Image manipulation, ethics and all.

[bob_atkins]

I agree with Glen (at least on this issue!). The public don't

care. Actually, most of the time they don't know, but if they

did, most of them still wouldn't care. They want pretty pictures

and don't care a whole lot how they were created (short of actually

harming the animals, and sometimes not even then). Sure, a small

minority of the public object, but so what. Business doen't

take much notice of small minorities. The better wildlife

publications won't take highly manipulated images (if they know

about them), but that's not a huge market.

 

<p>

 

As for "real" nature photographers (i.e. those who spend large

amounts of time and effort - and money - getting real shots

under totally natural conditions), you bet they are pissed off

at the acceptance of digitally manipulated images. There's not

a lot they can do though. In fact if they want to keep on

making a living, they may have to do it themselves. Photography

ain't what is once was. Ask working stock photographers about

royalty free images on CD!

[anthonty_debase]

A few days ago my Dilbert calendar had a cartoon in which Dilber told Dogber that they were going camping on the weekend.

 

<p>

 

Dilbert: Hey Dogbert, you want to go camping this weekend?

Dogbert: Why don't we just sleep in the garage, eat bugs and not take showers?

Dilbert: That is completely different from camping, for reasons which will come to me.

Dogbert: Because we might not get lost??

 

<p>

 

I think that image manipulation puts us in the same quandry as Dilbert. We instinctivley know that the real thing is better than an artificial setup but we can't quite put the reaons into words.

 

<p>

 

Dogbert hints at it when he asks if they might get lost. We seek authenticity. Real life is authentic and we know it because we often get lost. Another way to say it is that real life involves risk. We risk failure, but we are sometimes rewarded for that risk by great successes. If all we have are digital images produced in labs by people with zillions of megabytes of digitized images then there is no risk and we will never uncover the unknown surpises that make life and photography so interesting. How many artists painted landscapes similar to Yellowstone's geyser basins before Yellowstone was discovered by explorers? Our authentic work will always be worthwhile because it represents our experiences and the risks we took.

 

<p>

 

My friends think my grebe photos are great! They think I should sell them. (They are not that good, trust me.) Why? Because they are authentic. They represent a real experience on the part of me, the grebe and the viewer.

 

<p>

 

If Starbucks can educate people on what a good cup of coffee should taste like, and then get them to pay $2.50 for a non-refillable cup, then photographers should be able to educate people to the differences between real nature photos and made up stuff.

 

<p>

 

As usual let me state that "made up stuff" refers to images whose subject(s) have been signficiantly altered, added or deleted. I am not talking about color correction, contrast changes or even removing a lone telephone wire from the back of a magnificent cathedral.

 

<p>

 

Sorry for rambling.

[anthonty_debase]

I have argued earlier that people want and seek authenticity in their lives. Thus manipulated images should be identified as such since authentic images will be of much more value. I offer the following information taken from today's (7/8/97, pg B1) Wall Street Journal as further proof that authentic nature photographs will be highly desired in the end.

 

<p>

 

In Southern California a shopping mall is opening by the name of American Wildernes (AW for short). The mall will feature five "biomes" recreating California deserts, forests, mountains, valleys and seashores. Visitors will walk on gnarled pathways, past ersatz redwoods and inhale forest scents from hidden canisters. The desert biome will feature a fake Joshua tree plus real tortoises and Gila monsters. Visitors can also take in a motion simulator theater, interactive exhibits and lectures by "rangers". Student visits and even overnight campouts will be permitted. A special ventilation system will ensure that restaurant smells don't get blown over to the animals and animal smells don't get blown into the restaurant. By now you get the picture (pun intended). An artificial environment designed to exploit the wildnerness so people will spend more time and money in a shopping mall.

 

<p>

 

Folks, now, more than ever, genuine nature photographers are needed.

[bob_atkins]

Hey, that Mall sounds like a geat place for nature photography! Live

tortoises and Gila monsters are pretty hard to find in the real

desert...

 

<p>

 

I don't think coffee is a good analogy for photography though.

You can taste the difference between good and bad coffee (I

presume - I'm no gourmet) but you can't tell the difference

between a real (i.e. wild) and a fake (i.e. captive or manipulated)

image. There may be no way to tell which is which using your own

senses. You have to be told - and you never know if you are being

told the truth. If some one serves you Sanka instead of fresh

brewed coffee, you know. If you don't know, if you can't taste the

differnce, then you don't much care (unless, I suppose, you are

one of Philip's d**kless yuppies?).

[glen_johnson]

Actually Anthony, I think the article you cite provides further evidence of the desire on the part of the public to escape reality and live with in an unnatural fantasy situation. A fake wilderness for the purpose of sellling products is exactly parallel to fake nature images, also used to sell product (or win prizes, or get into magazines, or whatever).

 

<p>

 

The fact that the mall owner recognizes that nature can be exploited for commercial purposes isn't a new idea. On the bright side, maybe this mall will attract folks who are superficially interested in nature, and leave the real wilderness less congested for the folks who actually care about it. The mall sounds pretty much like a highly commercialized zoo.

[dan_smith]

"People want and seek authenticity in their lives". I guess you have never seen the bank account of a plastic surgeon who does breast enhancement. In talking photo manipulation & reality, lets start with the basics.

1. Lenses-we choose them to give life to our inner vision and how we see the world. Some expand, some compress and some alter what is actually there.

2. Camera bodies & film format-some for extreme sharpness, others for their ability to manipulate the scene and help in personal interpretation of what we believe it is that we are seeing.

3.FILM-remember the days before 'Disneychrome'(Velvia)? How about Kodachrome? The very way a film interprets what it records with its color palette, sharpness and range can be more manipulative than most may want to admit.

4. Presentation-how much do you really reveal about the taking of the photo & how much does the photo itself reveal about how it was shot?

As to Marty Stauffer? Has anyone out there EVER seen a cougar attack a bighorn sheep and been in position to watch the stalk through snow, over the ridge where the animal pounced and the sheep took off running with a cougar on its back, over the ridge, down the other side and up the canyon? You can't be in more than one location and the chance of seeing this in the wild, with good light & cameras properly placed for even part of it is nearly impossible.

Stauffer records what happens & uses set-ups to do it. Nothing wrong with that. The real problem(MY PERSONAL VIEW-feel free to disagree if you like & send hate mail along with your $10.00 bill to...)as I see it is with the "Disneyworld" view of nature as 'our friend'. Bambi is cute. The little bear cub is cuddly. Animals are out friends & should be held, cuddled, petted, etc., etc. That is why we see jackasses in the parks having their three year old walk up to a fawn to pet her while momma takes a picture of it. Then when the mother deer comes up & crushes the head of the kid in reaction-Momma sues the park service.

Stauffer sets up the situations & uses captive animals-SO WHAT? He does his best to convey reality.

Others set up a beaver lodge with a window in it & photograph it all through the winter. That isn't 'natural either', but it is done.

Nature films & photos are intrusive by the fact that they even exist.

Do no harm. We try to live with that and every one of us who shoots nature images has screwed up, big or small, in some way at one time or another. We learn & don't repeat it.

But, we all lie about nature in our equipment, recording & presentation even when no lie is intended. We do the best we can & just try to get along & get good & accurate results.

There is a difference in our mental abilities & the cameras ability to record a scene. Accuracy is often a myth in a photograph because film cannot record the scene as our mind tells us we saw it. That is both a positive and a negative. Much of it is our point of view.

One good example of point of view? Try bulldozing, dynamiting & altering some magnificent cliff faces & see where it gets you. Then go to Mt. Rushmore & realize that is exactly what Gutzom Borglum did & it is now a national shrine.

Ethics is often a question we debate & seldom arrive at a definitive answer because there is not one.

[jeff_hallett]

this subject is forever going to be treated like bipartisan politics.

in the end, years from now, when nature and the environment have

all gone to hell in in a handbag at the hands of development and

pure greed, all that we may be seeing are manipulated images since

all that was real will be gone.

i for one do not have time or inclination to sit on my tail at my

computer for long periods. would rather be out improving my skills

as a photographer so i can look at good,REAL nature images years

from now. guess i,m a real relic , huh? well i love it!!!

 

jeff hallett

[mark_graf]

I think the judgements about Art Wolfe's work in 'Migrations' were a bit harsh. It is not like he created the entire pattern from a computer. Those congregations of animals actually took place, and there were some images where a duplicate may have filled in some dead space to make the image more complete. Art was very clear in the preface of the book on his stance on the alterations, he was communicating through artwork, not natural history or documentary. To say that Wolfe is washed up as a nature photographer is a bit over the edge. The guy doesn't choose to travel 9-10 months out of the year gathering images when instead he could be sitting in front of a computer.

[cris_munoz]

I use, rather than generate, nature photography, all the time. If my goal is to view a real part of nature, then it would be nice to have documentation that "this elephant was photographed at the North Carolina Zoo" so I don't think that the natural habitat of any elephant includes large numbers of loblolly pine trees. If my goal is to make a collage which includes an elephant and a forest of torn paper scraps, I don't how the photographer got the image. I just hope that people keep taking many good photos, or I'll only have one elephant to choose from. Addendum: for a lecture on the physiology of lactation, I am looking for good images of infant feeding in humans and other mammals. Anyone have some to share?

[grover_larkins]

The real problem with Art Wolfe is that after "Migrations" we found out that quite a number of his earlier, not-disclaimed, images were likewise manipulated. If it had been just Migrations he would have gotten off pretty clean....

 

<p>

 

Grover Larkins

[gerald_lewis]

This is all getting to sound a bit Zen. It reminds me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where the act of observation alone changes and influences what is being observed so we can never know if what we are observing is real. It would seem irrelevant whether it is on silver halide or charged particles.

[scott_gant]

I have to take issue with a statement that was made by Sean Hester:

 

<p>

 

"Burning and dodging in a darkroom takes much more skill and patience then tweaking a shot on a computer."

 

<p>

 

I hate to differ with you, but as someone that does this for a living (I work in color pre-press), it's about the same amount of skill and patience...if not more.

 

<p>

 

For instance, matching skin tones with one photo with another. Now this may sound very easy, but it's not, epecially when you're looking at everything in a color-controlled light both. Also, trying to match a trans in color, even though you're working in CMYK (that has a much lower color gamet) to get everything to "pop" out is a little rough sometimes.

 

<p>

 

Cloning out things that the client doesn't want in the shot can be VERY hard sometimes...that is when you're trying to make it look natural. Cloning out a line or dust is easy. But try removing something that is covering something else, AND it casts a shadow. You basically have to recreate the object in the background that the object you're removing covers...then have to get rid of the shadow that the object was creating also. Very tough.

 

<p>

 

Here's another beauty. A client will have a shot of a model in a black sweater. "But wait! We're not making black sweaters anymore, can you change this to a light pink sweater? Here's a cloth swatch to match it to." Easy you may say, just take up the midtones and use "color" in Photoshop. The only things is, since it was a black sweater, there is almost no shape at all in it. If you were to bring up the midtones, you'd have a flat tint for the sweater.

 

<p>

 

Mainly all this boils down to poor planning from the client. I'm not complaining mind you...I'm paid very well for what I do. :)

 

<p>

 

But try sitting in front of a monitor for two days looking at the same sweater trying to get it right because every proof the client is saying "hmm....nope, not quite right....can you make it "happier"..." (you'd be amazed how many times clients have told me this...I almost wish Adobe would put a "happier" function in Photoshop 5.)

[gerald_lewis]

Computers and digital manipulation of images are a fact of life and just wishing it would go away will not help. A computer and software are merely tools no different than lenses, filters, enlargers and dodging tools. Making the image fit the artists eye and soul is the important part. I do wonder about the manipulation of some images though. Just recently there was a TV documentary about the fashion industry. Part of the presentation was a photo cover shoot for the a magazine and how it was brought to the final presentation. It involved one of the current crop of "supermodels" After a traditional shoot with a Hassy the chromes were scanned and then digitally altered for final publication. What kind of alteration? Thinning her thighs, smoothing her skin, taking out cellulite, etc. I think we all know the possibilities. Now, what concerns me is that there are hords of young women in our American (and others I'm sure) culture that use these "covergirls" to set up goals for their own looks. This has led to severe health problems with bolemia and anorexia as well as emotional problems. All trying to match what is not real or even possibly attainable. In the wild we may get a distorted image of nature, but what about the human damage such images can bring when it is not made known that even the most noted supermodels require extensive digital manipulation to look that "good". I know that this is not exactly nature but relevant to the technology and ethics of digital manipulation.

 

<p>

 

Jerry

[russ_arcuri]

Re: Gerald's comments about bulemia and anorexia (with apologies for the tangential relationship to photography):<p>

 

My wife is a psychologist who has treated people (males too!) with eating disorders. Contrary to popular belief, none of the severe eating disorders are caused solely by unrealistic expectations of how one should look, so manipulated photos of models are not detrimental in the way one might think (although they can be detrimental in other ways... see my comments in the next paragraph). In fact, most eating disorders are caused by deeper psychological problems. Anorexia is typically a control issue (eating is not something even the most controlling parents can make a teenager do) or an attention issue (which involves way too much to describe here) or even a form of obsessive/compulsive disorder. Bulemia (the classic binge/purge type) is typically an outer manifestation of any of a number of deeper psychological problem(s) -- and is often seen in addictive personality types.<p>

 

The type of photographic manipulation you describe can indeed give someone unrealistic expectations of how they should look. This can be detrimental to a someone's self-image, contributing to low self-esteem. And of course low self-esteem <i>in addition to</i> other psychological problems can lead to eating disorders, but they can also lead to a number of other problems having nothing to do with eating disorders. In any case, all this is just a very superficial discussion... you'd have to talk to my wife about the important details and that would be way outside the scope of a photography forum.<p>

 

Attempting to bring this all to some kind of coherent summary (and to bring the original topic back somewhat): I feel that digital photographic manipulation is no different than older, traditional means of photographic manipulation. I'm sure other methods were used in the past to make models look different (airbrushing, perhaps). If you've ever used a red 25 filter to enhance cloud/sky contrast in black and white or a polarizer for the same effect in color photography then you're guilty of manipulation. Hell, even film choice could be considered manipulation... how is it that <i>any</i>black & white photo could be considered an accurate representation of reality? How could anyone consider Velvia's enhanced coloration an accurate representation of reality?

[frank_kolwicz]

I just re-read most of this discussion and noticed that no one seems to have addressed the REAL problem with manipulation: that is, what is going on in front of the camera, if anything!

 

<p>

 

All the talk about manipulations of film, comparing them to digital manipulations, is a red herring. The extent of manipulations possible with digital images is far greater and more seamless in the medium than is possible on film, especially transparency film, please note. What a skilled darkroom technician can do with B&W has no bearing on what can be done to transparencies and that is what we should be talking about, because that is where the big market for nature photos is. And this is all about markets - who gets in and who gets paid how much.

 

<p>

 

If an image has never been digitized, the questions we need to be concerned about are not the choice of film, dark room techniques, lens choices, etc. None of these really determine if something actually took place in front of the camera. Was that animal in a zoo? Was it trained? Was it captive? Was it attracted to bait (like the birds in my backyard)? Was it distracted by being hounded by the photographer? Was it accustomed to the presence of people and going about its' business normally?

 

<p>

 

When dealing with a digital image the questions broaden to such things as: Has the author ever really seen a wild cheetah or did he/she just snatch someone else's image and paste-up this (purported) photo? Is the behavior shown representative of a wild cheetah or does the author claim to be showing something never before seen? If the latter, where is the documentation, since the image (being so easily manipulated) cannot be taken to be authentic on its own?

 

<p>

 

These questions all have a major bearing on the value ($$$) of any particular image and the market it can be sold to. A REAL, documented, image of something new could be worth a lot and a fakery composed from verbal descriptions could take money away from a legitimate, in-the-field, photograph of the same action. A reconstruction of events is not worth as much as real-time photos of the events and should not be competing for the same market.

 

<p>

 

NANPA is supposed to be trying to deal with this issue by using a proposed requirement for captioning of images, but I suspect that they are backing off for fear of alienating some segment of its members. There are serious difficulties, not the least of which is that it all will eventually have to become a matter of trust or sanctions - is my "original, made-in-camera", 35mm transparency authentic? Or did I manage to get such a perfect digital manipulation, at such high resolution, that no one can tell? If the latter and I am found out, what can be done about it? NANPA won't want to be judge and jury of a dues-paying member.

 

<p>

 

I would like to suggest that some terminology be adopted as standard. A "photograph" is an image made on chemically-activated, light sensitive materials (film) by the use of a camera and lens, period. Anything that is made by any other means, even if starting from a photograph, has to be called something else. Perhaps digitally composed images could be called "computographs" or something, but not photographs. We already have a nomenclature for images made on photo materials without a camera - "photograms", "radiography", etc., so this is appropriate and in keeping with current practice. It would be a lot more handy than "computer-manipulated photograph" or "digitally-altered photograph" or "digitally-composed photograph".

 

<p>

 

Since a lot of the publishing business is using digital images, there could be a simple, bold caption that says something like "All images in this publication are unaltered. They were digitally composed by the publisher from original photographs by the credited photographers". That is, if the publisher were interested in maintaining a chain of authenticity and accepting some responsibility for failures of it.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Frank

[stanley_mcmanus]

I copied this quote from Bob Atkin's site.

 

<p>

 

"Only with effort can the camera be forced to lie: basically it is an honest medium: so the photographer is much more likely to approach nature in a spirtit of inquiry, of communion, instead of with the saucy swagger of self-dubbed "artists"

 

<p>

 

Edward Weston

 

<p>

 

I knew there was a reason I liked Weston.

[jerrold_hartman]

I am a student of Mass Communications and just happened to find your forum. I am writing a research paper on the ethics of digital manipulation. I hear a lot of people say that this or that SHOULD happen. As photographers are we ready for the government to step in and say "ALL DIGITALLY MANIPULATED PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE LABLED." That is what they do in Norway. They use a special symbol that is slapped on each one. A filter changes the 'original' picture, where do we draw the line? (Sorry if I wandered to far from the original question)

[mark_lindamood]

Let's say you use image manipulation to add 60 elephants to a scrawny herd of 6 in order to make an image that says the species is not endangered. Let's say you use photoshop to reforest some denuded Brazilian mountains to show we're not cutting too many trees, or to lure investors into your overseas timbering operations. (You could do that in Indonesia and Siberia right now also.) The greatest danger in image manipulation of nature photography is not the aesthetic purpose but the political/commercial one. Making a pretty picture is one thing. Making a pretty picture to make people think the world is healthy when it's not is another.

[anthonty_debase]

Is image manipulation using a product such as Photo Shop photography?? I don't believe it is. I believe that when one goes beyond cropping, adjustments of color, contrast, and fixing minor problems like scratches and dust marks one is no longer engaging in photography. Significant image manipulation can certainly be considered an art. I have seen some very creative and interesting visual artwork using digital tools, but I don't think it is photography any more than drawing on a traditional silver print would be considered photography.

[vlf___1]

You can easily build some labels and classifications:<BR></BR>

- Genuine photographic product<BR>

- Digitally treated for dust, scratches, cropping...<BR>

- Digitally enhanced and modified on purpose and with<BR>

respect to the "ethics in nature photography" thinking<BR>

(Darkroom job is done digitally, equivalent as dogging<BR>

and burning, using a split filter performed by computing...).<BR>

- Subject digitally altered, the picture looks true but tells<BR>

something wrong about the subject<BR>

- Digital art: cut and paste, colors enhanced or modified...<BR></BR>

My concern is then: where do you draw the lines between these sections ?<BR><BR> And who is going to enforce this ? Sure we need one more law ?<BR></BR> Even if a picture is not digitally altered, the way the photographer took this picture is already the best opportunity for him to tell HIS story about the subject (look for the example given by Galen Rowell in one of his books when he reports that during a shooting in the Alps he took two pictures 5 minutes appart, the first one with the mountains only in the frame, what a lovely place! the other one looking down, a miserable building, half destroyed lying on the snowy slope, what an ugly place !)<BR> My 2 cents, Vincent.

[marv_thompson]

all photography is manipulation of the natural scene. the only reality in a photograph is what the photographer choses to put into the frame. by framing the image we have done the first manipulation to a natural scene, what is the difference what is added or subtracted after this. this debate has raged for decades and will continue to rage, which is good, it should be dicussed, debated and even fought over. my only suggestion as a way to ensure that the production of un-digitally modified, hand crafted, silver and platinum prints be recognized for what it is, would be to be sure to always, i mean always mention that the print has been produced in that manner. instead of trying so hard to control the digital medium, what fred picker refered to as C.R.A.P., Computer Re-Arranged Photograph, we need to shout our craft at the top of our lungs, and make sure that people know what it is that they are seeing. tell them that it takes more than going to the one hour photo to get superior results that mean something. the bottom line is that the public is about as cynical about what they see in photographs as they are what they here on the news any more. we as photographers need to inform and educate them on what it is that they are looking at when they see our images, be they either digital or conventional. both sides have a lot to gain from enlightening the public, i just hope that we can do it without having to rely on some outside force to dictate the content of our images and how we present them.

[dave_mueller]

Wow, this is a long thread. I can't believe that I have something intelligent (?) to say about ethics.

 

<p>

 

A lot has been said about ethics of who does what and how they do it.

 

<p>

 

There are a lot of great reasons to become a photographer. I want to learn how to take good photos and learn how to recognize them.

 

<p>

 

How about this rule for ethics in manipulating images:

If you can do it with a filter, or in a darkroom, then doing it digitally is OK.

 

<p>

 

Thus, changing contrast, color balance, and so forth would be OK.

 

<p>

 

Adding zebras to a photo in a report to the Game Commission is out.

 

<p>

 

Adding zebras to a photo in an artistic document about patterns should be OK (but I'd still want to know it would be a cold day in hell before that pack of zebras passed me with my camera!).

 

<p>

 

Its all in the context. Are you taking photos to show others what is real, or how you view the world? Are you making art or recording history?

 

<p>

 

I don't have the desire to build a darkroom in my basement. I'd rather use the computer I built to achieve the same effect.

 

<p>

 

Technology has consumerized more than photography. I'm also a ham radio operator. However, I'd rather pick up a soldering iron and build something instead of picking up the microphone or code key and talking to someone. Technology has brought this hobby to the point where 9 year olds can get a license and a super station in his/her bedroom. All it takes is money, and a quick guide to the new fangled radio.

 

<p>

 

My original radio is a Heathkit. All of the parts take up about 10 feet of desk space and weigh 100 pounds. The radio I use most is a about the size of a Gideon bible from a hotel. Comparing it to my Heathkit is like comparing a Pentium Pro to a 4 function desk calculator.

 

<p>

 

Do I think anything less of the contacts I've made with the new radio? Of course not. The computer inside the radio helped make some of them, but they still count. But, if the computer inside the radio used its imagination and made up people for me to talk to, then there's something wrong.

 

<p>

 

It's the same thing with photography. Some people prefer to buy radios instead of build them. Some people would rather burn the sky in a darkroom, I'd rather use the computer I already have. Please don't think of me as unethical.

 

<p>

 

Happy New Year,

Dave Mueller

[frank_sheeran]

Hi Pete, <p>

 

I've done exactly what you ask. The specifics: From the western

porch of ETH in Zuerich, looking out over a rainy, misty townscape.

I had an EOS 1N + 28-70/2.8L, and RZ (Kodak 25 print) and Velvia. <p>

 

The goal: avoid the syndrome common to about 95% of non-mediterranian

euro-pictures - a completely featureless white sky. <p>

 

I suspected that I needed the transparency film to show any detail in

the low clouds. I've never gotten realistic results punching up sky

contrast in Photoshop, so I wanted the detail I could see in the

clouds to end up on the media. Velvia's contrasty enough for that. <p>

 

The Catch-22 is that exposing for the sky would turn the ground into

murk, with slide film. And, I couldn't use an ND, because that would

turn the 5-6 church towers black, erasing the main interest of the

scene. <p>

 

Expecting to make a photoshop composition, I metered the sky and a

generic section of city. Composed and shot both exposures. <p>

 

The sky in the city shot was white. The ground in the sky shot was

nearly black, with a few grumbles of detail. <p>

 

I had pretty good luck merging the shots using a "soft light" layering

but I settled for a "normal" layering with a hand-drawn transparency

mask. <p>

 

As far as the ethics go: I portrayed exactly what a person will see

in Zuerich maybe 8 months a year: heavy overcast with detail, and

the city itself with detail. <p>

 

I feel more manipulative with some other images. I got another shot

of Zuerich from a "secret" location (you'd have to live there to

know where the Panorama Bar is) at sunset a few days after the summer

solstice (lighting the north sides of buildings gold) when the sky

was clear enough to see the alps (1 in 50 chance) and yet had big

cloud formations for interest (1 in 30 chance). There's no other

place in town with the viewpoint to see this 1 or 2 times a year view.

And it lasted 20 minutes (western clouds blocked the sun). In fact,

I feel nearly guilty for taking a simple-metered, non-filtered slide

of a scene that simply doesn't exist (for practical purposes). <p>

 

Put <i>that</i> in your ethics pipe and smoke it! <p>

 

As for disclaimers: only other photographers who failed to get the

same picture would benefit from knowing that the first was a really

complex, digitally edited multiple exposure. On the other hand, most

all viewers should realize that the simple shot represented something

you may not see in a lifetime in Switzerland. And I wouldn't bother

with mentioning the digital composition unless I was also mentioning

the film, lens, tripod, camera, time and date, GPS coordinates, etc.

<p>

 

People believe their eyes, so it is too easy to lie to people with

pictures. I could show you several shots of logged valleys or strip

mines and make you get a lump in your throat, or convince you that

nature is so vibrant it doesn't need any protection. If instead your

goal is to report the facts, I don't need to know how touched up or

processed the picture is. If you are being sloppy or slanting facts,

even "straightforward" shots should be captioned as unrepresentative.

[wtyler]

It seems to me that arguments about what digital techniques are acceptable (answers seem to range from none to all) miss the point. Manipulated imagery goes back well over 100 years, and darkroom techniques for an extremely wide range of image manipulations are available. The real issue is whether the technique is being used to deceive, either purposefully or unintentionally. The photographer who frames a scene to show only the bear in the woods, and not the dumpster that the bear has just feasted from, has already committed deception by removing critically important context. Adding another bear digitally might offend some people more, but would be no more significant as an alteration of reality.

 

<p>

 

Bill

[bobatkins]

Bill Tyler? As of Usenet? If so welcome (well welcome anyway!).

 

<p>

 

The difference between not showing "reality" and digitally

altering an image is the same as the difference between

keeping quiet and outright lying. Neither gives "the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but there is

still an enormous difference!