Scene Manipulation - Your Take

I'm sure all of us agree that nature photography should not involve any scene manipulation in order to otherwise improve the aesthetics of the photograph. To clarify, scene manipulation may include: moving rocks around in a foreground, arranging leaves on the ground or on top of a rock, breaking tree branches that are in the way of a good shot, or using artificial lighting (not a flash, but more like headlights).

I've seen a number of images from the Fallen Roof Ruin site with a varying degree of foreground rock distributions. Apparently, this does happen, where a few will move those rocks around to emphasize the scene. If you do a Google Image Search you can see this, especially near the leftmost room, where rocks appear to be propped up in different patterns. I guess the million dollar question is, is this acceptable? Why? Why not?

thanks!!!

I think from a artistic perspective this is completely acceptable! If you are doing the photography as a documentary then I would say it depends on the message you are trying to portray.

I have personally found leaves and arranged them to my own personal tastes; I have used headlights, strobes, flashes. I have moved grass and other objects around. However, I try not to break tree branches unless they are already dead and really in my way. I don't see a point in destroying something you can work around.

I have heard of several stories of people bringing in entire bags of leaves to the subway so they get the swirl effect they are looking for.

As far as the art of photography goes I think the only boundaries are what you the artist finds acceptable and limit yourself to. Am I recommending dragging a log or large rock out into Maroon Lake to get a unique composition? No not so much, but I am sure it has been done before. More importantly if you find it acceptable and are not destroying something in the process; have a ball!

I don't mind it for the most part. But I do remember having that talk with you about the ruins. I'm one of those who believes these places are a part of history and should remain as such. It's like going to some ruins in Greece and rearranging fallen collumns for a better composition.

Anything in an archaeological site should be left untouched, period. I, too, have clipped dead tree branches and rearranged a few leaves,but, generally leave things as I found them. Strobes, flashlights, ect are part of my equipment and I use them.
Joe Rogers

I am for moving fallen leaves, dead branches and natural rocks. However, breaking off living branches and leaves are not acceptable to me. What can I say, I'm a tree hugger I guess. I don't think harming a living thing for the sake of a photograph is really worth it. You should see me tiptoeing around in a field of flowers! Touching ruins is also a big no no in my book. It just takes one person moving the wrong stone to collapse a wall.

Not much to add that has not already been said. I don't often do this, but don't have any issues with photographers moving leaves around and such to get a clean comp. Only place I draw the line is when it comes to kill living things and messing with an archeological site.

My opinion on this is pretty much in line with what has been said above. I'm OK with carefully moving rocks, dead branches or fallen leaves. I often pull dead flowers, wilted stems or dry grasses out of the way of my summer wildflower images. I try to avoid pulling living branches or flowers: usually I can temporarily hold them out of the way of a composition (and use an off-camera shutter release or timer to take the photo) or I just find a different composition in these circumstances. One of the weirdest things I have ever seen was during a summer visit to Maroon Lake someone had taken a pair of scissors and cut the white tips off the top of several living fireweed flowers so that only the pink blooms were left. I'm guessing this was done by some particularly obsessive photographer since the grouping of flowers provided a nice complimentary foreground to the peaks of the Bells. However, I'm not sure why a person would cut the tops off because it made the flowers look pretty strange and unnatural-looking IMO.

Even though I personally think it's weird, I guess it's alright to bring your own leaves or other props as long as you take them back with you or they won't damage the environment if left at the scene. You better make sure no invasive species hitch a ride. I'm OK with using flash, artificial lights or other light sources for light painting as long as the use of it doesn't have averse effects on the natural environment and - in the case of campfires - is done in already designated areas. (Perhaps starting a bonfire under Delicate Arch might not be the best of ideas? )

I agree that items at archaeological sites like Native American ruins or ghost towns should not be moved by visitors. To use Chris' example, the compositional elements of Fallen Roof Ruin seem to move frequently (and not naturally) and it's not unrealistic to think that those responsible were likely photographers. That's pretty disheartening.

Great question - about all I'll do is move a fallen branch or a few dead leaves - no gardening, certainly no clipping of anything dead or alive. I have bent over a few mullein plants, invasive species that stick up above everything on the prairie. Moving rocks, or anything for that matter in an archeological site is completely reprehensible. It's simply not my job to "improve" nature; so I'll either move to another area or forego the shot. If I miss wildflower peak, so be it. I don't go off trail in the busy local open spaces either. There are some in the nature photo community that feel entitled or priviledged to do whatever it takes to make the image, whatever their personal motivations are. I'm in the other camp.

Ok, so I can kind of see my question being acted out on a Seinfeld episode, but here it is:

So say you stumble upon a scene that you suspect has been "staged," however you have never been to the place before and can't say for certain yes or no? Maybe you arrive at Fallen Roof Ruin and after looking around, you find a group of rocks that seem to compliment the scene almost too perfectly. Suspecting a possible staging, do you rearrange the rocks so that others who see your shot will not label you as a stager or think you tinkered with this site? I know this response will be different due to the archeological significance, but this past fall while hiking the subway, I came to the famous "crack" and found an arrangement of multicolored maple leaves that was almost too perfect to be natural. I had not seen anyone place these leaves and having never been to this spot, the colored leaves were all around me on the trees (so could have been natural), but I just couldn't determine a certain yes or no. So should I remove the leaves from the crack to make a more "natural" scene, or shoot the scene as I found it and hear the criticism from others who assumed I arranged the leaves? Is it my job as a photographer to undo another person's suspected staging to make my shot not look staged?


BTW-my formal stance is similar to that of others, not opposed to it as long as nothing is killed, hurt, or permanently altered in any other way, and locations of archeological or other significance absolutely out of the question.

Jared brings up an interesting point. Presumably you will come across a scene that has been manipulated, but that is how you see it, as is. While its not your job to undo a suspected staging effort, its up to your discretion. If that was the case and it was clearly evident, personally I would be hesitant to photograph it; the fact that something was defiled prior to my visit fouls the natural composition, and subsequently, my enjoyment of the scene.

This has turned into an intresting topic. I don't really see anything wrong with using what's readily available where you're shooting as long as you destage after you're done.I agree with everyone else as far as an archeological site goes, leave it as you found it. Now, for Jared's question, should we destage what someone else has staged? and by doing so do we now become a stager ourselves. I look at it this way. If nature can destage on her own, without to much trouble, what someone has staged. Then I might leave well enough alone.

I don't see anything wrong with moving a few leaves or small rocks in a stream, as nature would do so at some point anyways. Maybe a dead tree branch but not chopping on live trees. The archeological sites? They should not be disturbed, period. Just my 2 cents.

I'm sure all of us agree...

What in the world would lead you to believe that?!

Oh Todd!!!! You're chiming in NOW?!?!

I agree that archeological sites deserve our respect and should be left untouched, but I will pull dead grass or stems, or do minor housekeeping to improve my shots. Often I will just clone out distracting smaller items. If it's alive, I choose not to disturb it.

In response to Todd's point--I believe scene manipulation is not only acceptable, it is necessary to achieve optimal aasthetic results. If a chain saw or Bobcat is required to get the job done, so be it--we should not let a few trees or boulders stand in the way of a good shot!

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up

Raise you hand if you've ever been on a photo workshop and your GUIDE moved stuff around..