pete_su Posted June 27, 1997 Share Posted June 27, 1997 I was riding my bike yesterday, and feeling really bad, so to get my mind off of what lousy shape I'm in, I had a few idle thoughts about pictures. <p> It occured to me that it would be pretty easy to use Photoshop in situations where one might use a ND Grad filter... take two exposures, one for shadow and one for highlights and compose them digitally. <p> I then wondered how the "ethics in nature photography" types (e.g. Galen Rowell) would react to this sort of manipulation. <p> Has anyone actually tried to do this? Can it work well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 27, 1997 Share Posted June 27, 1997 Sure you can do it. You can also use image manipulation to simulate a warming filter, or to turn Kodachrome into pseudo-Velvia by boosting color saturation. Given the resources (very high scanning resolution, lots and lots of RAM, high speed processor and lots of time and patience) you can do almost anything you want to. For 35mm it's practical, though I doubt that many large format users would go that route (imagine the file sizes for 8x10!). <p> Ethical? In the end, who really cares. If you like the results, it's fine. It's certainly the hard way to do it though, compared to a grad ND filter! Since you are not really altering the scene by adding or subtracting elements, and you are in fact simply compensating for the limitations of the film (just as the filter would), I can see no grounds for serious ethical objections - unless you take the stand that <em>any</em> digital manipulation at all is unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_baccus Posted June 27, 1997 Share Posted June 27, 1997 I'll second Bob, with the addition that the analogy is to burning in the sky in the darkroom while making a print. That's been acceptable forever. I don't see any reason why "burning in" via photoshop should be looked at any differently. This kind of post-manipulation, or the use of a ND graduated filter, compensates for the limitations of the media. One can argue that the result, then, in closer to "real". <p> To my mind, this is vastly different than, say, adding extra zebras to a shot to give the impression that a running herd made a frame-filling, attractive pattern (Art Wolfe, cover shot, "Migrations"). In this case, the scene never existed. The manipulation in this case is not to overcome the media's inability to properly capture the scene, but rather the lack of the scene in the first place. Ethical or not? Depends on how it's represented. When I first saw the Art Wolfe "Migrations" photos, in some photo magazine, it wasn't noted that they were montages. I was pretty bummed when I found out, because it took away a lot of the "gee, he's GOOD" feeling I got from first seeing photos of unbelievably aesthetic groupings of animals. If I'd known upfront they were constructions, I would've liked them better. <p> A lot of wildlife painters tend to put cutsey, humanoid faces on their animals and I'm sure many people unfamiliar with nature believe animals really look like that. But, it's wildlife art, not represented as being as close to real as possible (some wildlife artists do strive for absolute accuracy, of course). So, it's OK as long as we understand that. <p> Are the schematic illustrations in Peterson's field guides to the birds unethical? They're intentionally wrong, and yet they're there to help you indentify birds! (the innaccuracy involves suppressing minor detail and emphasizing important features, which makes perfect sense for a field guide). <p> This is far more than anyone wants to hear, I'm sure :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nes_suno Posted June 27, 1997 Share Posted June 27, 1997 <P>As far as I know, most noted landscape painters were no paragons of "ethics." Abstraction in painting allowed for photography to develop as its very own art form. Art doesn't progress unless someone breaks the "rules." <P>For that matter, portraitists such as John Singleton Copley often plopped subjects' heads on formulaic bodies. In Copley's case, he often painted a dress from one that he used for portraits versus some article of clothing from the subject's own wardrobe. He charged more for full-length portraits (feet and shoes showing) than a bust, or waist-high portrait. Whether or not he was right in doing so, his paintings hang in the best art museums in America. <P>Ansel Adams spent a hell of a lot of time dodging and burning in the darkroom to get just the right effect. As long as the artist is satisfied with his/her final result, the subject of ethics (concerning image manipulation) shouldn't be a controlling factor. <P>The basic act of photography itself, the capturing of light rays, is image manipulation defined. Focal lengths, depth of field, filtration, composition, flash usage, etc. all are chosen by the photographer in recording a particular scene at a particular time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_kolwicz Posted June 29, 1997 Share Posted June 29, 1997 As one of the previous posters said, it is not what you do, it ishow present it that determines the ethics of manipulation. Theethics here have to do with marketing your product - should retouchedor digitally altered images compete with reproductions of real scenesor actions in publication without an explanatory caption? That means,should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share?Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have aright or duty to warn readers of manipulated images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonty_debase Posted June 29, 1997 Share Posted June 29, 1997 Frank asked:"That means, should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share? Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have a right or duty to warn readers of manipulated images? " <p> Let's suppose we are talking fine dining instead of photography. Should a restaurant inform its patrons that it used imitation crab meat made from bottom fish instead of real crab in it's Crab Soufle' (sp?)??? Should they tell the patron that the turkey dinner is chopped,pressed turkey instead of freshly roasted turkey? And, for you vegitarians, should they state that the black berry cobler uses frozen berries instead of fresh berries? I think the answer is yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_thurber Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 When you buy an antique piece of furniture, how would you feel if you found out afterwards that it was a reproduction? Who cares how "artistic" the reproduction is? A reproduction is a FAKE, especially if you bought it thinking it was real. I suppose that one could admire the "artistry" of fakery, but would you rather, say, have a real Picasso or a fake? <p> In my opinion, and other will differ, image manipulation such as Art Wolfe's _Migrations_ and staged wildlife photography, such as Marty Stauffer's wildlife films, has discredited and devalued ALL nature photography in the public's eye. It may not be right, but that is the way things work. The public is not discriminating enough to look at the photo credits (if they are there) and say, "Hmmm, that is Arthur Morris and he does real photography" or, "Hmmm, that is Art Wolfe and he is an 'artist' so his work could could have been altered." <p> Nope, the public now thinks all nature photography is fake. And for good reason; these days almost all glossy canine or fox photos are staged in addition to many mammal shots. There is even some fakery in song bird photography (captive birds, etc.). <p> Instead of putting the time in, spending years in the field stalking wild animals, many nature photographers have opted for the quick profits and devalued the whole field. Thanks Art and Marty. <p> It may be too late, but legit nature photographers should insist on disclosure on the part of photographers. Art Wolfe is probably ruined; I will never have respect for him again, and I doubt the public will. I am sure that there are many in denial about this, but the fact remains that he will never enjoy the success he did before the public realized he was a nature faker. <p> It might still be possible for legit photographers to create a niche for themselves. Would you rather buy a calendar of birds photographed in the zoo or wild birds? Photos of wild animals in natural settings that have not been manipulated should sell better if they are marked as such. You might say it does not matter to you if the photos have been altered or staged, but it sure does to the public and NPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_su Posted June 30, 1997 Author Share Posted June 30, 1997 The discussion seems have veered away from my intended question (no surprise). <p> I don't think anyone disagrees that passing off heavily edited or retouched images as "real" somewhat less than noble. <p> My question was more along the lines of: if I digitally compose two photos of the same scene in order to more realistically portray the scene, is like using a filter, or is this like grafting Opra's head onto Kim Bassinger's legs? <p> I was also curious as to exactly how practical such a thing would be using today's technology, and if the result would be comparable (in quality, and in time, and energy required) to taking the same photo with a filter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_su Posted June 30, 1997 Author Share Posted June 30, 1997 I thought about things a bit more... and to veer off topic even more...it also seems to me that we are walking a pretty thin line when talking about <p> "wild setting" vs. "man made setting""real" vs. "manipulated" or "fake" <p> and so on. I have a hard time with people who try to convince me that there is much difference between the "natural world" and the "man made world". Is not man part of nature? <p> Also, no photograph is an objective portrayal "reality"... fancy post processing should be marked off as such, but I don't think we should delude ourselves into believing that we are recording the "real world"... what goes onto the film is a particular interpretation of the world at a particular time. Not more, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_thurber Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 > "wild setting" vs. "man made setting" > "real" vs. "manipulated" or "fake" > > and so on. I have a hard time with people who try to convince me that there is much difference between the "natural world" and the "man made world". Is not man part of nature? > <p> To me, there is a huge, huge difference between an river otter in, say, Baxter State Park, ME, and one in a zoo or a game farm. Which one would you rather see in a calendar? There is even more difference between a zebra on an African grassland and one that is digitally created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nes_suno Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 <P>Image processing and manipulation comes in a variety of styles. Certainly one can morph a couple of images, composite various elements together, restore damaged images, remove wires, smooth, sharpen, blur, colorize, brighten, etc. <P>Your average Hollywood blockbuster probably has over $50 million budgeted for special effects, a large part of which is computer graphics. The reason to do this with computers is that they are more efficient (especially when dealing with millions of images) than traditional manual image manipulation. <P>Second unit shoots a bunch of explosions, crashes, wrecks, demolitions, etc. just so the attractive stars (hair carefully styled, wardrobe painstakingly selected, of course) can be dropped into place at a later time. <P>Tom Hanks shakes President Kennedy's hand in a movie (image restoration, image aging, compositing). Dinosaurs walk in a field (computer animation, compositing). A pair of sportscasters sit at a desk with the playing field directly behind them (blue screen compositing, character generation, graphics). <P>Some people digitally manipulate images and do it very, very well because their jobs depend on it. Remember, the greatest counterfeiter in history, by definition, will never be caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_thurber Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 > <P>Your average Hollywood blockbuster probably has over $50 million budgeted for special effects, a large part of which is computer graphics. The reason to do this with computers is that they are more efficient (especially when dealing with millions of images) than traditional manual image manipulation. Ah, but that is Sci-Fi. When the public views "Nature Photography" they are expecting something "natural". That is why Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe, if not ruined, may have a tough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonty_debase Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 "Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe," <p> Can somebody please give us the details of what these people did and how it was discovered? Just the facts please, we can make our own judgements. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_atkins Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 To be fair, I don't think Art Wolfe ever tried to pass off his "digital creations" as actual, real representations of nature as he found it. However, the prevailing opinion seems to be that he should probably have pointed this out much more strongly than he did, plus keep a more watchful eye on how the images were presented outside his book (like on the cover of OP for example!). Certainly a casual observer could be forgiven for assuming they were "real" images. Most people would do so unless a explicit note told them otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nes_suno Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 <P>Frederick, <P>I'm aware that this is a nature photography forum and that "nature" is pretty much the subject matter. I just used Hollywood sci-fi to illustrate that the hardware and software to manipulate images exists. Even my woeful Photoshop skills would probably let me drop a polar bear into a Death Valley landscape or selectively change contrast for different parts of an image. <P>I probably could spend a few hours editing several images, compositing them together, and retouching the final image, but I don't. I admit that I lack the motivation to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_atkins Posted June 30, 1997 Share Posted June 30, 1997 To Anthony: <p> Check out the "Flash on animals" thread here for more on Marty Stouffer's problems. Art Wolfe digitally manipulated some images in his "Migrations" book, including the "cloning" of a Zebra into an image to make a better pattern. The book was really about patterns and multiple animal images. I believe there may have been a short disclaimer in the book about some images being manipulated. Outdoor Photographer ran a cover shot from the book - but they "forgot"(?) to include any disclaimer that it was a digitally constructed image. At least that's how I remember things went. I could be wrong. OP are strong on digital imaging, in fact I think they have a new magazine on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted July 1, 1997 Share Posted July 1, 1997 Here is a positive aspect of the modern age of digital manipulation. <p> We all know that most members of the human species love to look at pictures of animals doing unnatural, seemingly human things. Circus people have made their living for years by getting dogs and bears to ride bicycles, or getting seals to blow horns, etc. Advertisers love to use animals to hawk their products. <p> One of the advantages of dignital manipulation is that animals will actually be treated more kindly, since their primary purpose will be to model for the digital image, which will subsequently be manipulated into the silly poses that humans so desparately crave. The animals will no longer have to actually be trained to perform the absurd activities that are needed to entertain the masses, and this should be a heck of a lot easier on the animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_baccus Posted July 1, 1997 Share Posted July 1, 1997 We shouldn't mention Marty Stouffer and Art Wolfe in the same breath. Marty fakes damned near everything, as far as I can tell. <p> Art's book "Migrations" was a very early example of manipulated photography. The book did have a disclaimer. He didn't tell you WHICH images were "straight" and which had animals cloned digitally, but he did tell you that images in the book were digitally altered (you were free to assume ALL of them were, though this isn't true). <p> So far, OK. Discussion around that book has perhaps led to a consensus that the individual photos should've been labelled, but I don't think the nature photography community at large considered the book a big sin. New turf, inadequate (but not absent) labelling, minor controversy, all to be expected with emerging technology. <p> As Bob mentioned, OP ran the zebra photo, cropped vertical, as a cover shot, which is where I first saw it. No mention that it was manipulated at all. <p> However, photographers have no control over how their work is presented when sold to a magazine. I imagine that Art told them it was manipulated, and they decided not to mention it. Of course, if Art didn't tell them, he committed a very large sin, but I don't think this is true. <p> So, the ire in this case should be directed to OP. <p> When the "Migrations" book was turned into a calendar, the images which were manipulated were individually marked, and the calendar explained that various animals were "cloned" to match the photographers impression of pattern. At this point, to me, viewing the calendar became a game to find the duplicates, which I quite enjoyed. It's really obvious once you know, there was no effort to hide the fact. The clones are from animals within the scene, so you get repeats like in wallpaper. He could've made it impossible to tell by cloning animals from other photographs, but didn't, so this can't be labelled as an effort to fool people. <p> IMO, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_hester Posted July 1, 1997 Share Posted July 1, 1997 there are a great many things that a photographer can do to "distort" an image made on film. <p> - use a slow shutter speed to make a motion blur - use a filter - use a flash - have less than infinite depth of field - have the focus a little (ot a lot, i suppose) soft - make multiple exposeures on the same frame - under or over expose - use a focal length that doesn't give 1:1 subject to film ratio <p> all of these things make the picture different from the way it would have looked if you had been there looking with only your eyes. the idea that all of these methods are considered "real" photography while digital manipulation is considered "fake" is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted July 1, 1997 Share Posted July 1, 1997 The problem I have with digital manipulation is that a person doesn't even have to be a photographer to make an image. You can buy CD-Roms with thousands of images and do whatever you want with them---and call them your own. <p> As far as manipulated images in photo mags or books, I think it's reasonable to inform the readers that the shots are altered with a computer. <p> Burning and dodging in a darkroom takes much more skill and patience then tweaking a shot on a computer. True,it alters the original scene either way, but IMO the darkroom is more acceptable--if there can be such a thing. <p> It will be interesting to watch how prevelant this becomes in the future, and how soon regular photography becomes confined to a few purists who nobody really listens to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nes_suno Posted July 3, 1997 Share Posted July 3, 1997 <P>Jim, I beg to differ. <P>Computer-generated images can be just as difficult to synthesize as traditional photographics images. If you've ever tried Side Effects Software's PRISMS package, you'll agree that a good knowledge of calculus and physics is a nice knowledge base to work from. Darkroom work is difficult, but no more so than correctly handling oil paint, preparing traditional French cuisine, or playing the piano. <P>A decent 3D animator from a reputable art school can make $60-80K in his/her first job. Whether or not this imagery is quality work is debatable, but there are relatively few skilled animators compared with the number of job openings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_thurber Posted July 3, 1997 Share Posted July 3, 1997 It is interesting to note all the rationalizations of the photographers that would have us believe that digital manipulation of nature photos is OK [i suspect that all these people have already invested in the hardware / software]. We are free to rationalize all we want, but the general public is not going to put up with it. They want nature photography to be natural, adn that menas no digital manipulation. Period. As Sue Hubell says, "I am an analog person in a digital world." And so is most of the public; the last thing they want in a beautiful, natural scene are computer-generated ersatz images. Photographers that disguise digitally altered images as natural ones will be ruined when they are discovered. Even photographers who admit digital alteration will get in trouble, witness Art Wolfe. What I cannot understand is how we got in such a mess. If I was a pro taking unaltered, unstaged shots to make a living, I would be furious with the New Nature Fakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_su Posted July 3, 1997 Author Share Posted July 3, 1997 1. I have no vested interest in digital imaging. I don't even know how to use Photoshop for anything more than simple scans. <p> 2. The claim that "nature photographs must be 'natural'" seems to me to based on the flawed notion that photographs objectively record "reality" (the implication being that digital images are somehow "fake"), when in fact this has never and will never be the case. <p> In the public's eye, Ansel Adam's photos were some of the most "natural" ever... and yet they were in fact heavily manipulated using filtering and darkroom techniques. Does this make Adams a charlatan? <p> Find me a "natural" photo, and I'll be more willing to agree with your point of view. <p> 3. So, this gets back to my original question, what is the difference betweem using an ND grad filter, and using Photoshop to get *exactly* the same effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_thurber Posted July 3, 1997 Share Posted July 3, 1997 > 2. The claim that "nature photographs must be 'natural'" seems to me >to based on the flawed notion that photographs objectively record >"reality" (the implication being that digital images are somehow "fake"), >when in fact this has never and will never be the case. I am not saying it is right, but the public thinks there is a big difference. To them anything done in the darkroom or with filters is OK. Hey, how natural is Black and White film? But still this is considered OK by the public. Whether you like it or not, the public will always consider digital manipulation of nature photos taboo. Just ask Art Wolfe; I am sure he had some good rationalizations also. Another problem I have is that digital manipulation is too tempting; first the "photographer" might enhance the contrast, maybe that is OK, then the "photographer" might add a catchlight to a birds's eye, maybe that is not so good, then the photographer will be tempted to change the background, well..., and then he/she starts adding Zebras... <p> Remember that analog photos can be doctored also; but these photos don't do well as "nature" photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted July 3, 1997 Share Posted July 3, 1997 Frederick Thurber has a much higher view of the "public" than some of us. I don't want to rain on his parade, but my perception is that the public doesn't even know the difference between film and digital. You capture images using a camera with either one. The public wants to be entertained. Recall the Roman Empire's focus at the end on bread & circuses. I think that Western Civilization has finally "climbed" back to this level. The percentage of people who actually care about how an image was captured or created is quite small. Most have their mind on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now