Virtual Wilderness

[till_kuehner]

What is so natural about a photo? You change the depth of field by

changing the aperture of your lense. This has nothing to do with the

way you would see with your bare eye. Take a picture of a humming bird

at 1/1000s. The resulting photo is quite different from what you saw

through your viewfinder. Similar arguments hold for very long or short

lenses. Not to mention the use of filters. Or flash.

You want to take a photo and some blades of grass are in the way -

what's the difference between bending them away and removing them

digitally on the finished photo?

A photo is never just what you saw. I cannot see the difference

between changing certain things by using different lenses or filters,

and changing similar things by using a computer.

 

For wildlife photos it depends on how they are used. If the photo is

fake (digitally altered) and someone puts it on his wall because he

likes it, there is no problem. But if some magazine takes digitally

altered photos of animals in context with an article that does not

mention that the pictures are faked, it is a problem. But there have

been many such examples that were done without digital imaging. Taking

photos of trained animals without labeling the photo such is one

example.

 

<p>

 

A photo has a an art component, where the photographer takes a photo

(or modifies it later) in a special way to create a certain impression

on the viewer.

For some types of photography this is what it is all about, but for

nature photography the documentary aspect is most important. If the

documentary content is altered, it might be a better photo from an

arts perspective, but it completely lost its value as a nature photo.

[till_kuehner]

P.S.

I am not using a computer to alter my photos, but if I was, I wouldn't

be very happy about being called a geek or four-eyed computer freak.

 

<p>

 

If you just suffer from computer-phobia, don't blame it on others. It

actually is YOUR problem!

[howard_creech1]

Accusing someone of being afraid of the computer really isn't much

different than calling them a four eyed computer geek now is it?

[drc]

Rich, the majority of hunting magazines for years have been stocked with photos of huge monster rentabucks, and believe me, the editors are sick of em, they want quality photos of wild (freeranging) deer, period. Some editors will only buy deer pictures from my files as a last resort because they feel the location i photograph them in is'nt "wild enough", yet the deer are free to leave their sanctuary(and move through hunting areas) any time they want. The point is, if these buyers are picky about the degree of wildness of their photo subjects, then they're never going to look at digital composites to grace the covers etc of their publications. And once the general public become educated or streetwise(and it might take a while), they,ll demand the good stuff, WILD SILVERHALIDE!

[robert_repp]

I've been taking photos of nature since I got a Nikkormat for graduation in 1967. I've always shot slides because I seeing the slide show years after the photos were taken. I have some great memories from over the years , all the better because I can view my slides. There are some great photos amongest the bunches but I've never tried to make any money from them. I do wish I had realized the potential from my earliest days as I visited most all of the so called hot spots of the great West. I really wish the interest in photography had'nt grown so over the years caus it really getting crowded out there. I think this digital thing is just one more result of the money to be made by getting everyone interested in as many different angles as possible.

[pete_dickson1]

I started a thread in a similar vein a while ago. Search "wistful" in

this forum and you'll find it. The only reason I'm chiming in again

is because I was recently fooled by the cover of "The Sierra Club

Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature," by Mr. Fitzharris. I

thought the cover was a photograph of a wonderful situation found in

nature. I learned later (in a Popular Photography article) that it is

a digital composite. I've never seen the book, so I don't know if

it's revealed that the cover is not a photograph, but I've seen the

image in several places and was mislead by my own naivete. All I can

do is sigh because counterfeits dilute the value of the genuine

article. I can no longer admire wonderful nature images and wish I

was there, because there may very well be no such THERE.

[stanley_mcmanus]

In the long run it is the Painters who need to fear digital imaging

the most. A creation of a pure or nearly pure digital image using

digital drawing tools is much nearer to what a painter does that what

a photographer does. But will a digital drawing really replace a

painting that has that wonderful 3D texture that is produced by paint?

I doubt it. So I guess that not even the painters need to fear

digital after all. Unless they pretend that digital drawins are the

same as a real painting. That makes as much sense as pretending that a

digital image is the same as a photograph.

[stanley_mcmanus]

One more thought. If the upcoming "glorious digital revolution"

(quoated from our beloved Mr. Greenspun) reduces the need for these

folks to be out taking pictures, then that will mean a much less

crowded environment for the rest of us. GREAT!

[robd]

What I don't understand is why many people seem to think that digital

imaging and traditional photography can't both exist. I enjoy doing

both. They are 2 separate things. Why do you "fear digital imaging"

(to borrow Stanley's phase) and believe anyone who scans pictures

into a computer and manipulates them is in some way bad or phony? I

have said here before that trying to pass of a digital composite as a

"I was there, this is how it was" photograph is wrong. But to

generalize all of us who do digital work as dishonest and trying to

kill photography is also wrong.

 

<p>

 

Take the tools and use them to your advantage. Take them to whatever

level you see appropriate. (Foundview recognizes digital color

correction etc. And let those who want to take it further do so. Like

Bob said in his original post "There's no way you'll ever take images

like these". So why not create them some other way. Digital is here.

 

<p>

 

God Bless

 

<p>

 

Let's all get along.

[steve_fletcher]

Those of us who are disgusted by digital data manipulation in the nature photography field are not merely computer phobes. There is a corruption going on here as this new technology gets itself sorted out. As many have said, it will get sorted out, but in the meantime there will be problems. A case can be made that digital manipulation and imaging are really a kind of painting/drawing. That by itself is harmless, but the problem lies in the fact that, perhaps for the first time, we have a medium that specifically mimicks other media, actually passes itself of as them, and this confuses me.

 

<p>

 

Some people enjoy taking photographic prints and coloring them with ink by hand. I feel that pursuit is dull and useless myself, but at least the results of such work are clearly identifiable for what they are. Similarly, when I produce a document on a word processor, it will never be confused with a hand-written note (which is becoming highly prized these days as a rare indication of personal committment). Now, we all know that digital imaging or alteration produces a fundamentally different end product than photography (which despite the protests of someone above, does not significantly alter the data being recorded no matter what lenses you use, only the method of recording is altered -- we're not necessarily trying to reproduce the scene our eye saw, rather we want to show the reality of nature). The problem is, digital stuff sometimes tries purposfully to fool us the way printing machines produce fake hand writing and signatures on ad copy we get in the mail, to make us think we got a letter signed personally by the company president. Same kind of fakery, in my view.

 

<p>

 

Eventually they'll be able to fake signatures so well they will appear genuine, but we'll know they aren't from context (why would the company president be sending me mail!??). But, with digital images, context can be harder to establish, so spotting fakes is a real worry. Bottom line -- don't be fooled into thinking digital imaging and photography are related. They are not, but for various irritating reasons, one of them pretends to be the other.

[jeff_hallett1]

As an additional thought, my greatest fear is that this digital mania

may eventually lead to a photomarketing revolution in that we may

only see digital products sold and advertised. No 35 film or 35mm

products available except on the used market where collectors/purists

will gobble these remaining items up. I am not saying that this will

happen but think about if it did!! This country is very fickle and has

the marketing strategy and technology to change the face of

photography. Whatever becomes the most popular and in demand will

dominate the market.The least so....discontinued, maybe forever.

[jeremiah_boucher]

In reference to the cover of Fitzharris' book, on page 101 of the text he describes how he "scanned on a Polaroid desktop scanner and then combined to form a single image". Virtual wilderness images aside, I think the book is a useful look at close up photography and how to use various lenses/exentsions/teleconverters/flashes and even bellows. Especially for canon junkies. Anybody think that if you spent a day, or week, or month (maybe even from a blind) watching a lily covered, frog infested pond, you would happen across the photo op...only to miss it because the frog disappeared before you could compose and focus? Obviously this does not apply to all phony pictures, but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

[bobatkins]

Yes you do. You draw it at faking an image, even if you admit to

it (on page 101...). I'm certain that Tim Fitzharris has many, many

REAL images good enough to be book covers!

<p>

<em>Note: this and the previous post are in reference to "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up

Photography in Nature", not to "Virtual Wilderness"</em>

[howard_creech1]

For those of us to whom photography is a passion, an artistic outlet,

and sometimes a way to make a little money too, digital imaging

conjurs up a new sort of political correctness...if we are

uninterested, unwilling, or don't wish to take the time away from

what we really love to participate in the "digital revolution" we are

Computer phobes. If we feel that labeling images that owe more to the

computer than they do to the camera as photographs is dishonest, then

we are dinosaurs, who refuse to get with it. If we point out that in

camera and darkroom manipulations are vastly different than Photoshop

manipulations/creations then we are argumentative. The basic truth

here is that computer generated/enhanced/manipulated images are not

photographs...they may have started as photographs (which is where

some of the very convenient confusion is created) but once they go

into the computer and emerge as something entirely different than

when they went in, they are no longer a photograph. Photography

consists simply of making images on light sensitive

material....anyway that you can do that is a photograph....making

images with electronic pulses is not, cannot be, and will never be

photography. It isn't just nature photography either, we need to

support our brothers and sisters in art photography and

photojournalism, and any other area of photography, we are all under

attack. Why do you think there is such a tremendous argument here?

It is simply because the digital imagers wish to coopt

photography...why pay dues and do the work to create your own

acceptance, when someone else has already spent 150 years doing it

for you. Digital imaging is no more photography than digital drawing

is painting...If you do digital imaging, have the courage and faith

in your craft to call it what it is....quit trading on the blood,

sweat, and tears of another art form...One final word...would anybody

respect the work of Robert Capa now if he had gone to Omaha Beach

with a laptop rather than a Leica?

[matthew_francey]

There is exactly one question: Is the image being offered as

documentary evidence that some event took place?

 

<p>

 

If the answer is "yes", and the image was manufactured (by any means,

be it analog or digital), then the photographer has done a Bad Thing

and should be Punished.

 

<p>

 

If the answer is "no", then who the bloody heck gives a flyin'

bleepity bleep how the image came to be?

 

<p>

 

It would appear that the book in question was upfront about the source

of the images; Fitzharris would (and probably did) answer "no" to the

above question.

 

<p>

 

So here we have a photographer/illustrator being honest with his work

-- perhaps even more honest than a typical analog photographer -- and

yet photo.net regulars are popping gaskets. Reading some of the

vitriol above ("dishonest" digital photographers, current digital

photography a "corruption", etc), one could almost believe Fitzharris

had stamped a FoundView logo on his book or something...

 

<p>

 

This leaves me <b>really wondering</b>: what is the <i>real</i>

problem here?

[glen_johnson]

Tim certainly is a credible nature photographer. I think he must have more than 20 books, and more than 30 calendars to his credit. If you would like to see some of his work wiithout springing for a book, he has some contributions in the issue of Nature's Best that just arrived in my mail this week. Incidentally, this is another great issue. Hardly any advertisements. A lot of great photographs.

 

<p>

 

Frankly, I admire the fact that Tim is continuing to grow by pushing beyond what he has clearly already mastered.

[bobatkins]

I don't think any criticism of Tim Fitzharris himself was implicit in

my

question. It's the use of digital composition images which is in

question. For example, another participant in this thread pointed out

that the cover of his macro book (which I assume contained real macro

shots, not digital composits), was, in fact, a digital composition!

Now

it seems this fact was revealed on page 101, but still you wonder why

a real image wasn't chosen for such a book. It's the acceptance of

such images as valid for nature work that's the potential problem.

Today you mention it on page 101. Maybe tomorrow you don't mention it

at all. If you want an art book, maybe you don't care. If you want a

nature photography book, I hope you do. Otherwise you might as well

buy a book of nature paintings.

 

<p>

 

With nature photography (as opposed to art), it's NOT the image

on the page that's the "product". It's the real (not

realistic!) representation of nature

that gives it its value, not the way the ink drops are arranged on

the paper (which IS what art is about).

[lloyd_nakatani]

Comparing fishing to photography may tell us what the future holds.

Pixography (my word for digitally created images starting from actual

photographs) is comparable to commercial fishing. In both, the goal

is the product. I think pixography will come to dominate "arty"

nature photography with no journalistic content. Conventional nature

photography is comparable to fishing as a hobby. In both, much of the

satisfaction is gained from the process, although a good product is

appreciated. Nature photographs will continue to sell for its

journalistic content primarily; aesthetics will be important but

secondary. Fantastic pictures of places that actually exist, and

interesting pictures of wildlife engaged in revealing behavior will

continue to sell, but the market for merely pretty pictures will be

taken over by pixography. Both will continue to exist to for

different reasons and selling into different markets. Most of the

readers of this forum won't be attracted to pixography, just as most

hobby fisherman aren't attracted to commercial fishing.

[bobatkins]

The fishing analogy holds to a point, but I don't think "Field and

Stream" (or whatever the angling magazines are called) is running

articles on how to turn your kayak into a trawler, or how to add

a power winch and drift nets to your rowboat. On the other hand,

certain "photography" publications seem to love articles on how

to digitally "improve" your nature images!

[glen_johnson]

I didn't read any criticism of Fitzharris into your question. I thought your question's purpose was just to raise awareness by citing a specific example.

 

<p>

 

Let's face it. The world is moving very quickly. It is natural, I suppose, for some groups to cling to old ways. It is natural for some groups to define their field in a narrow way that that would exclude new ideas, or new approaches. This is just human nature. Its a legitimate activity, and I'm not criticising it, but just observing it.

 

<p>

 

In my view, the act of observing the nature is very likely to modify the behavior that is being observed - and recorded on film. In the end, nature images have value for two reasons... First, they provide some documentation about how things were at some point in time, and in this application, post exposure manipulation would seem like a bad thing in the interest of documenting "truth," but maybe it would be ok if the post exposure manipulation were used to enhance the view or show a greater truth that was too elusive to capture on film. Second, they provide visual stimulation, which hopefully leads to emotion and thought on the part of the viewer. This is really the classical purpose for art, and in this context, there is no reason to dismiss post exposure manipulation.

 

<p>

 

The truth is, post exposure manipulation has been with us ever since folks first went into the darkroom, including multiple exposures, montage techniques, and other non-digital manipulations that lead to stunning results. Consider all the "set up" and contrived shots that pass acceptably among nature purists. Everyone isn't sitting in a blind by their 600 f/4 waiting for just the right moment. There are a lot of folks out there moving stuff, baiting stuff, catching stuff, drugging stuff, and what have you.

 

<p>

 

In any event, Fitzharris seems like a neat guy, and, as Bob points out in his question, Fitzharris certainly has nailed a few things when it comes to creation of beautiful images using natural subjects.

 

<p>

 

This is one of those pointless, endless arguments. No one will ever convince a single person from the other side to defect and join the "good guys," whoever they are. I suppose I really shouldn't even ad my two cents in light of the fact that I don't consider myself to be a nature photographer, even though I have shot natural subjects for over 30 years.

 

<p>

 

I thought the fishing analog was good. The magazines may not be telling you how to convert your small boat into a commercial fishing vessel, but there are plenty of articles and advertisements telling you how to use technology to enhance your catch. Its basically similar, even if not identical. The hobbiest brings different baggage to the activity than the guy who is trying to pursue the activity as a livelihood.

[steve_fletcher]

>>In my view, the act of observing the nature is very likely to modify the behavior that is being observed - and recorded on film.

 

<p>

 

There's no requirement that the animals in nature be uninfluenced by us. Everything is influenced by everything else. Remember the field of ecology?

 

<p>

 

>> In the end, nature images have value for two reasons... First, they provide some documentation about how things were at some point in time, and in this application, post exposure manipulation would seem like a bad thing in the interest of documenting "truth," but maybe it would be ok if the post exposure manipulation were used to enhance the view or show a greater truth that was too elusive to capture on film.

 

<p>

 

There's a word for this: Painting. Those of us on this forum are currently discussing photography, the capture of reflected visible EM photons (within the limits of our technology) that actually existed in the real world to form an image.

 

<p>

 

>>The truth is, post exposure manipulation has been with us ever since folks first went into the darkroom, including multiple exposures, montage techniques, and other non-digital manipulations that lead to stunning results.

 

<p>

 

But these things have, for the most part, been recognizable as such. That's one major difference. Another is, who said all photographers approve of heavy handed dark room manipulation? Airbrushing out details of an image is just as repugnant to me as altering it digitally.

 

<p>

 

>> There are a lot of folks out there moving stuff, baiting stuff, catching stuff, drugging stuff, and what have you.

 

<p>

 

But all this stuff is still photography. What you are describing here is merely the criteria for differentiating good nature photography from from poor.

 

<p>

 

>>This is one of those pointless, endless arguments. No one will ever convince a single person from the other side to defect and join the "good guys," whoever they are.

 

<p>

 

Probably true. But, we photographers don't want digital imagers to join us, we want them to go away and leave us alone. If I join a car racing club because I love to race cars, I don't expect a motorcycle racer to come to our meetings and berate us for being unwilling to "grow with our medium" and try bike racing.

[rich_furman]

As a four-eyed computer geek getting back in touch with my inner

photographer, I find this all very interesting. The best point made

is that these guys should stand up for their art, because it is not

photography. Photography and Digital Imaging are not different

enough for a photographer to take a self-righteous stance merely

because silver halide is the imaging agent throughout the process. A

lot that is done digitally can be (and has been) done in the

darkroom. Sandwiching negatives and masking prints can all be used

to make a picture of an elephant fighting a polar bear in a snowscape

with penguins looking on. Silver Halide can lie too.

 

<p>

 

Digital imagers are fairly typical examples of a postmodern

aesthetic, where existing images are drawn together into a single

work that may show a jarring juxtaposition, or else may be a

simulacrum of reality.

 

<p>

 

Photographers are fairly typical examples of a modern aesthetic,

where images are created and manipulated technologically. It is the

absence of the act of creation that divides the postmodern from all

else.

 

<p>

 

Postmodern art is derivative. Photography will never die (though

silver halide might) because a derivative art form needs a creative

art form as a source of material. The number of original

photographic images in the world, though vast, is finite. And a

consumer may realize that the bear fighting the elephant is the same

pose of the same bear catching a salmon in another picture.

 

<p>

 

The answer: This isn't a fight. It is a new medium. It does need to

identify itself as such, both to protect photographer and to

highlight the skills of digital imagers. They are not are friends,

they are not our enemies. They are the people we will need to seek

as allies in the face of issues like censorship and copyright. We

should encourage them to distinguish themselves, not by saying "Hey,

you're not one of us," but rather "Hey, that's really cool let the

world know how you did it."

 

<p>

 

Remember that to the artificer, the "hand of man" is a value-added

feature. A "Found View" will never be more than a snapshot to an

artificer, because hey, you didn't MAKE that image, you just found it

and took a picture.

 

<p>

 

The real danger, I suppose, is that images that are art and images

that are portrayals of reality can become conflated. But that is

something that has always been possible with the photographic medium.

[bobatkins]

The danger lies in the word "possible" in "<em>The real danger, I

suppose, is that images that are art and images that are portrayals of

reality can become conflated. But that is something that has

always been possible with the photographic medium"</em>

 

<p>

 

It's always been "possible" to climb Everest without oxygen, but

only recently has it been possible to pay someone $60,000 to drag

you up there on the end of a rope! Maybe in a few years it will

be possible to hire a super-helicopter to take you up?

 

<p>

 

Similarly, while it may have been "possible" to have an elephant

fighting a polar bear done by conventional darkroom work, it's

been so difficult that such images are rare, and really good images

even rarer still. Now it's a lot easier and getting easier every

day, so the supply of such images has probably increased by several

orders of magnitude in the last few years.

 

<p>

 

The danger lies not in digital illustrations, but in the potential

confusion between digital illustrations and photographs, and the

passing off of one as the other to an uneducated public, who by

and large <em>expect</em> a photograph to be a record of an actual

event, not a "virtual happening".

[pete_su]

This whole thread is getting to be almost as tedious as Nikon v. Canon

debates. I don't see that we're covering anything new here.

 

<p>

 

For the record, I agree with Mr. Johnson the most, and while I

disagree with most of what Mr. Creech has to say, I do agree that

having the digital artists stand for their own ground would be

productive.

[piaw]

I can't resist... Here's another analogy. Once upon a time, printing

presses were expensive, and it was difficult to get anything

published, so there was a natural assumption that "if it's in print

it must be true." As time went on, the prices went down, and nowadays

anybody can "print." (Put up a web page, or post in a web forum) Then

it became clear that "if it's print, it's not necessary true." What

did the public use to tell whom to believe? The answer: the author of

the text. For instance, anything Bob Atkins, Glen Johnson, or Philip

Greenspun carries a lot of weight with me --- they've demonstrated

that they know enough to be authorities. Someone with a moniker like,

"Nikon Guy" has absolutely no credibility with me.

<p>

I think that with time, the public will eventually learn to do the

same to photographs. A photo credit that says, "Photo by Galen

Rowell" means, "this scene existed, and any manipulation of the

medium was done to bring the image on film closer to what I actually

saw." A photo credit that says, "Photo by Art Wolfe" or "Photo by Tim

Fitzharris" would mean, "Warning: do not take for granted that this

scene actually appeared anywhere in the real world." And you know

what? I have no doubt that high-credibility photographers will

eventually have a marketing edge over low-credibility photographers,

no matter what the claims about art will be. Who would the public

believe? The New York Times, or Matt Drudge? (I am well aware that

this might be a controversial example)