Can you imagine - Nature Photographer Magazine "Genuine Wild" labels

[altaf]

Can you imagine we have now reached the point where images in the

latest nature photographer magazine has resorted to labeling

photographs 'GENUINE WILD'. Read the captions and it may make you a

bit upset. I really like this magazine and it seems to be one of the

better ones out there for nature photography, but the concept of

having to label images like this in that manner upsets me. Does it

upset you?

 

No longer do we have to label images "captive" or "digitally enhanced"

but now we have to label them "genuine", makes you think....

 

By no means do I mean to insinuate that the magazine is not one

of the better magazines for photographers to read. Take a look at

some of the other rags and you will realize what a blessing it is to

have something decent to read, other than photo.net ofcourse :)

[dan_smith]

This is the result of the cheaters & liars who use cameras. They know who they are. They are the legacy of Zoo photographers who failed to put "zoo photograph" on their images as they sold usage rights & then were caught as the fencing of the enslosure showed up in the eye reflection of the animal.

They are the legacy of those who tied lab raised mice to a stump & then photographed a "natural history" photo of an owl taking the mouse and then marketed it as a "natural history" photograph taken in the wild, while the magazine was hit with a few letters from biologists who recognized the "tame" mouse as an impossibility in the wild.

They are the result of the editors who lacked the knowledge to demand truth in the images they bought for use.

 

A thief is a thief, whether picking your pocket, selling you a car while lying about its condition or pulling the wool over your eyes in selling you a picture that is a lie.

 

The Macro Photography book now on the market with a digitally altered front cover is a prime example. It is NOT a real image, but was done on a computer in Photoshop. The real crime is that most who buy the book will think it is a real image, and will only find out different on something like page 64(or so-NOT in the masthead or table of contents) and by then will have had the book long enough to make it unnreturnable.

 

There is enough good, honest photography out there to be used so we should not have to label it REAL. It is the result of the liars that we now have to do so. And, I DIFFERENTIATE these liars & thieves from those who work with the digital realm honestly(such as Ron Sanford-ethical, honest & open about it & his creativity), we need more of the honest photographers who will be increasingly working in the future.

 

There is no need to lie about the images. But, this is only one more way for the crooked & insecure among us to try to make a buck. It is the honest who pay for this. You get screwed & they get rich. Even when the thief is caught many blame the person who caught them, not the crook. Jeffry Koons & his copyright theft has been defended by major art magazines even as he had to pay Art Rodgers for stealing his "string of puppies" photo. Too many take a David Muench book of photos on location & directly duplicate the images.

 

If you take the photo & manipulate it, have the honesty & balls to say so. Label it as such. The magazine should be able to trust its photographers. But, they can't because too many aren't trustworthy.

 

To them, wild photography of wild animals is still a pipe dream because it is WORK and they are LAZY BASTARDS. Real photography, the FOUND IMAGE is a pipe dream because they are thieves at heart, as is anyone who lies about the image.

 

I am not railing against digital imaging. I use it. I like it. But, it is a different beast from sitting in wet grass for 3 hours while the subject feeds facing away from you the whole time or doesn't come into where you have determined the light, subject & background will be perfect for the shot. I come back later. Someone else will digitize it & say "since I thought of it I can create it & it is OK-no one will know". But, the liar will know even as they pass it off as reality.

 

If you are going to digitize, be like Ron Sanford, Plan it & label it & market it as such-it is art-and you don't have to lie.

 

But, cheat the viewers & readers & your fellow nature photographers & you end up with this situation, having to label honesty.

[david_flater1]

It's not as upsetting as the loss of the wilderness itself, or in some cases the loss of the wildness.

 

In Maryland we have our share of geese, ducks, whitetail deer, etc. crowding into suburban areas where people feed them instead of shoot at them. Now they're starting to have problems in Western Maryland with black bears who got the same idea. Pretty sad when bears just walk out of the woods and pose for you.

[bobatkins]

I thought Nature Photographer had a policy of only printing wild shots (i.e. no captive or zoo shots). I haven't seen the magazine in a while now. Have they changed their policy so they have to label each image now?

 

Captive shots are a hard trend to fight. There are more and more game farms around which encourage the activity, and if you're in the business of selling photos, why spend months out in the field when you can get better shots in an afternoon with captive animals. One of the reasons I gave up entering slides in my local nature photo club competitions was that a shot of a fish in the state aquarium won the "NJ wildlife" competition. Nobody else (well, not many other people) even saw a problem with that.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Yes. Sadly, I can imagine it. When we have people trying to pass off digitally created images as photography (drawing with light) I am no longer shocked by anything these people do. I figure that the game farm shooters and the digital fakers (not slamming true digital artists, just those who pretend it's photography) are like the fishermen who stop at the fish market before they get home in order have something to show as their catch. They may fool people but somehow they have missed the fun of the sport. This is not much consilation to true pros who have to compete against this fakery. Maybe that is why I am happy to be an amatuer.

 

By the way I have still not recieved a satisfactory explaination from the " digital is really photography" crowd to the following question:

 

Why do I see digital artists trying to pass off their images as equal to photography, but I never see a photographer trying to pass of his/her image as being digitally created? Hmmmm......

[chelsea]

Just another thought to throw in the mix...could it possibly be the labeling is just a cutesy marketing ploy, such as the labelling on some products we buy ("new and improved", "lite", "low calorie")? With the rising amount of discussions on "genuine nature photography" vs. "digitally enhanced" or "zoo shots", could it be that the editors just want to get a jump on the competition by trying to make their published photographs appear more like the real thing?

 

And yes, it DOES bother me.

[pete_dickson1]

I understand Dan Smith�s reaction to the Macro "Photography" book with the faked cover. It�s not actually lying, but it�s telling a half truth. Presenting a digital composite under the title "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature" is misleading. How about "� Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature and Subsequent Digital Manipulation?" Calling the compositor a liar and a cheat might be a bit strong, but I don�t don�t have to make a living trying to compete with this borderline dishonesty, so I can just shake my head. To answer the question, yeah. It bothers me that we have to label the real thing. I stand by what I said in the miraculously-undeleted "wistful comment" thread. Sigh.

[bill___2]

Here is a related issue. The author of "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-UP Photography in Nature" is also the author of "The Sierra Club Guide to Landscape Photography". In that book he talks about how he takes photos that just don't quite make it and digitally fixes them. His cover shot on that book actually looks manipulated. He also talks a lot about sandwiching slides together to get "better" shots. He never talks about being honest about what you created and stating that your shot was not genuine. Since his books are sponsored by the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club is an environmental advocacy group, it makes me wonder how much of what they say is "enhanced" too. I have lost a great deal of respect for them and for Tim Fitzharris as well.

[matthew_francey]

Stanley, I think this has been explained before. It is because the current regime is lead by the dark Forces of Analog and their fierce henchmen and vile creatures who would stamp out any trace of the Digital Rebellion. It thus stands to reason that to survive in such an environment these Freedom Fighters will will attempt to fake an analog photograph. Much like how someone would rather try and pass off a piece of uranium painted gold as gold, than a piece of gold painted grey as uranium. The invisible hand of the market and all that. You know.

 

Of course, the Glorius Digital Rebels will ultimately prevail and a new set of double standards will be put in place and brutally enforced. And many an argument re digital vs analog photography will finally be settled by gathering up all the Analog heathens, giving them a dozen lashes of a whip, and dipped in their own stop bath until they repent their sins.

[dan_smith]

Analog & Digital? Are you talking photography as opposed to pixelography? Next you will be talking "landscape & portrait" rather than horizontal and vertical images. Or, "modes" rather than just setting the camera & taking pictures.

 

One addition to my comments. If you manipulate the image, label it as such. When I give presentations on my images I do tell of any darkroom dodging/burning, toning and whatever if needed. As a creative endeavor it isn't needed, but with natural history you lose both the natural aspect and the historical accuracy when you change what was actually at the scene.

[james_golden]

I think there are two issues here...one being whether or not you accurately describe the environment in which the picture was taken, and the other being whether or not the final product was altered. The post started with the first but has gone into the second. You all are likely to be far more knowledgeable and able to argue the merits of the first point, but I would like to chime in on the second:

 

I never put my photos in shows, look to publish them, or do much other than admire them with my fiance (if they are worthy of admiring). Hence, I will sometimes look at a photo someone has taken and try to replicate it in my surroundings and with a twist which represents my personality (I have never been able to successfully do this and have just ended up with poor copies of good work...but I learned). So, when I look at a photo, I study it. I look at the textures, use of light, framing, and think about the variables which went into creating the photo. This helps me learn. Then I read the caption. If I see that the picture was markedly digitized or a sandwich of frames, I am often very disappointed and go onto the next photo in disgust. I cannot say what it is inside me that turns me off, but I think that I am generally aggravated by seeing a photo which could never really be seen in the world. When I see photos that have a caption which says that an extraneous and attention-grabing element was digitally removed, I wonder why the person didn't just find a way to get the photo right the first time. If it is photojournalism and speed is key, then I can understand. But when it's nature and other genres, there a photographers that sit in blinds for hours, manage their time around the crucial ebbs and flows of lighting, and research a creature or idea for days, weeks. months before shooting in order to get THE photo. I see digitized and sandwiched photos as of little quality or use other than to make money. In the end there is no nobility for the one's such as Dan Smith, Bob Atkins, etc, who are true to their craft, as most people outside the realm of photography don't care how digitally manipulated it is as long as it looks "nice."

[cowan stark]

To respond to Rose-Marie's comments-I was at a John Shaw workshop and he sees the good in this. There will probably be a market for 'natural' photos and we should take advantage of it. People will pay twice as much for carrots with an 'organic' label on them, so if we label our images as 'all natural' we'll all make a killing on photo sales.

[ron_niebrugge]

I do not have a problem with such a concept. I found it very disappointing to see many of the contest winner's in a recent issue of Nature's Best were captive shots. My reaction went from "wow", to "big deal" once a read the caption. At least they were labeled as such.

 

To me, it is a far greater accomplishment, taking an excellent "GENUINE WILD" photograph, and it should be recognized as such. There is much more to it than just "cutesy marketing ploy"!

[bobatkins]

When someone wrote complining that one of the winning nature shots in the Pop Photog contest was of drugged polar bears (which it was, part of a scientific study according to them), the PP editorial response was thay they judged solely on "artistic merit" and went on in their usual bitter, sarcastic way to comment that "some" think that photographers who trek into the wilderness to get their shots actually endanger the animals they photograph. I suppose you shouldn't expect any other response, It is PP after all.

[Hector Javkin]

Bob, do you have the date of the Pop Photo issue with the

letter about the drugged bears to post here? Thanks.

<p>

[<em>It's the current issue (probably June 1999) - Bob</em>]

[dale_smith]

A few years ago I owned an advertising agency in Lake Tahoe. Many of our clients were the resorts and visitors bureaus around the lake. As creative director, I was constantly looking for fresh ways to present Lake Tahoe to the public. There were only a handful of photographers who photographed the Tahoe environment on a regular basis and their photographs were pretty much all the same

same cameras, same lenses, same viewpoints, same time of day.But one of these shooters stood out from the others. He hiked to remote locations to capture a point of view that wasn9t available from a scenic turnout. He shot with a Canon, and never used a polarizing filter. I asked him why, because some of his otherwise great shots lacked punch because of a washed out sky or whatever. He told me that filters interfered with the *purity* of the image. And here he lost me.One day a photographer from San Francisco stopped by to show me photographs he9d make with a panoramic camera, the kind where the shutter moves over the surface of the film as the exposure is made. The result was an extreme wide angle view with very little distortion. At last, someone showed me a new way to look at Lake Tahoe. I designed and ad to take advantage of this unique format and hired him for the shoot. I paid him more money than I had ever before paid a photographer. Was his unusual camera somehow photographically impure? After all, his photographs played games with the senses by showing us more than we could really see. And that9s what made them interesting and held your attention.A couple of weeks ago I spoke with a photographer who used to work with Ansel Adams. Adams had one particular edition print he sold that had a dead tree branch in the foreground. Each time he sold the print he spotted out the offending branch. Must have taken him hours. Was this dishonest or unethical?I work with a lot of Galen Rowell9s images for one of my clients with a resort in Fiji. One afternoon Galen projected a couple of trays of his Fiji images for me in his studio. One particular image was a very striking sunset shot with rich detail in the foreground. When I asked about it, Galen told me he created the effect using a neutral density filter that he designed himself. Did this manipulation make the image somehow less pure? I don9t think so.In the past year, I9ve photographed a lot of orangutans, as caged rehabilitants in a reintroduction center, in zoos and in the wild. I will use one of these images on the cover of the children9s book I am writing about the orangutans. It makes no difference to me, ethically or otherwise, whether the image I use is of a wild orangutan or a zoo resident. What matters to me is that the image works, that it has the power to reach and motivate my audience. Whichever photograph I choose will certainly be imported into Photoshop where it will enhanced to reveal its greatest potential. Will I feel ashamed that I9ve done something dishonest? Nope.If we were all concerned with purity, we wouldn9t make photographs at all. We9d simply appreciate something through our own eyes and that9d be the end of it. Everything we do to capture an image removes it from its original frame of reference. The camera, the lens, the film are tools we use to manipulate images, as are a scanner and Photoshop. I look at these tools as pencils. Everybody can use a pencil, but not everyone can write a book, or draw a masterpiece.Photographic images in themselves are not honest or dishonest. They don9t have integrity or ethics or any other human characteristics. They are what they are. No one need tell me what is good or bad, or what is honest or dishonest. I rely on my own sensibilities for that. This goes for photography as well.

[bobatkins]

Dale - I'm a little afraid this is going to get into another ethical debate, which we've had in the past and don't need more of. It it gets out of hand, I'll just delete it, but here goes.

<p>

Surely you're not saying you don't care if the Orangutan photo is:

<ul>

<li> A shot taken in the wild of a wild animal

<li> A shot taken in captivity at a rehab center for injured animals

<li> A shot of an animal in a zoo

<li> A shot of a wild animal, captured from the wild and put on display solely for profit.

</ul>

All the shots could be equally "appealing". If you truely don't care about anything but the final image, with no regard to how it was taken or the history of the animal then your in the wrong forum. If the image is all that counts, an advertising forum would be more appropriate.

[Hector Javkin]

Pop Photo's reply to the letter complaining about their prize to a "wildlife" photograph of drugged bears is a classic, and possibly a bit more could be quoted. Pop Photo said they have "... nothing but respect for professional wildlife photographers ..."

 

Of course, they have prize money for the guy who shot the drugged bears, but for professional wildlife photographers, they have "nothing but respect."

[hearst]

I've got to get into this too. I'm clumsy, and my eyes aren't too great, so I don't think I can manipulate a graded ND filter well enough to get the line where I want it in an image. So I've been experimenting taking two shots of the same scene at different exposures, superposing them in Photoshop, and selecting the properly exposed part of each shot. (I thought of it BEFORE it was described in PC PHOTO). Now why is this less ethical than taking one shot with a graded ND filter?

[clivecc]

WOW!! It seems someone disturbed a wasp's nest here!!!!

 

You will probably find money will win at the end of the day: If it pays to manipulate images and present them as "genuine wild" and the people who don't know any better buy it, then there is no stopping it is there? "Give the people what they want" I've heard before. Although I invest huge amounts of money in equipment and spare time in the wild as a hobby, you've got to admit that the whole concept is pretty attractive to the people in the money making business.

 

Personally I would like to see some form of honest labeling but I photograph for the love of it and being out there. If someone can manipulate to get what I got through my devices, cunning and patience then that person missed out on all the fun of getting the shot and getting the results back from the lab.

[john_macpherson]

Can someone tell me which is the more ethical approach:

1. Remove that distracting branch or two from that nest site I know

will be used later in the spring and could obscure the picture I hope

to take.

2. Leave the branch and remove it digitally after I have taken the

successful (but flawed) shot.

<P>

Will this digitally reworked image be less acceptable as a 'genuine

nature' shot than the unmanipulated one???? The fact that the nest

site is now open to the sun or to predator attacks is obviously very

important here.

<P>

I know where I stand on this issue.

<P>

[david_evans]

When I got into nature photography 12 years ago, the idea promoted by the ranking photographers was to tie back a branch for the shot, and then release it- or move your camera a little- or change the focal length to isolate the subject and thus remove the branch, or---.

 

As I think I have stated before in this forum, if the light from the subject matter landed on the film, that is natural. The film defines the color nuances. If a polarizer was used, it might be stated. These are all natural images, to me.

 

Anything not shot "in the wild" should be noted (a zoo, an animal farm, a rehabilitaion center, etc). Otherwise, naturalness should be presumed. If the location is defined, the amount of acclimatization might be presumed. Digital images are very much in the arena of advertising art. Not at all unacceptable, just different.

 

Very minor film defects in slide material (such as a missing dot of emulsion or a processing "tick" on the slide) can be corrected on printing, and should not count as an altered image.

[stanley_mcmanus]

John, The most ethical approach would be to not shoot the nest at all since the risk to the birds might be great. No knowing the exact conditions at the sight you describe, I can't judge for sure what the risk level would be, but I never approach a nest closer than say 8 feet assuming I can do so without causing a disruption in the area.

 

The next best approach is to photograph the nest with the branch in place. If the branch is to be removed digitally, that information MUST be prominently displayed with the picture.

 

Personally, I don't think this example proves anything. It's sort of like the "When did you stop beating your wife?" qustion. There is no good answer.

[michael_schmidt]

What an interesting discussion. Also much has been said on both sides, I hope I can add something useful to the discussion.

I remember this discussion from the german equivalent of "Outdoor Photographer", the so-called "Photographie draussen". The most prominent protagonist of the discussion in Germany is Fritz Poelking, who doesn4t get tired to raise the issue in almost every publication he makes (F. Poelking is very strict on this, going so far as to question even the removal of litter on a forest floor around a fallen leaf).

He proposed actually to label all images (at least these published in Germany) with a set of differnt tags like: "genuine wild" or "controlled conditions". I also know the book by T.Fitzharris, which BYW is one of the worst books I read about nature photography or macro and not only and mainly for the manipulated images (comparing it with the works of John Shaw, Art Morris, F. Poelking, George Lepp).To my point of view the true flaw in Fitzharris4 book is that he actually proposed to put poikilotherms or athropods into a freezer!!!!

There is a strong difference if an image is shot in the "wild" (where is the "wild" in the so-called first world) and images in a zoo. Digitally remastered images are totally uninteresting for me, mainly probably because I am working the whole day with satellite images and so i haven4t the slightest interest in manipulating images which can be had in nature or at least outdoors with more fun, learning something about the subject and its environment and more skill (digital imaging with photoshop or sim. progr. seems to me rather simple).

I do see the need of zoo photographs (doc. of behaviuor for ex.) and I do think that under certain conditions the imapct caused by only one photographer on an individuum or a habitat might be destructive (this goes to you Bob).

Although I see nat. photogr. mainly as a wonderful source of true sustainable development and usage of many natural habitats in the world, sometimes in very fragil places or in very populated areas it can be a nuisance even when executed by the most careful persons. Fortunately these places are scarce and mainly in the very overcrowded european countries where often even a square metre of an area needs special protection when housing a rare athropod or lichen species. In some habitats in my home country Germany, the presence of a photographer might be destructive (rare wetslands), when the photogr. tries to invade the habitat to take only a close-up and so destroys a fragil community. On the other hand I know of many projects using the information and the aesthetic value of nature photography to promote conservation, in fact without nature photography conservation would be much more difficult because most people simply would enjoy many natural places if the had to bear the many plagues these places often exhibit (exoparasitic insects and arachnids, heat or cold etc.) F

For all these applications of nat. photo. the spreading of digitally manipulated images might be very damaging as the public might start to question the value of the pictured areas and their real aspect, when images of it state: "digitally enhanced" or so.

I go here with Poelking proposing also these labels, as finally the effort (and the fun, sometimes at least) is quite different and in the market for nature images the prices should be different for "true" images outdoors.

[john_macpherson]

Stanley _ It wasn't a real site, it was a point raised purely for

discussion. Your response gets to the nub of it: "Personally, I don't

think this example proves anything. It's sort of like the "When did

you stop beating your wife?" qustion. There is no good answer."

<P>

Precisely my point. There is no good answer. The ethics of

photographers will vary widely, and what is acceptable to one

photographer will not be so to another. The whole debate revolves

around honesty: what people will actually do, and then what they may

later claim they did. Any system that depends on honesty will be

inherenly flawed, unfortunately.

<P>

In the pursuit of that elusive award winning shot or $$$$ many people

become ethically blind. The point I was trying to raise is that it is

not an either/or situation, there are other considerations, and there

are many circumstances where the use of digital manipulation can be of

more value to the welfare of subject than not utilising it. But if I

state that the image was 'digitally manipulated' many people will

consider it of lesser value than the image where the branches were

removed physically; but that latter image also may not state that the

nest site was compromised by the branch-removing actions.

<P>

And the point about NOT taking the picture is spot on. I do it, often,

when the welfare of subject would in any way be compromised. The most

useful skills in wildlife photography are fieldcraft, stalking and

observation, and without those the actual use of a camera may not

happen.

<P>

My standpoint is that nature can provide far more widely varied and

interesting circumstances and interactions of wildlife and lighting

conditions than any mere mortal could imagine, despite ownership of an

Apple G3 and Photoshop. Putting the hours in in the field with the

subjects in ALL lighting and weather conditions will always yield

results that the computer-image-creators can only dream about......and

then copy.