Wildlife Photography and Digital Manipulation

Can there be a balance between the two?<p>

 

Just recently I stumbled across an image of a King Fisher in the c-o

forum. The artist admitted to cropping the image and doing some

minor editing here and there (mostly brightening, from what I can

tell), and went on to essentially state that this was a form

of "cheating" in his/her field.<p>

 

It got me thinking... Personally I have nothing against any kind of

manipulation, digital or other, because as artists I feel that

photographers should be "allowed" to edit their work to whatever

extent produces the desired effect or "look". <p>

 

Yet it seems to me that certain forms of photography are more

accepting of manipulation than others. Wildlife photography in

particular, but certainly Photojournalism, Documentary, and others

forms aswell seem to have this intrinsic bias against manipulation

and the photographers that use it to their advantage.<p>

 

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... <p>

 

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

I think the answer is clear for journalism (don't do it) and for art (anything goes). Nature photography seems to suffer from profound confusion over which it is, which makes the question difficult to answer.

<p><i>How important is authenticity, and where does one draw the line?</i>

 

<p>Why, that's a personal choice, isn't it? Some people are very anal-obsessive about it, some are middle-of-the-road, some are easygoing about manipulation. There's no consensus.

For me the central issue is not so much about authenticity as about the inferences the photographer is inviting the viewer to draw. Where an image apparently depicts a real world reality, but is actually the product of image manipulation AND the viewer is invited to believe in that apparent reality, then a deception is taking place. The photographer is seeking to create a response from the viewer not by any quality of the image, but by their ability to successfully deceive.

 

Sometimes that can be amusing, or striking. But for that to be the case the viewer must finally be brought in on the trick, as, for example, when a photographer tricks the viewer as to scale or perspective but leaves some clue in the picture which the viewer eventually spots and is thus brought into a common understanding with the photographer on what the picture conveys.

 

But, in my view anyway, an image ceases to be of value where the value a viewer attributes to it depends on its being the accurate portrayal of a real world reality it appears to be, but it is in fact a fabrication.

 

Some areas of photography deal with things most of us have never seen. The two areas mentioned in the question: wildlife and news photography contain many examples of images which lie outside the experience of most viewers. Often those pictures stand entirely on the premise that they can be taken at face value: that if the viewer had been present they could have experienced something similar to the experience of viewing the picture. The viewer is being invited to believe that, if they can trust the photographer, they will understand something about the subject of those news or wildlife photos that they didn't before.

 

A somewhat tangential example: a few years ago the BBC produced a TV series about dinosaurs which became rather controversial. Clearly the pictures were fabricated. Nobody had any difficulty with that. The problem was that some people thought the programs were presented as though they were scientific fact. The viewer was invited to believe that they were seeing exactly how a particular kind of dinosuar walked, or ran, or hunted. Whereas in fact, of course, the programs displayed an impression of how those dinosaurs might have moved and behaved.

 

The problem was not with the pictures, themselves, or their 'truth' 'realism', 'authenticity' or anything like that, it was over whether or not the viewers were being deceived.

 

Where a photographer seeks deliberately to mislead a viewer with an image which depends on being taken at face value, then surely they lose some credibility?

 

Of course this is a very complex subject. I know one person's reality and truth don't stack up in the next person's eyes, but, at some level, there is the question of seeking to create a reaction to an image BECAUSE it actually existed, when in fact it didn't.

A photograph is by its inevitable factors - focus, depth of field, angle of view, format, perspective, distortion, lighting, exposure, colour balance, contrast, subject movement, the way the photographer's presence affects the subject, etc, etc - hardly ever a truthful rendition of anything, but even in its most unprocessed form already a coloured interpretation.<p>

When it comes to adjustments of colour, brightness, bringing out shadows, dampening highlights, that is not really image manipulation the way I see it, but rather further processing of the potential image that is the initial capture or negative.<p>

Hakon Soreide<br>

Bergen, Norway<br>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

Well, what exactly is manipulation? It seems that many people think that anything done digitally is 'manipulation'. If was done using traditional dark room techniques would they think the same? Hmmm. Even photojournalists manipulate thier images (if you use the strictist definition), by color correcting, cropping, setting a black/white point etc. How about cleaning up a shot that is dirty? Is that manipulation? In fact I can't think of a single photographer that doesn't manipulate thier photos in some small way-they may be out there, but I don't know them. Point is as long the image isn't out-right lying (like placing a presidential candidate in a photo when he wasn't there, or removing a person from a photo because it cluttered the scene), some manipulation is expected. And as long as your not making claims to be a photojournalist, who cares what you do to an photo? It's about the photo, and not how you made it. My conclusion is: no most manipulation is not cheating.

Making false claims about the image. Overrating one's own images. Just plain cheating to elevate an image. (all forms of cheating including manipulation of reviews of the image) That's were the line is easily drawn.

I have a picture of a Kookaburra taken on B&W infrared film.

 

They aren't really black and white, and they don't look all haloed like that in real life either.

 

Was I allowed to take this picture?

As stated, if it's "journalism" where one is faithfully representing the image as factual as possible then it matters.

 

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

 

The rest of the faithfulness of the image making process boils down to the insecurities of the image maker and the viewer.

 

This has been discussed in the past and the exampe which always came to the top was Ansel and his darkroom wizardry. If it's good enough for the f/64 gang then it's good enough for everybody else.

To me, image manipulation means the removal (or addition) of objects from (to) the photograph, and this I find generally unacceptable. Color adjustments, channel mixing, infrared, burning, dodging, these are a part of the toolkit of the print maker and these I do not consider manipulation.

"To me, image manipulation means the removal (or addition) of objects from (to) the photograph, and this I find generally unacceptable."

 

For me, living in an area where there are lots and lots of man made objects cluttering up the views, I have no trouble removing roads, utility poles, wires, cars, buildings, trash in the field or what ever if when I made the capture, I had plans on removing the junk out of the image, before I tripped the shutter. Besides, they weren't always there:)

 

Not everybody lives in "Paradise." :)

Ah. So as long as a PJ doesn't do anything with theit shot in PS, then they're OK, right? Now take a step back to when they actually tripped the shutter. You don'tthink for a minute that a good PJ would ever think about manipulating the original composition, including their use of lighting, subject matter and foreground/background considerations to make you see what they wanted you to see, would they? Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult idea to ponder. I can understand where some things can be very blurred, but this is a very easy subject of philosophy. At least it should be.

 

I see it like this. Let me state the facts as I see them.

 

1. Photography was used to capture a moment in time, to have it last, that single moment in time. Taking pictures of family, friends, your first automobile, your pet, that beautiful scene while on vacation.

 

2. We as photographers take this a step further, we try to take GOOD photos.

 

3. Artists create art, photographers create photos.

 

4. Photography as an artistic expression is ussually seen as composition, subject matter, proper exposure, capturing certain moments in time.

 

5. Art as a photographic expression is ussually seen as using a photograph as your canvas, modifying it, creating your version of what you want the viewer to see.

 

6. It all depends on the photo, the type of photography sometimes does designate a certain rule of thumb, code of ethics per say.

 

A couple things, I happen to live in Olympia, WA, with a great view of Mt. Rainier, however the perfect angle at which I catch the sunrise happens to allow for some rather large powerlines that span the length of the west coast of the north american continent to just protrude a little bit on the bottom left hand corner, it's barely noticable, esspecially because of the low lighting, infact I could get away with leaving it there. But it's such an easy fix I just clone it out.

 

That to me, is the limit, pretty close to the line. Borders on lazy, too lazy to walk somewhere else and get a better line of sight.

 

The line that I draw is when you change the colour, or hue, to get a desired affect that was not there originally. Or upping the saturation to an extent that is unreal, but could be interpreted as real to the veiwers eye. Or oversharpening a poorly taken photograph, and then blurring the background to create nice bokeh. Ok I'm ranting now lol. Bye.

"Reality is in the eye of the beholder."

 

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

 

Are you trying to say news agencies are biased in their reporting? LOL LOL LOL! I'm shocked! :)

IMHO, as a simple, rough answer (maybe too simple, but we've discussed this subject way too much), I would say that ARTifact is opposed to NATure.

Well, first of all, I can't imagine how "cropping" and adjusting the lighting to perhaps be more in tune with how the subject actually looked to the naked eye would be cheating. I have taken some shots of finches at my birdfeeder, and cropped out some resulting extraneous space because I had to leave room in the original shot for unexpected flight movement. The picture still shows the event as it actually occurred, but just not everything that was in the frame. How is that cheating?

 

To me, the only unacceptable manipulation is that that is done in an attempt to deceive the viewer into thinking something occurred that didn't, such as the famous example of the great-white shark jumping at the military helicopter. Saturing colors, adjusting lighting, burning and dodging, and cropping are done only to make the shot more pleasing to look at. And anyway, what camera or film records an image EXACTLY as it was seen by the photographer's eye? From what I've seen on this site, there aren't any. By the most strict definition, I suppose "black and white" would also be cheating. Not many would agree with that.

"And anyway, what camera or film records an image EXACTLY as it was seen by the photographer's eye?"

 

Crest fallen, he writes.

 

What?! We don't see naturally with Velvia, Cibachrome, Extachrome, telephoto, B&W,, glossy/matte, IR, or WA eyes w/ 8"X10" contact print acuity? :)

My standards that I have come to over time.

 

Photojournalism = Photo is a truthful rendition of the scene that you shot. One that you would back in a court of law. Here appropriate manipulations would be ones that make the scene more truthful ( levels, color correction, distortion correction, cropping .. all within reason ). But with my standard even an uncorrect shot could be inappropriate if the PoV or moment of capture does not truthfully show the scene ( like the police that looks like he is striking an unarmed and supressed person, but really it's just him reaching for something ).

 

Documentary = Photo is an accurate rendition. Slightly different from Photojournalism since I think there should be a little play here to "tell a story" as long as any changes are not dramatic and documented appropriatly.

 

All other phtotgraphy = Fair game as long as it's not intended to deceive.

We'll highlight the rediculousness of possibilities.

 

Let's see. If I set the camera on a tripod, walk intentionally into the FOV, rearrange stuff according to my whims, that's okay, but if I did the same exact thing in PSCS, then I'm being deceptive? :)

 

So if I sit in a chair and wait two weeks for a bird to fly by, I'm good to go but if I clone the same bird into the scene, I'm being deceptive?

 

Will my tummy know the difference between a salmon bought at a fish market/grocery store or one caught in the ocean? My tummy asked that question:)

 

In reality, when does it become a false reality? Are these words that I type (on my monitor, in memory, via the web to server, via server to web, to memory, to your screen) a form of a false reality because they exist only in cyberspace?

 

Wow! Sounds like an excellent excuse for a whole series of intentionally rearranged stuff, before tripping the shutter.

If I only crop, and then use PS to bring the light and color to where I recall it was that day and time, and my caption accurately states what it was and when and where it was, that's not cheating in any form.

Arranging things in the scene is also a no-no in nature photography. You know this of course, you're just trying to p*** off people. Nature photography is about showing things that exist in nature, preferably with as little human interference as possible (though humans like other animals are part of nature).

 

Yes, waiting for two weeks for a bird to fly by is precisely the spirit of nature photography! To observe and to document.

Thomas,

 

I think you missed my point. If your intent is to give the viewer beauty ( like the salmon analogy ) there is no intent to deceive if you stage your shot. If you stage the shot and then claim you saw bigfoot, then your intent was to deceive.

Ilkka

 

"Arranging things in the scene is also a no-no in nature photography. You know this of course, you're just trying to p*** off people."

 

Not at all. I'm an artist, not a nature photographer and this is a philosophy forum so poetic license is okay. As an artist I can go into nature and hang furniture from trees if I'm so inclined and that would be artistically legal. And as an old school, West Coast, nature photographer, one has always been allowed to hang a branch into the view to spiff up the image or remove trash, debris or whatever from your FOV.

 

Your rules aren't my rules:)

Eric

 

"If you stage the shot and then claim you saw bigfoot, then your intent was to deceive."

 

Okay, then I'll throw the shot of bigfoot catching salmon away:) Darn! But my tummy's not gonna be happy:)

I've said before that any photographer has just as much of a right to digitally manipulate a photo to the nth degree as any photographer has to rigidly oppose any manipulation of any kind in a hard-assed way, at least pertaining to their own work. All I ask is that they openly disclose any manipulation that they've done when they display their work in a forum where their photo is subject to scrutiny by a range of people whose views will not necessarily align with one particular group.

 

That allows every type of photographer to look at a photo without having other people's ethical precedents imposed upon them.