Image manipulation, ethics and all.

[wtyler]

Hi Bob.

 

<p>

 

Yes, I'm the same Bill Tyler.

 

<p>

 

I just don't see the sharp dividing line between some manipulations and others, and why digital manipulations are worse than analog ones. Over 100 years ago, Henry Peach Robinson was making multiple-negative prints that purported to be single scenes. Was he less a liar because he used 'non-digital' techniques? More recently, someone like Jerry Uelsmann has used a traditional darkroom to produce surreal images that are as seamless as any digital fakery. Uelsmann isn't trying to deceive, but his techniques could certainly be used deceptively. The crucial point is NOT the particular technology, but the intent to deceive.

 

<p>

 

Bill

[stanley_mcmanus]

Two drivers are speeding in a school zone while small children walk to school. One exceeds the speed limit by 5 mph, the other by 35 mph. Is there a difference? If you were a parent of one of the children and the local policeman could only stop and arrest one of these drivers who would you advise him to arrest?

 

<p>

 

There is a difference in degree when it comes to manipulating and altering images and it does make a difference. Why don't some of the professional/enthusiast organizations like NANPA set some standards and speak out? Their silence convicts them. In my opinion, of course.

[dan_smith]

With the school zone speeders Stan, the guy going 35mph will be out of the dangerous area sooner than the one going only 5 miles over the limit. Maybe the one in the zone longer has a longer time to find and hit the kids. There are a lot of interpretations in this and the digital manipulation questions. Traditional darkroom workers have nearly always manipulated images. From simple dodging and burning to Eugene Smith doing darkroom "additions" to his extreme use of ferrocyanide bleach to change the emphasis of a photo to Uelsmann and company to create the mental images on paper to tabloid UFO stuff. Black & White is a lie in itself as the world is not seen that way, it is entirely a creation of science and vision. Color lies in that few ever see a "Cartoon Color" world as rendered in Velvia. A printer who has a touch of color blindness sees a different world than you or I, just as I interpret a different world than someone else due to a hearing loss. "Reality" is subjective. Photography is subjective. Digital manipulation is just another tool to be used and is not inherently bad or good. It is only a tool. When I use it I label the images as such but I sure do not believe everyone else will do so. that is just another reality.

[mark___1]

Stan - I can assure you that eventually NANPA will address the issues surrounding digital manipulation if they haven't already started (which I believe they have). They have already published an essay in rebuttle to the McKibben article that appeared in DoubleTake on wildlife photography ethics. (Another interesting read for those following the press attention it has received)

 

<p>

 

However I wouldn't get your hopes up for some quick "standards" to be published. From the complex discussion's across the internet, I would imagine this to be a massive, but necessary, undertaking by NANPA.

 

<p>

 

Mark

[bobatkins]

There doesn't seem much of a dilema to me. There are two clear areas,

art and documentary. In art, anything goes. You can paint, draw,

photograph, digitally manipulate until your fingers drop off, its

all OK. No problems. No debate. Art includes the world of

advertising and business. If it pays, it works, who cares what

it is. Nobody in their right mind expects avertising to be truthful

and nobody expects art to reflect reality.

 

<p>

 

In documetary recording, such as we expect from publications like

Audubon etc., adding objects to a scene (or removing them) is

wrong. They shouldn't be publishing such altered images, but if

they do, a notification is mandatory. The NWF magazines already

publish a lot of artwork (paintings/drawings), so they have a

precedent by which they can justify the publication of digital

art, as long as it's marked as such.

 

<p>

 

I think that citing things like using Velvia or filters as being

comparable in manipulation to adding a lion to a herd of zebras is

a specious argument (and those making the argument know it!). If

you can't see the difference, you're fooling yourself.

 

<p>

 

I would think (and hope) that any responsible, ethical nature

photographer would (and would want to) label any digitally altered image which might

be taken for a "documentary" image as manipulated. Ditto for

responsible publications. I don't expect the National Enquirer to

do it, but National Geographic should (I hope they learned their

lesson from the pyramids affair).

[stanley_mcmanus]

Surely nobody takes seriously the idea that somebody driving 35mph in a school zone might be safer since they get out of the zone quicker. The use of such an argument to defend devious digital methods show how desparate some folks are to justify them. Now, I seriosly doubt if the writer is devious and I agree overall with his comments. But I still maintain that arguing that use of a filter is the equivalent of adding or deleting an object is just as silly as arguing that a fellow going 35mph over the speed limit is not endangering children any more than a fellow going 5 mph over the limit. They are not the same thing.

[p._soohoo]

A while back someone quoted Weston as saying something to the effect that cameras are honest and record what they "see". This presupposes that the camera and the eye are similiar and that the purpose of photography is to record what is "seen". That's really a key issue what do you "see". In the case of Ansel Adams he "saw" the image well before the camera recorded it. He saw it in his minds eye and made it reality via a camera. Many examples in this thread follow this premise, making a photograph match what a person sees. I don't think anyone has discussed how you can regulate how people "see".

 

<p>

 

Suppose I "previsualize" a photograph of a butterfly feeding from a flower. My mind says this will really look cool and imagines the color contrast, line etc etc (the elements that make up effective photos). I than execute this vision by photographing this butterfly and separately this flower. I than use some sort of "manipulation" to make this a reality (a photograph). The kicker in this example could be that this species of butterfly would never feed on this type of flower. Not exactly a "valid" image anymore is it ... but it certainly is what the photographer saw. I'm sure the Ansel Adams fans (I'm a great admirer too) will have trouble with this example because he never stooped to such techniques. But remember Ansel spent a life time in developing an approach to developing and printing (the Zone system) to make his vision a dream. What makes the zone system acceptable but not Photoshop techniques?

 

<p>

 

Another example. I recently had the pleasure of photographing a total solar eclipse. None of the photos while technically correct actually depicts what I really saw that day. That is because the dynamic range of film (I used Ektachrome 200) can adequately deal with this phenomonon. In fact I've come to realize that most of the standard eclipse photos you see on calendars and postcards are "fake" i.e. shot at long exposures to emphasize the what are called streamers but in reality your eye never sees these but film can record the "build up of light".

 

<p>

 

In fact I've heard seen is that the "best" (what looks like what the human eye sees) eclipse photos are actually composites of several eclipse photos taken at different exposures and layer on top of each other (digitally) which is simulating what your eye is able to do when actually view an eclipse i.e. instantaneously adjust its ability to see different levels of detail depending on brightness.

 

<p>

 

What does this all mean? I dunno just that this is a very complex issue that will not be resolved by committees, labels, rules and regulation, because it would require legislating intent, and how defining the term "see".

[jana_mullerova]

I have insyinctively drawn a line at a ND filter. It's the most manipulative technique I would use. So, in this mental duel, I'll join the "dinosaur" party. (Reminds me of James Thurber's fable "A Man and a Dinosaur", a conflict between something Great Fancy New against something Pathetic Old, ending with: And the Man said: "In a few eons, you'll extinct". And the Dinosaur said: "I'll rather extinct than be like you." - I'm just teasing you modernists, no offence meant.)

 

<p>

 

I want sugar in my coffee, no chemical sweetener, thank you. I want real night sky with stars, no fancy ceiling pattern, thank you. I want people smile or frown, but not wear a "say cheese" mask.

 

<p>

 

If you find the Cokin website, you'll see what I mean. Fancy ... but a foul taste, just like a chemical sweetener.

 

<p>

 

I observe that social demand for genuine quality, and nostalgia, too, has recently returned to the market. (In Europe, that is.) Rationally, I wish this trend continued, simply because altering reality can be lethal. Manipulation as such can be lethal, and it often smells of a rat. (Or, even worse, of plastic.) Emotionally, I wish this trend continued, too.

 

<p>

 

Also, I observe that people can tell a fake. There is something, perhaps very very slightly, wrong. The shadow is slightly too dark. Slightly out of place. Slightly bizarre. And people can be educated, when they are interested.

[christopher_j._jones]

Pete, unlike most posters here, I wil try to answer the question. Yes, I have done this in a digital photography class. The results were excellent, and I used the photographs for the class portfolio.

 

<p>

 

As for ethics, that is up to you. If you are careful not to mislead anyone in any way, then I fail to see how this could be a problem. BTW I do not really like or use digital manipulation myself, but my interest is fine art rather than commercial.

 

<p>

 

I liked someone's earlier analogy about antique furniture. I happen to love Shaker furniture, and I am slowly furnishing my apartment with replicas. The fact that my desk is not a handmade original loses it some of the "cool factor," but it is still a beautiful desk. I even have a pseudo-Shaker futon-frame. Like a digitally created herd of zebras, it replicates something that never existed (Shakers did not have futons). In a museum of Shaker design, it would be an obcenity. At home, it is just furniture. In the end, you make the call.

[phil_anderson]

Pete and others,

 

<p>

 

Sorry if this appears twice! It glitched on me!

 

<p>

 

I am probably as qualified, at least technically, to answer this and any other question you all may want to throw at me. Why? I work as a digital imaging technician for a living! I know a lot of this has delved into ethics, but for now I would like to clarify a few things that I hope will help out on the technical side.

 

<p>

 

First, anyone who believes they will not have anything to do with digital imaging in photography had better not plan on having any photos published. Why? With rare exception all photos prepared for publication (pre-press) are scanned and then "manipulated" for final output. What this means is you sell a photo. The buyer gives the photo to someone who scans it (not simple $2/1mb scans like on CD ROM's, usually 40mb and up) creating a file which is then adjusted (manipulated, altered, enhanced, choose your term) for press to how the art director (or similar title) sees fit. Usually, especially in nature photography, the alteration is minimal. But unless you are quite powerful, or you do your own scanning and pre-press, you will have little or no say in what occurs.

 

<p>

 

This is not a new item. It has been going on before Adobe Photoshop came into being. Before that, Scitex, Barco and other systems/programs did similar work preparing photos for print. Just in the last few years with the advent and power of computers and such programs as Photoshop has this overtaken copy work and similar old fashion printing. Mostly due to cost.

 

<p>

 

As far as what can be done. Let's not kid ourselves on the other side of things. I love it when people say, "nothing can be done in the computer that can't be done (better...) in the darkroom." This is absurd. The computer and many of the current programs of today are amazingly powerful with the ability to create seamless results. Once you have worked on a powerful system with large files you will immediatly see what I say. Pete's problem is an easy one to fix. Art Wolfe's Zebras would not even be that hard. Nor would cloning those shoes onto OJ, though who knows what really was done there.

 

<p>

 

One last thing for now, so I don't babble on and on here! Whether we like it or not, digital imaging is here to stay. It is very healthy that we discuss the ethics of it, because I can guarantee you, as one who went from printing and processing for a few years to a guaranteed career in computer work, nothing anyone says will diminish the growth of this field. As such, for my two cents worth. I don't really care what you do to your photos in the computer, because I know most photos that are printed go through the computer anyway, just be immdiatly upfront about what you did when anyone asks. For me that holds ethical principle.

[dan_smith]

Bob's mentioning that no one expects advertising to be honest in the photography needs some comment. Advertising and truth in advertising laws put more stringent requirements on how many things are presented with photography than most Nature Photogs might like to live with. Products can be made to look great, but start misrepresenting them on film and find out how quickly you get the Feds and State authorities here in the USA on your case including filing of criminal charges.

Misrepresent a Zebra or Owl or Seal and few pay attention. Our industry is still one of trust on many levels. I hope it remains that way as if the Governments start trying to regulate it, Nature Photography will be in for trouble. We do have the photogs who aren't to be trusted but many good editors and photogs out there recognize their trickery and they seem to lose business. Art & documentation aren't mutually exclusive and each has its place. But to misrepresent one as the other is dishonest. What is acceptable now may not be in the future as standards change even in Photojournalism.

[mark_lindsey]

First off I wonder if anyone will see my response at all, given that it is so late in coming to the conversation!

 

<p>

 

Yes, this technique is possible in the digital world (I know others already answered the question, but I felt an obligation) Unlike someone said before, many of the digital techniques can be done with traditional methods, they are just more time consuming and difficult to do (where do you think the names of all those tools and effects in PhotoShop came from in the first place?)

 

<p>

 

I too have made a living as a digital manipulator, but also am a black and white photography artist who focuses on natural scenery. I feel that the true point of conjecture has been completely missed, I feel that it is not the comparison of digital to traditional methods of manipulation that creates the conflict, rather it is the idea that you photograph the found object, as opposed to placing objects together in the natural scene to create an image. Why else would we have a problem with digital manipulation in some areas, i.e. nature, as opposed to other areas such as the movies?

Many have brought up the name of Ansel Adams, he was dead set against Edward Weston setting up some of his nature photos, and I agree, they are some of his weakest images (one such image is the picture of a shell on the rocks, off hand I cannot recall the specific name of said image) We, as photographers of the natural scene, take from nature to create a combination of what we saw and felt and the time of exposure. To rearrange the scenery, seems to me to destroy our very purpose when we venture into nature.

 

<p>

 

I have no problem with digital photography or manipulation as long as it is defined as such, and everyone that I know that would be termed as the "general public" are concerned about the same thing, lets not go into denial about what the public cares about or insult the general populations intelligence. Digital Photography/manipulation (and lets make it clear that you can be a digital manipulator without being a photographer, and you sure can be either or both without being an artist) should be considered a separate medium from traditional photography, and believe me people want to know what the medium of the artwork is when they are viewing it. I, as an artist certainly do, and what is so wrong with that?

 

<p>

 

My only other problem with this situation is that the digital alternative can and will tend to make some people sloppy in their photographic technique, preferring to "fix it" later rather than do it right the first time, and some will argue that it doesn't matter as long as it is corrected before the piece is finished, but believe me, this sloppiness begins to show.

 

<p>

 

 

The digital photographic world has come a long way, but is still very deficient in some areas, such as black and white, 256 shades of gray just doesn't cover it, and dodging and burning in PhotoShop just doesn't work like it does in the darkroom, but I am sure that one day these things will come around.

 

<p>

 

To sum it up, I use both traditional and digital techniques on a daily basis, there is room for both and each has its drawbacks and advantages. If I create digital art, then it is described as such, and if I use traditional photography, then it too is labeled accordingly, why should anyone have a problem with that? Can't we all just get along? :)

[arthur_morris]

Well, this thread is old, and has gone off in a many directions, but I have just recently gotten involved on line, so here are a few of my thoughts (and a few facts). Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting are--arguably the two "best," most widely published nature photographers alive today in spite of the absolute fact that a significant fraction of the animals that they photograph are not free and wild. Art shoots lots of animals in zoos and game farms. Franz often shoots close-ups of animals that are confined in enclosures. My understanding is that Art feels that it is not necessary to label zoo shots or set-ups as such. I am not sure what Franz's policy is. The fact remains, however, that hundreds, even thousand of their images of captive animals are published WITHOUT any indication that the animals were not free and wild when they were photographed. It is my strong belief that photographs of captive animals should be labeled as such, and, when used editorially, that this information should be included in the caption.

I hope that all the contributor's to this thread who "trashed" Marty Stouffer realize that Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting are pretty much in the same boat. And those who think that Art's carrer will suffer at all because of the to-do about "Migrations" are very sadly mistaken. By the way, my ff

[j._swinehart]

Okay, here's my two cents worth. (1) It seems to me that digital manipulation is a slippery slope -- once we get started on that path, we just keep on sliding downward. First, we "enhance" the color, then we remove offending debris (limbs, wires, etc) and, lastly we clone. Where does it stop? Or is the entire photo a collection of "cut & paste?" (2)What about the "thrill of the hunt?" Using different lenses, filters and other techniques BEFORE taking the shot is (to me) part of the challenge. If you can't do anything wrong that can't be corrected on the computer, where is the challenge?? How will we improve our photographic skills if we know we can always "erase" the errors?? That is the main probelm with digital manipulation -- it destroys the challenge of the photographer in the field.

[rich_ruh]

>... That is the main probelm with digital manipulation -- it >destroys the challenge of the photographer in the field.

 

<p>

 

Take this argument to its logical conclusion, and we would all be making exposures on large glass plates.

 

<p>

 

There is nothing wrong with technology, only in the way it is used. I happen to agree with the guidelies expressed by FoundView. Your mileage may vary.

 

<p>

 

[FWIW, I don't own a digital camera, Photoshop program, scanner, or any other darkroom equipment. Playing with this stuff doesn't interest *me*. I prefer to get outside and take pictures.]

[mark___1]

<<Using different lenses, filters and other techniques

BEFORE taking the shot is (to me) part of the challenge. If you can't do anything wrong that can't be corrected

on the computer, where is the challenge?? >>

 

<p>

 

From what I have seen in digital manipulated images - the starting image has to be pretty good to start with. Therefore I don't think the challenge is completely removed by the computer. As the technology stands today, if you start out with a poorly exposed, unsharp, badly composed, and poorly lit subject - you will only do slightly better than that by "fixing" it on a computer. Ie... Garbage In, Garbage Out.

 

<p>

 

Also, I welcome Arthur Morris to this forum. I look forward to your contribution to many of the discussions here. And by the way... fantastic new book!

 

<p>

 

Mark

[bobatkins]

In response to Art, I think the comments about Marty Stouffer were

more in relation to alleged unethical (and maybe illegal) practices,

rather then his use of captive animals. For a reference see the

<a href="http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/0696/9606diwi.html">Outside Magazine, July 1996</a> story.

 

<p>

 

Among the allegations are:

"To gain easier access to an elk migration path, Stouffer illegally gouged a trail through protected land belonging to the Center. In a

sequence showing a deer under attack by mountain

lions, for example, Stouffer allegedly set two tame cats loose on a

tame mule deer, a bit of stagecraft that resulted in the deer

being chased off a cliff." I don't think Art Wolfe or Franz Lanting have

ever been accused of such practices!

<p>

As for digital manipulation making things easy, well I'm all for

making things easy. The problem lies in its ability to deceive the

viewer, not in its ability to make life easier for the photographer.

I look forward to the day when I can scan in an image, tweak it for

color and contrast in the computer and make a large, high quality

digital print from it right on my desktop, equal in quality <em> and

cost</em> to a conventional print.

[ederkes]

I think digitally created nature images are a problem.

 

<p>

 

What digitally created nature images will do is diminish the visual and emotional impact of "true" nature photographs. I can think of a number of memorable wildlife photographs that I've seen in previous years that would not have the same impact today. Thomas Mangleson's image of a leaping salmon poised before the open jaws of an Alaskan Brown Bear is one that comes immediately to mind. If I were to see this image for the first time today, I would probably dismiss it as a digitally created composition.

 

<p>

 

The impact of images of "real events" will be lessened by the spectacular digital creations that will flood the market.

 

<p>

 

This diminishing of real nature images will occur regardless of whether or not images are labeled as digital creations- and that's assuming all photographers are honest and that all editors will care.

 

<p>

 

Galen Rowell's image, "Rainbow over Potala Palace" is another example. In explaining why one of his favorite images did not sell as well as expected as an art poster, he said it was because many viewers dismissed it as a fake. Although the faked image in this case would not have to be a digital creation, it illustrates the point. As manipulation of photographs becomes easier, more unique real images will be considered digital creations.

 

<p>

 

For me, part of the joy of photography is the challenge involved. If photography were easy, I would not enjoy it as much. Because photography is difficult, truly exceptional images stand out. The ease and extent to which a computer can manipulate and alter images is disturbing. Unfortunately digital manipulation is here to stay and only time will reveal its effects.

[arthur_morris]

A decade ago, when I saw a spectacular natural history image, my reaction was always, "Wow, that is beautiful." Today, my first reaction is either "Is that a straight shot or was it done on a computer?" or--as I have learned, unfortunately of some of the clearly unethical lengths that some nature photographers will go to to secure an image, "Is that a setup?"

No matter your feelings on digital manipulation or your ethical stance, the above situation saddens me.

It is my very strong belief that all digital manipulations that involve adding or subtracting components from an image, and all wildlife photographs of creatures that were not wild, free, and unrestrained must be honestly labeled by photographer and accurately captioned when published editorially.

As this, at present, seems highly unlikely at best, it would seem that the rather sad situation that exists today in nature photogrpahy will continue.

Best and great picture making.

Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

[pete_su]

Some of the "new" answers here are re-hashing old ground.

 

<p>

 

Photographs are credible because photographers are credible. Someone no less than Galen Rowell said this. The extent to which digitally processed photographs will remain credible at all depends more on the people using the medium than the medium itself. I don't think digital processes are fundamentally any different than other photographic tools.

 

<p>

 

In particular, it is naive to think that it is "easy" to create digital composites or striking digital images that are of high quality. Photoshop and tools like it are arguably some of the most complex pieces of software on the planet. They is not easy to use, they do not generate good results easily, they will not reduce nature photography to a "simple" act of going out and compositing together multiple mundane graphic images.

 

<p>

 

In order to make a good nature image, I think the digital artist would still face most of the challenges that the traditional still photographer does (find good light, good sense of composition, good sense of graphic design, the decisive moment). In addition, digital processing is not cheap, and not all that easy. I guess I've said this before.

[bobatkins]

Some things are worth saying again though! Two things are probably

worth mentioning. First is the <a href="http://www.foundview.org">

FoundView organization</a> who are at least trying to set some

guidleines on the labeling of images with regard to digital manipulation. Second is the fact that software and computers are

increasing in power and capabilities so fast that even if you accept

that image manipulation is currently quite difficult, in a few years

it will be 10 times easier (and cheaper). I'd also challenge the

view that it's difficult, at least for some things. Removing

telephone poles and wires is usually trivial. Adding elements can

be trickier, but removing elements is pretty easy, even now. Even

if it isn't today, there will come a time when it will be easier

to create the shot on a PC than it is to go out and get it in the

"real world".

[pete_su]

No matter how fast or powerful computers get, the point is that they are still just image manipulation tools. In order for the result to be compelling, the user of the tool will always have to have a unique spirit and vision and intuitive connection to the image. You can't get these things from a tool. I would claim that anyone who can't take a good photo will also not be able to use a PC to paste stock photos together into anything that is compelling.

 

<p>

 

The power of images like Galen Rowell's rainbow shot come partly from the fact that he went to extraordinary lengths to get the image. But, he had to have the vision and the presence of mind to put the image together in his head before going out and finding it. And, when he did find it, he didn't just stand there and snap the photo. He also had to have the craft and the design knowledge needed to find the most powerful composition. All of these things are in the photographer, not his tools.

 

<p>

 

So, while you are correct in saying that manipulation tools will let people do certain kinds of things more easily, I don't think its true that it will fundamentally change the fact that making artistically compelling images requires pratice, craft and talent.

 

<p>

 

OHTO, I would have to agree than scanning and computer tech. will probably make it much cheaper and easier in the future to do rudimentary retouching and other surface manipulations, and that there are ethical questions to be wrestled with because of this. I think this is on a totally different level than the claim that digital processes will make it 'trivial' to create great images.

If this were the case, then the pro. graphic designers would surely be out of business, and I doubt that will happen.

[steve_fletcher]

I am surprised at the wide acceptance of "digital techniques" as just another photographic tool. I consider digital manipulation a form of painting that has nothing to do with photography. I don't buy the lame argument that "photographic lenses and filters all manipulate reality" which is usually used to defend digital manipulation. There is a logical continuum here. A camera shows what was actually there. A painting (digital or otherwise) shows arbitrary objects that the artist desires to see there. Between these two extremes things get stickier (e.g., I don't believe in filter use, but neither it nor lens focal length alter a scene at all, they only affect the way a scene is recorded), but let's be clear that digital additions to an image are NOT photography. Hopefully others have said as much, but here's another in agreement. I predict digital painting, currently interfering in the world of photography, will eventually seperate itself and go the way of drum machines from the 80s: be relegated to limited use in favor of real musicians and instruments. My two cents.

[bobatkins]

I think some people overestimate the difficulty of digital editing. It's literally a 1-10 minute job to remove contrails from an image,

or to take out power lines. I have several images of animals with

flies on their nose. It takes less then 60 seconds to remove the

fly on a 24MB scan files. It's a trivial process. Ditto for the

removal of branches in the wrong place, stalks of grass in front

of an animal's face etc.

 

<p>

 

Now sure, I had to work for the original images, which are good but

slightly flawed. Minimal effort on the PC can replace hours of effort

in the field trying to find the animal without the fly, or waiting

for the contrails to disappear.

 

<p>

 

So is it OK for me to do the minor "touch up" work and not tell

anyone. Nobody will ever know I did it. If it's OK to do that,

what isn't it OK to do?

[mark___1]

Steve brought up a good analogy with music. Similar debates occurred with the increased use of electronic keyboards.... and the making of "fake" music. There were many traditional musicians who thought this was fooling the listening audience...or in itself wasn't real music at all. It has some similarities to this digital fakery debate.

 

<p>

 

Mark