AUDUBON - CONTEST DISQUALIFICATION & ETHICS

[Marina Scarr]

Audubon Magazine has been quite vocal lately on its website and FB page about a disqualification in their most recent annual photo contest. The image which was originally chosen for the grand prize was ultimately disqualified b/c it turned out to be a composite. The first article concerns the DQ, and the second includes several photos, addresses ethics in photography and includes a poll. These articles are not being posted to bring attention to any photographers named therein or to pass judgment. These are important issues facing nature photographers which need to be considered and addressed.

Blurred Lines in the Audubon Magazine Photo Awards
http://mag.audubon.org/articles/living/blurred-lines-audubon-magazine-photo-awards

Nature Photography: Objectivity, Manipulation and Ethics
http://mag.audubon.org/articles/nature/nature-photography-objectivity-manipulation-and-ethics?page=show

[Doug West]

I have a dumb question...for contests that are this prestigious, why not require the original raw file,
along with the image being judged?

Wouldn't that help reduce these type of mistakes by disqualifying images before being awarded?

Doug

[Doug Brown]

I have a dumb question...for contests that are this prestigious, why not require the original raw file,
along with the image being judged?

Wouldn't that help reduce these type of mistakes by disqualifying images before being awarded?

Doug

That's exactly what happened to Matthew Studebaker in this contest.

[Marina Scarr]

In this particular contest, for example, there were some 6,000 entries this year. The RAW files are so large that they are not requested for any contest, including this one, until the field is narrowed down to the finalists.

[Doug West]

Maybe some type of suspension for x number of years from entering the contest that the
photographer was caught?

Doug

[David Salem]

That's to bad. I think a photographer with his experience and contest knowledge should have known better. He had to know that if he won or even placed that were going to ask for the original file? Just shows to go ya. Thanks for the Info.

[Jerry van Dijk]

Hi Marina, very good that you draw attention to these issues and discussions. I like how Audubon has followed up on this and have used this issue to start up a much broader discussion. There are some very valuable points being made in the comments on these articles. I'm quite OK with digital image manipulations, especially if it creates a scene that you could actually have seen if you had been there like in this case (but the contest rules explicitly prohibited this manipulation, so it's the photographers own loss). It's the interaction with the subject I'm more worried about. There's some interesting differences in ethics and legislation between the US and Europe (or at least Holland) regarding the use of audio to lure birds and baiting. The use of audio is strictly prohibited, for baiting I'm not sure, but at least it is frowned upon. Especially with larger animals, baiting can pose a danger to humans, because feeding them makes them less shy and much more inclined to approach humans. There's a reintroduction progam for the European Bison in Holland. The biggest fear is that tourists will start feeding them, which can create dangerous situations if these large animals start actively seeking out humans in the hope for a meal.

To get back on topic: when I opened the Audubon link and saw the image of the owl on top of the page, I thought "wow, that is indeed too good to be true", only to find out that it was the original image.....:S3:

[Bryan Munn]

I am just coming back to wildlife photography after a roughly 20 year break. I am still somewhat of the "slide film" mindset, and my instinctive response is that everything should be done in the camera, even though I know today that is completely unrealistic. It is not even honest either....because films like Velvia did not depict "reality" any more than an "adjusted" digital image does. The difference is that now the photographer has control over the manipulation, whereas with film the film company did when they designed the product. So I would say that in the past the manipulation was only more predictable.

I think the larger issue that needs to be examined is the use of captive animals, or extraordinary means of manipulating wild animals into a shot. This is a huge grey area, and in many cases the claims of the photographer would be difficult or impossible to prove or disprove.

I have a deep instinctive disapproval of the type of photography that involves captive animals from game farms. But on the other hand, without it there would be virtually no photographs of animals such as mountain lions, wolverines, bobcats, etc. The only ways I know of to realistically obtain a decent photograph of a wild mountain lion is by treeing the poor creature with dogs, or by using a bait station. Given that those are the alternatives, suddenly the use of captive animals does not seem so bad....

Most of it is a huge grey area, further obscured by the fact that the claims of the photographer are difficult in many case to substantiate.

[Marina Scarr]

After reviewing the images in Audubon's second article included above and taking the poll, it occurred to me that I had seen one the images they disqualified before. This is the image which made it into Tier 1 (Top 10) of NANPA's 2011 Showcase and Expressions. Frankly, the story included sounds plausible, and I am sorry that for whatever reason Mr. Deutsch didn't respond to Audubon's communications.

I found the results of the poll quite interesting. I look forward to going back to it in a few weeks after more people have chimed into see if it has greatly deviated in any way.

[Barry Ekstrand]

Marina, thanks for posting this as I had not seen it yet. I find the discussion over at Audubon to very interesting. I have only recently begun looking at contests and their rules, and the first thing that jumped out at me was that the more prestigious contests have tight rules that our everyday critique suggestions on BPN would clearly violate. This isn't really a surprise, as we are trying to make the most aesthetically pleasing images here on BPN, which to me also means the most commercially viable. What I mean by that is that even though most of us here are not selling our photos, anything that becomes visually pleasing is bound to have some market value, and more importantly, the experts we are learning from are folks who win contests, sell their images, and lead instructional tours. And that is how it should be in my view.

But the contests are also right in setting very tight rules, if for no other reason than to create a situation where it is a truly rare and unique photo that becomes a candidate for the prize. Probability theory tells us that under such circumstances the winner is likely to be someone who gets out into beautiful surroundings a lot and takes a lot of photos. It doesn't prevent the casual wildlife photographer from being in the right place at the right time but it says odds are it will be a professional or someone who is able to spend a lot of time pursuing this passion. And that is also how it should be in my view.

I personally have no problem with baiting, calls, setups, or artificial backgrounds to help create a wonderful image. Or heavy use of photoshop to fix or change backgrounds, clean up the animals, etc. But such photos should never be presented as if it were the natural scene in the wild with no interaction other than taking the photo. Maybe the one thing that should come out of this discussion is for Audubon, National Geographic, etc. to add a new category that allows digital manipulation of photos in that category (although I would also ask the photographer why they chose to do so in order to have full understanding of their thought process). But I think the tight rules in the 'this is how it looked through the viewfinder when the photographer was out in the wild' category should stay very tight. I like it that they are trying to find those rare, unique photos when showing a true environmental shot.

Barry

[BobbyPerkins]

I have to agree with David Salem. That is too bad, Follow the rules!

[Don Lacy]

Reading the post at the bottom of the survey page of what some people consider nature photography would disqualify 90% of all nature images ever taken. Out goes anything shot on Velvia, Provia, Kodak VS and SW I guess images made on Kodachrome 64 might meet their standard for color reproduction. No baiting or calls god only knows how many images that would disqualify since the practice has been around forever. If you move an element in a landscape images before pressing the shutter it's no longer a found image so it does not count. I guess to them true nature photography is coming upon a scene or subject putting on your 50mm lens and setting the aperture to f/16 using a film or processing it in a way that exactly matches the color and contrast of the scene as your eyes see it, hopefully you're not color blind or you could never be a true nature photographer, then you have created a nature image or as I would call it a snapshot. The ignorance of those commenting and taking the poll is most evident by the 42% who consider the Anita Merrigan image unacceptable which is probably the most accurate representation of the natural scene of all the images in the poll yet 62% give Ansel a pass when moonrise over Hernandez is heavily manipulated and one of the most beautiful prints I have ever seen. So if Ansel had printed that image as he saw it instead of how he envision it the world would have one more nature photograph and be missing a work of art but hey it would be a true representation of the scene and could be entered into a contest. Ok I will get off my soapbox now

[Bryan Munn]

I think a lot of photo editors and other people making decisions about nature photography actually have no clue how it is really done. Even before the digital age, the vast majority of wildlife photographs were setup or manipulated in some way. Particularly with bird photography. We all know that wandering through the wilderness, with your big lens and tripod over your shoulder, shooting bird photos, does not generally work. At least, it does not produce photographs that photo editors would ever be interested in. Pretty much everything has to be pre-planned and setup. There is usually some sort of manipulation of the creatures normal habits to bring it into photo range as well. This brings up ethical questions to be sure, but if "standards" are ever agreed upon, how would they ever be enforced?

I think standards/limitations of digital manipulations make sense, because they would be reasonably enforceable and without them virtually anything could be concocted on film. But the larger moral question deals with what the photographer has done in the "real world" to get the shot in the first place.

I remember all the "nature" films that I used to watch on TV as a kid. Bears fighting cougars....eagles fighting wolverines. We all know these scenes had to be setups, and it boggles the mind to think of the cruelty and bankrupt ethics that had to accompany the making of these films. When money is on the line, there will never be a shortage of people who will stop at nothing to get it.

[Grady Weed]

If you do not like the rules, why enter the contest? If you enter the contest, follow the rules. It is real simple. If you speed you will get a ticket, then you have to face the judge, that's the system we have set up. Without rules we are nothing as a society. Without rules we have chaos. What do you want? Just because you can do something does not mean we should. It seems as time has gone by common sense flew out the window with it. Far too many take the easy way out. Many do not want anyone to tell them what to do. Whatever is your fancy or your cup of tea why it should be OK. If you want the respect of your peers then follow the rules as they were made.

The tools of the photography trade today, PS, have given us good things. Great cameras have helped us make better images. But we still need to follow guidelines. This feeling of " I do not have to follow the rules" or " lets see who I can make a fool of by breaking them " is bankrupting our world. The other day I asked a fellow photographer if his images were selling. His reply "it is getting harder and harder to do so. Many say they can take the same image, why should I pay you. Or, do you Photoshop your images, they look to good! " I had to hold back. And sad to say, many do not want to disclose that they do greatly manipulate their images, they feel it is none of anyone's business. Again I ask, what kind of world do you want to live in? One where integrity or honesty is valued or one where you do as you please with no consequence?

My reply may be more than what might have been asked for, but it has struck a nerve. I highly value an honest upright person who does not feel the need to mislead others or embarrass them by fooling them. Those kind of people as becoming a fast disappearing individual. I am not accusing anyone here of being misleading. The gentleman who combined two images to "win" but was disqualified KNEW BETTER! Sadly he chose to disrespect the other photographers who submitted images and followed the rules. When we do that, it shows we have no respect for ourselves. I have little patience for that kind of "creativity". I hope others will take a stand for what is right and express their disdain for those who flaunt the rules. Thank you Marina for asking.

[Sandy Witvoet]

I'll be (hopefully) short here.... agree with Grady. Saw the Owl image in the most recent Audubon Mag (page 4) and read the article on the disqualification. If you enter a contest, play by the rules (and the rules don't include: "... if the ball is in the air, you are allowed to move the bases.") Audubon does ask for input per the VP's email: markjannot@audubon.org ... prior to doing that, head over to audm.ag/blurredlines2014 where there is more info and fuel for thought!

[Grady Weed]

Here are some direct quotes from the article Marina is posting about:


Submitted by Sage (not verified) on Mon, 2014/02/03 - 7pm.
Most photo contestants who are chosen to win would know they will have to cough up the original, This photo, though beautiful, should not have been entered and should not win.

Submitted by Christian Hunold (not verified) on Mon, 2014/02/03 - 9:25pm.
Matt is well-known for his intensely edited images. More power to him! He's one of the best wildlife photographers of his generation. He's out there 24/7 freezing or burning his butt off, as the case may be. I've no patience for the creativity-killing, zoology-textbook rules of contests like this and never enter them, so I think it's pretty cool that Matt had the opportunity to reveal their ridiculousness. I would like to think he did it intentionally.

A direct quote from the article here: Nor, for that matter, does Matthew Studebaker. He was, in fact, genuinely apologetic when I caught up with him by phone. Sorry, he said, to have wasted the judges' time--though he wasn't sorry to have manipulated the photo in the first place.

Now lets think about this a bit; he admits he knew it was a combined image but was not sorry it was manipulated. The photographer knew what the rules were but did it anyway! Some even want to believe he did it intentionally, to show up others that they did not know as much as they should have to be a judge of such images. What does this say about the person or the thinking behind such actions?

[Sandy Witvoet]

Well, let's not tear this guy apart too much (although, sorry to insert my opinion here... seems like a bit of a "prima-Dona").... bottom line is.... how much manipulation is too much? Which may be the statement he is trying to make.... although, he may have proposed/defined it "better". The Audubon photos certainly shouldn't be judged on how adept a person is in tech PP..... very difficult to draw the line.

[DickLudwig]

This is a quote from the photographer in question he he posted on another forum:

<tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
I guess I am somewhat at the center of this so I'll put in my two cents. My image 100% SHOULD have been disqualified. In fact, once I realized that the image was a pano merge, I was the first one who suggested the image should be withdrawn. It's totally their prerogative on what rules to lay out for the contest and it is the photographer's responsibility to abide by those rules. It was my mistake to not realize I had edited the shot beyond the allowances of the contest, and I apologized profusely to the people involved in the contest for not realizing it sooner and wasting their time. My only issue, is that the editor said he understood and thought it was a great discussion, but then portrayed the image as purposely deceptive. The error was my own. I wish he had given me the benefit of the doubt but I guess I can see why he might not. But it was my error and the image was correctly taken out.


</tbody>
- See more at: http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=241478#sthash.KD4We8mp.dpuf

[Grady Weed]

If the above statement by Matthew is true, then kudos to him for trying to do the right thing. Just to be fair about it all, I am not vilifying anyone. It is the attitude that prevails that needs to change. We do not try to change rules or laws by humiliating, taunting or flaunting authority into our way of seeing things, even it is only a photograph. Translate that kind of thinking into the medical field. Would you want a surgeon to say they were qualified to do brain surgery when they are a orthopedic doctor? How about a dentist operating on your heart? If someone claims to have abided by the rules or guidelines of an organization and you have put your trust in them, then they should be held to a level of scrutiny beholding to that profession.

Without trust in the skills, education and integrity of our professionals we have no confidence in their abilities to perform the tasks we have asked of them. Chaos will reign when we lower our standards. As professionals we set the bar for others. If anything it should be higher as time goes by. Change is always good if it brings about a higher standard of quality, not lowering it. If some want to make alterations in images, just be honest about it from the start, not when you get caught, then back pedal, or try to minimize the action.

Just some food for thought.

[Andrew Merwin]

After reviewing the images in Audubon's second article included above and taking the poll, it occurred to me that I had seen one the images they disqualified before. This is the image which made it into Tier 1 (Top 10) of NANPA's 2011 Showcase and Expressions. Frankly, the story included sounds plausible, and I am sorry that for whatever reason Mr. Deutsch didn't respond to Audubon's communications.

I found the results of the poll quite interesting. I look forward to going back to it in a few weeks after more people have chimed into see if it has greatly deviated in any way.

Marina,
When I saw this image in the Audubon poll, I thought it was completely implausible. I was absolutely positive that it was a very well manipulated image. For me, this is a problem because when I look at an image that is superlative in every way, I immediately doubt it's authenticity. I think there needs to be two separate categories of nature images: manipulated & what the photographer saw through the viewfinder. Photoshop skills are very different from photographic skills.

I find my distrust of superbly photographed images discouraging since I am unable to trust that the image is an accurate representation of the photographer saw & shot.

[Ian Cassell]

In my opinion, the DQ was entirely warranted. The stated rules were broken. End of that ...

On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about how the rules should be written in the first place. Crops, clean-up of debris on the water, dodging, burning ... these are all tools we use on a daily basis. What makes those any more acceptable than fixing eyes or clipped wing tips, adding real-estate, etc.? None of these were what the photographer saw through the viewfinder. Why are images in natural habitat "better" than images of captives? In my opinion, the requirement should be that manipulations are stated, not that they should be forbidden. Sure, one can have a category for "purists" (should they, perhaps, allow NO manipulation out-of-camera?), but I'm not of the mind that that is the only "right" way to do nature photography any more than I believe that portrait photographers should not clean up skin blemishes.

Personally, I believe the disqualified image was gorgeous and demanding on the art of the photographer. There should be a place for images like that in these competitions.

[Charles Glatzer]

If you do not like the rules, why enter the contest? If you enter the contest, follow the rules. It is real simple. If you speed you will get a ticket, then you have to face the judge, that's the system we have set up. Without rules we are nothing as a society. Without rules we have chaos. What do you want? Just because you can do something does not mean we should. It seems as time has gone by common sense flew out the window with it. Far too many take the easy way out. Many do not want anyone to tell them what to do. Whatever is your fancy or your cup of tea why it should be OK. If you want the respect of your peers then follow the rules as they were made.

The tools of the photography trade today, PS, have given us good things. Great cameras have helped us make better images. But we still need to follow guidelines. This feeling of " I do not have to follow the rules" or " lets see who I can make a fool of by breaking them " is bankrupting our world. The other day I asked a fellow photographer if his images were selling. His reply "it is getting harder and harder to do so. Many say they can take the same image, why should I pay you. Or, do you Photoshop your images, they look to good! " I had to hold back. And sad to say, many do not want to disclose that they do greatly manipulate their images, they feel it is none of anyone's business. Again I ask, what kind of world do you want to live in? One where integrity or honesty is valued or one where you do as you please with no consequence?

My reply may be more than what might have been asked for, but it has struck a nerve. I highly value an honest upright person who does not feel the need to mislead others or embarrass them by fooling them. Those kind of people as becoming a fast disappearing individual. I am not accusing anyone here of being misleading. The gentleman who combined two images to "win" but was disqualified KNEW BETTER! Sadly he chose to disrespect the other photographers who submitted images and followed the rules. When we do that, it shows we have no respect for ourselves. I have little patience for that kind of "creativity". I hope others will take a stand for what is right and express their disdain for those who flaunt the rules. Thank you Marina for asking.


I agree with Grady....those entering competitions trying to pass off images contrary to the rules should reap what they sew. Too many are trying to make a quick name for themselves at the expense of degrading the profession. I would like to see the offending photog's held accountable.

One such contest states no baited animals....so if one trains the subject with live bait and then takes an image of the same animal seeking live bait when none is present is it permissible? The rules need to be more clearly defined so as to avoid conflict of interest.

Chas

[Shawn Zierman]

Interesting discussion and points of view...In my opinion, the disqualified image of the owl is not so very different from the original version, and does not appear to misrepresent the natural history of what was there. I think in this particular case, there is much to do about nothing. The passionate points of view put forth so far, in pane #19 for example, are well expressed but off the mark imo...."chaos will reign"...no, I don't think so, and this is art (imo) that we are discussing, not life saving surgery :) When dramatic examples like what if a dentist tried to operate on someone's heart, are used as some type of correlating example to an artist using a photographic tool to enhance an image and breaking some photography contest rule in the process...the discussion becomes overly dramatic. Studebaker is an amazing nature photographer. He has inspired me with his images. I love his images that push towards "out of the box" with creative lighting and composition.... He made a mistake. We all make mistakes...Some of us should probably take out more insurance on the glass houses we are living in :)

[Doug West]

If anybody wants Matthew's view on all of this, he offered up an explanation on Naturescapes at (about 6 panes down):

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=241478

Doug

[Doug Brown]

I agree with Grady....those entering competitions trying to pass off images contrary to the rules should reap what they sew. Too many are trying to make a quick name for themselves at the expense of degrading the profession. I would like to see the offending photog's held accountable.


I'm with you Chas. No serious photographer enters a prestigious contest without knowing the rules ahead of time. When selecting images for competitions, I start with my RAW files and reprocess the photos to meet the sizing requirements of the contest. Matthew knew what he was doing, and the only thing he apologized for was wasting the judges' time by getting caught.

[Grady Weed]

Marina asked a question, and we responded. Matthew posted an image, knew the rules, he was caught and was disqualified. This is more than "just art" as pane #23 would have us believe. If we want the respect of other professionals, if we desire the limelight or approval of our peers, then we must accept the guidelines they require us to follow. It is not "living in a glass house" to have scruples and follow the rules. Belittling others because we stand up for what is right will only make matters worse. Those who make light of their chosen profession or valued hobby perhaps need to reflect on why they are involved in the first place.

I am not ashamed to stand up for values, principles, integrity or anything else I believe in. I do not personally know many here in the forums. I have never meet most here in person. But, I can judge by what I see written by them. Chas, Doug Brown, and many others do not seem afraid to say what is right. Thank you and good for them. If a person has a opinion it is OK to express it, that is what forums are for. But when we use them to make others feel small or humiliate them, well, it is time to get ready to hear the response. I never condemned Matthew for his "mistake". He is a mature individual who can defend himself, if and when he choses to do so. And yes I read his defense on the referenced site.

My analogy of the person who misrepresents themselves still stands! A photographer's portfolio is his resume! Lie about it, pad it, misrepresent it, and you get caught, you will be called to account for it by someone. So...if you do not like it, DONT DO IT! Art is a profession, for most of us anyway. and I intend to treat it as such. And it is apparent that most here want it to be that way. A big thank you to those who said so. I appreciate a good discussion and others opinions, rights to express themselves and different viewpoints. Still, be that as it may, we have to follow rules, be respectful and do what is right. If the "rules need to be changed to allow for good images, and Matthews was by the way, it was what he did with it I disagree with, then we have channels to follow.

Thank you for reading this and partaking in the discussion.

[Grady Weed]

In order to help our discussion along the right path, and keep it in perspective, I have one more analogy to make. Have you ever used an on line website to print off images you make? How would you feel if you uploaded one of your most hard earned images for them to print and send to you, only to find out they printed off several more for themselves and a few friends to enjoy? How about they used your image to self promote themselves in the form of a poster to display on their storefront? Or used it to slap on some coffee mugs, t shirts etc.?

Now one for a bit more of thought. When I was 20 or so, a friend was getting married. We took him out for dinner, some games etc. One of our invited guests decided to go out afterward with the guest of honor and had a few more drinks! The soon to be groom knew they should not drive home. He called a cab. The other gentleman did not, he drove home. But before he did, he t-boned a car and killed the driver. He cried in court, apologized to the family etc, etc. His father got the judge to give him home confinement. The deceased family was livid. Within 6 months, my friend was driving DUI and got caught. Once more tears etc. My point, he brought shame on us all by what he did. I showed up in court to help support him and the family of the victim. Then he repays us by doing again! He had no personal responsibility! He said he was sorry, but his actions spoke louder than words. I was ashamed for him. The family was so distraught and was only angered even more when they found out he was at it again. This time the judge came down hard on him, deservedly so!

And that is the bigger picture. Both examples are about principles, morals, accepting personal responsibility! Our principles guide us all over and through life, no matter if it is a photograph, driving habits, representing ourselves as one way when we are not, or anything else. When we mess up we owe someone, not everyone in all cases. But their are some situations where we owe everyone around us, or our profession, group of friends or co-workers etc, an explanation or apology. Way too many today think they owe no one anything. Not so. That's where "chaos" comes in. We all answer to someone. I know of no one who answers to nobody. While a photograph may be just art or whatever to some, it is still something to be proud off. Matt's image was really a nice image. The bigger picture is realizing a mistake and taking full responsibility for it. I do not want anyone to be vilified for a one time mistake. But when we minimize it, continue to do the same thing over and over, excuse it or demean others for trying to keep the game clean, then it is time to re-think what we did.

This type of discussion will continue. It has been going on since Ansel Adams made photography an art form. I just hope enough of us can keep it an art form, with integrity and honesty at the forefront.

[David Stephens]

What disturbed me most was that 44% thought that the lily image was unethical. Those of us that ETTR (Expose To The Right) might recognize that washed out Raw file as one of our own. I do that all the time, raising EV as much as I can without blowing out important highlights and then normalizing exposure in Raw conversion.

Perhaps a lot of non-photographers were taking the poll, not realizing that the Raw file is much like Adams' negative. It's a starting point. With digital photography, those that ETTR are attempting to collect as much data as possible with our in-camera Raw file. Many relatively serious digital photographers don't even realize this, so my guess is that the average viewing public is totally clueless.

I guess that's not real surprising when 24% of those taking the poll think that Adams' processing of his negative was unethical.

The author of the poll was probably smiling when he or she included the lily example in the poll. At least the largest percentage thought that it is ethical to ETTR and normalize in Raw conversion.

Adams could speak and write about how his negative was only a starting point and not be considered a "manipulator". In the digital world, when the digital photographer talks about "adjusting" levels, the general public immediately thinks "Photoshop MANIPULATION" when all the photographer has done normalize the levels to bring them as close as possible to what his or her eyes saw.

I don't know what is to be done about the misunderstanding and distrust from a large portion of the population (44% in this poll) that think we're being unethical when we normalize levels in our Raw conversion. If they sat beside me and watched me process a Raw file for conversion, they wouldn't even see what I've done, because my DxO Optics Pro Raw conversion program opens the Raw file with a preset already applied. I don't even look at the unprocessed Raw file most of the time. It's not of interest, except that I know that it gives me the best chance to produce an image with low noise, good contrast, great shadow detail and accurate colors.

[Shawn Zierman]

Grady, first hypothetical scenarios that imo don't apply to this situation...just trying to make your point and prove your convictions...I get that. Now a true life story about someone you know drunk driving and killing someone?. Consider the white flag of surrender to be raised. I'm not going to try and discuss that....

[Bryan Munn]

I don't know if this bears a lot on this discussion, but maybe it does.

I did a lot of wildlife photography in the late '80s and '90s, then was pretty much away from it for almost 20 years pursuing other interests. I have recently re-ignited the passion and am trying to catch up with the ways things have changed.

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but the entire "style" and appearance of nature photographs has changed dramatically from the days when there were no manipulations to the slide film once it left the camera. There is no doubt that today's images are on a higher level, probably largely due to the sophistication of modern equipment, but that is not what I am talking about. The limitless ability to digitally manipulate photos after the fact has changed the "norm" for what is a good nature photograph. The style today, particularly for wildlife, is much "cleaner". Distracting environmental factors, bright or dark spots, or anything else that is perceived to distract from the creature being photographed is typically removed. For better or worse, nature photography has IMHO become more artistic/interpretive and less of a biological record. I don't think the tricks and secrets used by photographers to get subjects into a position to snap the shutter have changed at all, nor have the subjects themselves. This is all about after-the-fact digital editing.

As a "dinosaur" whose mindset is in some ways still in the Kodachrome/Velvia era, my instinctive response to this new style is not always positive. In the past the ultra clean background-perfect setup type photos were nearly always captive animals photographed in a studio or other contrived environment. Seeing that style of photograph today triggers in me that same instinctive interpretation, at least on some level, despite knowing that it is not necessarily accurate. The images scream to me "too good to be true!" and instead of admiring a beautiful photograph, I find myself pondering just how much of it is actually "reality". Keep in mind I know this is an emotional response more than a rational one, but it is real nonetheless. I am sure there are many here who trace their roots back to the slide film days and know exactly what I am talking about.

I have mentioned this because I suspect that many photo editors in places such as Audubon have been around for a while and are wrestling with the same dilemna. I suspect as more and more of the old-timers retire the rules as to what is "acceptable" in terms of digital manipulation will become more and more liberal. But the question will always remain, when does a photograph stop being a "photograph" and become a digital illustration? I think a line will always have to be drawn somewhere. I would favor at least some contests having rules that strictly prohibit or limit any manipulation of the image after the shutter closes, but like I said I am a dinosaur.

[DickLudwig]

Here is a second post (from another forum) by the photographer in question:

'The Audubon editor just posted this on their website, completely making up for the wording in the article. Thanks Mark:
"As Audubon's VP/Content and the author of the Editor's Letter that sparked this generally glorious dialogue, I just want to make it clear that I absolutely believe Matt Studebaker when he tells me that his submission of the altered image was an honest mistake. I am certain he had no intent to defraud the magazine and our readers. I also want to make sure that my reference to Matt's "deception" in at the end of my article isn't read (because of a careless turn of phrase on my part) by anyone to suggest that I think otherwise. I was not trying to say that I think Matt tried to deceive Audubon, but rather that, from a purist's perspective, any digital manipulation of a photograph might be considered a sort of deception--and I erroneously expected Kenn Kaufman to be just such a purist, hence my surprise that he reacted with a tolerance and appreciation that, frankly, pretty well matched my own. I think Matt is not only a great photographer, but also a stand-up guy. When I proposed to a few others at the magazine that I was going to give him a call and see what he had to say about this whole issue, the general assumption seemed to be that anyone who got that kind of a phone call would nearly certainly decline comment. Instead, Matt graciously chatted with me for a half an hour or so, engaged me in a robust conversation around all of these questions, and in doing so opened himself up to potential criticism (and, I hope, admiration). In my opinion, he's got nothing to apologize for here, and much to be proud of. "'
- See more at: http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=241478&view=unread#unread

[Marina Scarr]

Having difficulty seeing what Dick has posted for some reason but here is what Matthew has posted to his FB today.

I recently ALMOST won the Audubon photo contest. I had created a pano composite (allowed) and cropped to traditional 2/3 dimensions, making it more in the realm of a composite. A gray area to be sure. It was disqualified which is completely ok. Many of you saw in the magazine, however, where my image was referred to as a "deception". I wasn't too happy about that choice of words from the editor. Today the editor apologized on Audubon's blog. Thanks so much Mark. That means a lot,

" I want to clear a few things up here, and this seems an appropriate place to do so. As Audubon's VP/Content and the author of the Editor's Letter that sparked this generally glorious dialogue, I just want to make it clear that I absolutely believe Matt Studebaker when he tells me that his submission of the altered image was an honest mistake. I am certain he had no intent to defraud the magazine and our readers. I also want to make sure that my reference to Matt's "deception" in at the end of my article isn't read (because of a careless turn of phrase on my part) by anyone to suggest that I think otherwise. I was not trying to say that I think Matt tried to deceive Audubon, but rather that, from a purist's perspective, any digital manipulation of a photograph might be considered a sort of deception--and I erroneously expected Kenn Kaufman to be just such a purist, hence my surprise that he reacted with a tolerance and appreciation that, frankly, pretty well matched my own. I think Matt is not only a great photographer, but also a stand-up guy. When I proposed to a few others at the magazine that I was going to give him a call and see what he had to say about this whole issue, the general assumption seemed to be that anyone who got that kind of a phone call would nearly certainly decline comment. Instead, Matt graciously chatted with me for a half an hour or so, engaged me in a robust conversation around all of these questions, and in doing so opened himself up to potential criticism (and, I hope, admiration). In my opinion, he's got nothing to apologize for here, and much to be proud of. "

[Grady Weed]

Marina and fellow BPN'ers,

I appreciate the opportunities to discuss such thought provoking dialogue on issues like these. Rarely do such issues resolve themselves quickly. They evoke strong emotions, each participant digging deep to express why we feel as we do. Some like myself feel stronger than some may. I respect each fellow photographers right to express their opinion. We all spend a great deal of money, time, thought and education to develop our skills, then more of the same to display our works of art to the world. Hopefully they buy it so we can create more eh!

I took the time to PM Marina about this thread. She graciously expressed herself to my questions and bid me a good weekend. I have been thinking of this topic a lot, in fact it has consumed my thinking this afternoon. I hope our respectful dialogue can continue past this issue, so we all can grow and then learn from each other. Without such discussions, life's passions, like photography would tend to grow stale and our creative wheels would spin deep ruts going no where fast.

I like to see new tools of the trade developed, as well as the ones we use now, like PS, then used to enhance our works of art. I would also like to see them used in honest and respectful ways. We have a good honest and creative bunch of professionals here on BPN. I would like to see our "Eager To Learn" students and we ourselves lead the way in keeping it that way. So here is to Marina and the owners group, the other moderators who work tirelessly behind the scenes to help us enjoy this site.

As to the original posted question; PLEASE, lets think before we try to outwit the rules and draw attention to ourselves, take shortcuts or just plain try to fool others. No one wins when we do those things. We all lose. I will get off my soapbox now and go sleep it off! :)

[Doug Brown]

With all due respect, Matthew can say whatever he wants about the image, and Audubon can publish an apology to him; I'm just not buying it. He's been doing this for too long to not understand or read the rules of the contest.

[Marina Scarr]

The Audubon saga continues. Audubon has now admitted that Owen Deutsch's image (pictured above in a NANPA publication) is authentic based upon the RAW and his story. It was apparently slotted to win first place but was DQ'd b/c he couldn't be reached. Here is the official Audubon apology:

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/birds/apology-owen-deutsch#comment-147631

[BobbyPerkins]

Marina glad to see you followed up on that, as I was curious. Talk about an amazing "out of camera" shot! TFS.

[Grant Yang]

Can somebody explain how this would be different from a stitched panorama? It seems all elements were from the same scene and approximately the same time. I've never entered this type of contest before, but I'm pretty sure I've seen panos win the NG contest. It seems to me that this is no more manipulated than your standard multi-frame panorama?