a field outside her kitchen window. She had been watching it for weeks and when she saw my print she said 'that doesn't look real' she was referring to the soft OOF BG that as photographer we love but non photographers don't see!
I think we would all prefer to take the perfect image in the field, but I would not reject an image if I could improve it by removing say a blade of grass from in front of my subject. If you feel this is not acceptable that is fair enough I respect your views.
I do not agree with your comment that people like Jeremy have 'little ethics' just take the time to look at the images he has posted on the forum! Also did you not notice the
Re your comment 'another illusion of our capitalist system is that markets are driven by demand - not always true' whether you like it or not this is largely true and many very successful photographers shoot with this in mind. Yes we could change this if we all thought like you - but we all have different views which should be respected!
I cannot think of one image I have seen on this forum during the last year that has offended me, indeed many are very inspirational and I look forward to many more.
David