Anyone concerned about Steve Bloom?

[neil_fitzgerald]

I think Mike D summed up my thoughts nicely. Heavy, UNDISCLOSED manipulation increases the growing divide between people and nature and reduces peoples trust in the integrity of nature photography. IMO that is very sad and dangerous.

Bloom has been using digital manipulation as a tool for a long time. Sometimes he is more open about it than other times. I think the penguin image is laughable.

[vivek iyer]

I think Kevin realises (after Mark's thoughtful comments) that it is his delivery of the question that caused the problem. The majority here is not for manipulated images, especially in Nature photography.

[photohiker35]

Nature: The world together with all living things and the objects and events that are NORMALLY part of it as distinguished from those that are ARTIFICIAL. Digital manipulation is artificial, therefore imho has no place in nature photography. Call me a purist or whatever you like, I will spend more time looking for the Natural image as opposed to taking a "snapshot" that I can manipulate and pass off on unsuspecting prospective buyers and viewers of those images as what was seen through the lens. Just as trailheads and trails become garbage dumps for those too lazy to carry out what they carry in, just as we have all become a bit too apathetic about what is going on with the environment and the irreversible damage done to it, many have become apathetic regarding the technology that sparks debates such as this. Digital technology, or should I say manipulation, has its place just as nature ( read the description ) photography has its place. Unfortunately the two have intertwined and formed a Frankenstien that many take for granted or are simply unaware exists

[w._thomas_manders]

Although I am not a photographer, more of a picture taker I do work in science and I have 2 voices on this subject.

1. If one is trying to report an event as factual then manipulation must be extemely limited. If one is trying to portray nature as it is then again manipulation must be extremely limited. Any manipulation should also be acknowledged.

2. If one is using photography as an art form one should be able to do as a painter does and use his interpretation of what one photographed but when one does this then be honest and state that the work is photographic art and manipulated to fit your perception of the actual photograph.

I believe that over the long term that failure to meet these criteria will leave the public much worse off and in a situation as not knowing what to believe therefore doubting the honesty of most everything, not good for society.

The ability of people to use programs like photoshop allows people that don't have some artistic skills to use others they may have to enjoy themselves and have fun. Both areas of photography as information and as art are important they just need to be used and labeled appropriately especially by people that consider themselves professional.

[robert_roaldi1]

Small point but I believe Dave Terry meant to write "corroboration" and not "collaboration".

[john_macpherson]

A small point, but I feel a relevant one, and one that often is missed in this kind of debate. In my opinion nature will always outdo human imagination and a computer. Captive situations may produce images but such situations often impose more restrictions than they confer freedoms (at least in so far as capturing utterly unique activity and interaction). You will see more truly astonishing and unrepeatable wildlife moments in the wild (the real wild) than in any controlled situation. Capturing those moments is the hard part! Which is why (as noted above) many amazing images are taken by 'amateurs'. For amateurs read 'people who were there at the right time and place and got it nailed'. What is sad is that sometimes those 'amazing' wild moments are the inspiration for the controlled shots that will proliferate in their wake. But I will still use digital, and even more as the technology improves, and this debate will run and run and run and.............

[tom_walker1]

In case some of you don't know, Kevin Schafer is an exceptional and gifted nature photographer. His images are won after hard work and effort. I can understand why he feels so much frustration. A friend of mine has digitized images of nature that are absurd but yet are passed as genuine. Two examples: a male bear with two cloned-in cubs, supposedly a family. And two adults polar bears with six cubs, another family. A lot of us frind this frustrating. Too bad Keven mentioned a name but I appreciate his view.

 

TW

[mark_woodcoff]

<p>There is nothing wrong with using photo shop or any other software to enhance or embellish an image. every photograph has been improved or manipulated in some way. with traditional film it was subjected to chemical processing. The choice of developer or toner or use of filters on the camera or in the darkroom. I know because i was one of those who did it, as a professional darkroom tech. even most digital imaged are interpt. by the camera itself. You could shoot in "raw format" but even that is manipulated somewhat in the equipment. Plus Raw images require post processing. The ART of photography is like any other art it is art because it is an artists concept of what the artist saw. Everyone sees differently. Seeing is 90% in the mind. Your eyes are a low definition optical system. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The notion that a photograph can portray something equal to the original reality of the subject is a myth. This is not news to those who are familiar with the history of photography or with philosophical musings about the medium. The process of determining what to include and what to leave out, deciding when to click the shutter, selecting the time of day or season of year to make the exposure, chosing whether to shoot black and white (which isn't remotely real!) or color, using filters on the camera, using filters in post - whether chemical or digital, using shifts and swings, controlling DOF with aperture selection, choosing what paper to print on, selecting one frame over another, choosing how to verbally explain the image, dodging and burning, choosing methods of developing film for their effect on the image, shooting Velvia (!), attaching a polarizing filter, adding a hood to control flare, using flare as part of the image, brushing that bug off the leaf, adding a bug to the leaf, waiting for the bug to land/fly away, picking the prettier bird out of the flock rather than the other one with the bent wing, choosing to point your camera in the direction that excludes the power line or the buildings, shooting with very short focal lengths, shooting with very long focal lengths, and on and on and on and on...</p>

<p>It is impossible for a photograph to be an analog of "reality." At best it can suggest something that the photographer saw or felt in that reality. It can evoke a memory, an association, or an imagination in the viewer. It cannot portray objective components of the "reality" of the subject such as the cool breeze on your face, the smell of pine trees, the moisture in the air, your sore feet from the long walk, the warmth of sun on the back of your neck, the sound of birds and wind - all of which are components of the "reality" we experience in the presence of the actual subject.</p>

<p>And I really don't care. If the only thing that I thought photography could do was "capture" an objectively accurate rendition of reality I wouldn't bother to make photographs - which would always fail to equal the experience of that original reality. I'd get rid of may camera and just go experience it.</p>

<p>But that isn't what photography does, and it would be far less than photography can do. One of the most interesting and humane things it does is it offers us a view into the mind and world of the <em>person</em> of the photographer. Frankly, in the end I'm far more interested in what the photograph tells me about the person who made the image, and perhaps about myself, than I am in the extent to which the photograph pretends that it can stand in for the real.</p>

<p>Imagining that <em>the</em> purpose of photography is merely to "capture" the real, thus creating a sort of second-best shadow image of the real, is simplistic and naive. It is also nearly completely contrary to the history and development of the craft and art of photography. It is essentially impossible to find photographs that are totally "pure" - whatever that even means.</p>

<p>And when I view a great and powerful photograph, virtually the last thing I ask myself is, "is this a real thing?" I think about the effect it has on me, what it tells me or suggests to me about the world, its pure aesthetic power as an image, its intrinsic beauty, the associations I draw between it and my experience.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>It only bothers me when people lie about it. If one would call their heavily manipulated work 'photo art' people would understand that no, this shot was not possible and he/she did it artistically. But then, again, how would they become famous if the average Joe wouldn't be so impressed? ! ;)<br>

Some photo art is still impressive to me, but I don't trust people who lie. In this photography world, I have come across quite a few people who think little white lies are perfectly acceptable, it's in their personality. Unfortunately average people have no clue the photo is a mock up so it works in the industry.</p>

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>Many years ago - about '96 I think - some pandas were on loan to the Los Angeles zoo. I happen to visit the zoo during this time. At the panda exhibit there was a 12' tall ladder with a huge camera and lens mounted upon it as well as a video camera. The photographer sat next to the ladder in a chair under an umbrella, in his hand was the remote shutter trigger. I looked over his setup and told him I am an amateur photographer and asked politely if he'd mind explaining to me his set-up. He was cool about it and told me this; The pandas sleep nearly all day long. Only a couple times a day they wake up, open their eyes, reposition, then go back to sleep. So to get an "action" photo/video he sets up his still camera for a wide portrait frame and the video camera on motion activation which will cause it to beep when it starts to record. Then the photographer takes a seat to read a book. When the panda wakes up and yawns (or blinks or whatever) the video camera starts recording and the 'beep' tells the photographer to start pulling on the remote shutter release. What does the public get to see in advertising the visiting panda? The poster will show an alert panda looking into the camera as if posing. On the TV commercials there will be a couple seconds of motion cleverly cut in to imply the rolly-polly panda is frolicking around its pen. I must have wasted 30 minutes watching that panda sleep - it never moved!</p>