Wildlife Photography and Digital Manipulation

Just an aside......

 

I remember one image I worked on for about a month in particular. Each time I returned to the computer, after getting the capture, I had to remove a nusance branch in Photoshop which had noticeably fallen across the stream bed. I had to redue the shot so many times because of lighting problems that I got very tired of the game which revolved around removing the same undesirable branch in Photoshop over and over and over again. The next time I returned to the creek bed, after tiring of the Photoshop game, to get the next set of exposures, I pulled a tree saw out and cut the stupid dead branch out of the way.LOL

 

I suppose I now need to hang myself, or at least, hang my head in photographic shame cause I cut a dead branch out of a creek bed that was in my photographic way? I don't think so:)

Are Mapplethorpe's images manipulated images?:)

 

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/flowers.html

 

Why do I ask? They didn't grow in that bottle now, did they:)

 

Did Edward manipulate his images? Pepper No. 30, 1930 sure didn't grow on that table.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/weston/weston_pepper_number30_full.html

 

What are his thoughts on manipulation.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/weston/weston_articles3.html

 

So then according to these thoughts of his, Stieglitz (Impressionism is skepticism; it puts what one casually notices above what one positively knows.) and Mapplethorpe (They could not do so with such an honest, direct, uncompromising medium without resorting to tricks,-diffusion of focus, manipulation of prints, or worse, recording of calculated expressions and postures.) were invalid all the while he finished his staged images in a darkroom with impunity:) How Ironic.

 

One day folks will emotionally mature to the point that they'll understand how the visceral reaction to the image is all that matters cause in the final, the naivete viewer is the final arbiter of the image capture process.

"If someone can kindly point out the difference between removing trash from a scene with their hand, personally, before the capture is made or doing the same in Photoshop, that would be very kind."

 

That is a simple one. If I take 5 minutes to remove distracting elements from the foreground of my shot and then take a series of 36 shots...none of them would have the trash in them that I cleaned up ahead of time. But, if I left the garbage in the scene and then took a series of shots...every one would have the garbage in them and would have to be 'removed' digitally.

You seem to have missed the point. Either which way, you've artificially removed the trash which was part of the scene which you've happened upon. How it was removed is irrelevant. There is no difference as the impact upon the final image is the same; trash removed.

 

Some see it and others don't.

 

"...every one would have the garbage in them and would have to be 'removed' digitally."

 

But yes, I do agree, if this is your point, in that it's easier to remove the trash from the scene, prior to making the capture:)

I think you're missing a point here. First, I don't consider that the art is in the photographer's "skill with the camera". Camera use is trivial. It is with the photographer's ability to find the subject and photograph it in an interesting moment, with good light etc. And could we return to the original topic of wildlife photography and manipulation? Many of the posts in this discussion have no relevance to it.

 

If you remove a branch in Photoshop, what do you replace the affected area of the image with? How do you know what was behind the branch, and that it is correctly rendered in the manipulated image?

 

I have never had an objection to merging two images to one to increase dynamic range, as long as there is no wind and the images match each other correctly. Unfortunately 99.9% of the people who do this don't have a clue about what they're doing and the results are of poor quality.

 

I value post-processing skills and practice them. The only thing I object about manipulation in wildlife photography is that manipualted images are represented as photographs in a context where the viewers expect actual reproductions of actual photographs without branches removed or birds added to the image to make it look more lively.

"I think you're missing a point here. First, I don't consider that the art is in the photographer's "skill with the camera". Camera use is trivial. It is with the photographer's ability to find the subject and photograph it in an interesting moment, with good light etc."

 

Okay. I think there's a bit more of a mix with technicals and artistic renderings but overall, we're on the same page with your above.

 

"And could we return to the original topic of wildlife photography and manipulation? Many of the posts in this discussion have no relevance to it."

 

Okay. Working with you:) "Wildlife Photography." "Got it."

 

"If you remove a branch in Photoshop, what do you replace the affected area of the image with? How do you know what was behind the branch, and that it is correctly rendered in the manipulated image?"

 

Aaaaaah, you're running with the ball on the above. Why? It's not rocket science to figure these things out. If it blends, isn't noticeable, then it doesn't matter what's on the other side unless one is anal and wants to make a fight out of it because this sort of behavior makes them feel good about themselves.

 

"I have never had an objection to merging two images to one to increase dynamic range, as long as there is no wind and the images match each other correctly. Unfortunately 99.9% of the people who do this don't have a clue about what they're doing and the results are of poor quality."

 

Well, that's back to the technicals or "skill with the camera" and the mix that I was speaking of. My assumption, for the purpose of the thread is that the person who I'm holding conversation with is reasonably skilled in these matters and isn't a neophyte.

 

"I value post-processing skills and practice them. The only thing I object about manipulation in wildlife photography is that manipulated images are represented as photographs in a context where the viewers expect actual reproductions of actual photographs without branches removed or birds added to the image to make it look more lively."

 

Since removing branches isn't a crime, even in a wilderness area, then it's an invalid contention. If you can remove trash, why not a dead branch or scene stealing twig? I could care less if someone wants to get the shot and take the time to remove a tree trunk in Photoshop. Removing distracting reflections, white signs, man installed utility poles and lines are, to me, fair game for Photoshop removal, chainsaws not allowed. I was trained to use touch up dyes and brushes on both negs and finished prints. Now adding birds, to me, that's a crime. I'd have to laugh at a person if they admitted to "adding" birds. That's like going to the fish store, buying a salmon and saying that you caught it on hook out at sea but a salmon jumping in the boat, now that counts:)

 

I think we're more on the same page then you realize. Part of the problem, if you want to call it that, is that I was taught to manipulate the image from the gate by those who were taught by Ansel and Edward's sons, so I was taught that it's okay to do these things as it's about the previsualization of the image and getting this image sucessfully to the dinner table for consumption. I was taught that it was a total process from the beginning to end. One who you might find interesting in this genre; Jerry Uelsmann.

 

http://www.uelsmann.net/flash.html

 

If it helps, I come from a different world, not one which lacks skill knowledge or awareness. As I wrote earlier, I come from a different time and place as this thread seems to be all about concerns in rules and the following of those rules and I don't see why this is so hard of a concept to grasp. As it is, I don't follow the foot steps of those who I learned from as I walk a path least traveled by others, my own:) I hope and expect you and the others here to do the same.

 

"How important is authenticity, and where does one draw the line?"

 

I think authenticity, with the exception of history, is nothing more then an anchor to keep one anchored in the material here and now but I do draw the line at putting stuff into the image that wasn't there; you can subtract it but you can't add it as adding it is the realm of the painter or graphic artist:) I'll leave you with yesterday's unmanipulated image.<div></div>

Just an aside, I will be digitally manipulating the above image for purpose of the final print. Many of the distracting background lights and other minor distractions will be removed.

 

To what extent I don't know as I find if too many background lights are removed, the 3-D quality of the image, because of psuedo purity of thought, goes flat.

 

In the meantime, because of this digital manipulation (air brushing), the image will become "closer" to the image I envisioned prior to act of tripping the shutter.

 

I think for me the original photographic vision is what's important not some inhibitive psycho restriction cause someone likes wearing handcuffs in their efforts to create an image.

 

To each their own. Adding? Bad. Subtracting distractions? Good.

 

You can see historically that this battle is not new as it goes back to the beginning of photographic time. The reason for the invention of the photographic process and the art world's reaction to Camera Obscura/Lucinda. Gustav Le Gray and "Brig on the Water." Matthew Brady rearranging Civil War battle dead. Steiglitz and his promotion of Impressionistic images and Edward Weston's contempt for these sorts of images. To some, it's about the process, to other's it's about the image. One needs to come to grips that neither is right or wrong as in the end it's all photography and you, the viewer, get to be the final arbiter.

<a href="http://www.wildlifephoto-presti.com/truth.htm">For sake of Truth</a><P>

Chained thinking.

 

What seems to be so difficult of a concept to grasp is, there's no correct answer as it's a matter of what are "your" aesthetics and who are the participants in the audience. Are your aesthetics that of the ruling junta or otherwise? Is Bach more valid then Punk? Is a cello more valid then a synthesizer? Are gymnastics more valid then cricket?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aesthetic

 

Have I become the last Hippie?

Sometimes you just have to stop agonizing, pontificating and proselytizing and actually have an opinion.

"Chained thinking."

 

That was an opinion:)

Is murder any worse than stealing or driving against red lights? Is it just a question of personal preference?

"Is murder any worse than stealing or driving against red lights?"

 

I love the revealing nature of these sorts of rhetorical questions.

Thomas, my point in the above comment is that you make value judgments, but not all choices of values are equally acceptable. It's not just up to the photographer, in all contexts.

"It's not just up to the photographer, in all contexts."

 

If you would be so kind as to expand on your above as "all contexts" is a might broad field to play in:) Commissioned efforts not counting only because the effort might represent the values of the commissioner as opposed to that of the commissionee.

As I sleep on these all consuming, most worldly of important questions, a thought came to mind as to how phony, in reality are people and in the simple are most of life's answers.

 

We dress for success when we don't have a dime in hopes of fooling those who control the dimes. Women get boob jobs and lipo today and nobody blinks as psuedo, manufactured beauty is all the rage. We manipulate the landscaping around our homes and in parks with paths and plantings so as to create any affect we find desirable and give people awards for this sort of behavior. Guys changes themselves into gals and gals dress like they're a guy and nobody is suppose to blink their eyes in notice. We tear down mountains to build the next skyscraper and in the end, some get twisted because some, not of their flock, chooses to clone some trash or wires out of a scene. Go figure.

 

Me thinks there's an excessive compulsive disorder in the wings waiting to be discovered. The point, me thinks this purist, you're not allowed to mess with the captured image, behavior is masking over deeper emotional problems.

 

"In your opinion should manipulation be considered a form of "cheating"; where you "trick" a viewer into believing in a false reality, or is manipulation more about enhancing and bringing out the best possible attributes in a photograph using the tools available to today's photographic artist..."

 

I'll go for door number two Matt.