Photography Ethics: How far to go for better pictures ?

[Asif Khan]

Hello All, I have been doing photography since past 10+yrs, was on film quite few years and now on digital since past 3 yrs. I joined this forum last week and I have a very basic question and I hope you dont mind me asking this.

Since I went digital, I have been using Adobe lightroom and doing basic crop, spot removals, exposure, noise and contrast changes. Nothing beyond that. However, since I joined this forum, I have learnt that there is an extensive use of photoshop and other tools to alter the image. Things like extending canvas, selective sharpening, remove twigs / unwanted objects from the frame etc. All the above certainly makes the picture much beautiful than what is originally shot.

I have started to learn these skills, but am in double minds. What is the limit to digitization ? And how far one should or is allowed to go to keep the image from significant alteration. I know there are lot of professionals here who would have applied in photography contests and would like to seek guidance from them. What is allowed and not allowed in digital alteration and what point a "true image" becomes a "altered painted image".

The above question is mainly for me to understand the limits so that I operate within those, so that I dont get caught in the world of digital alteration - where I find myself spending more time in front of my Mac doing Photoshop rather than shooting in the field.

Any comments / thoughts appreciated on above.

A related question is on shooting wildlife / Birds / Insects. Until now I have been shooting in pure natural environment without use of perches, baits, bird calls etc. However, there people who use the same to attract wildlife for photography. Are there any limits on how far these things should be done ?

Would appreciate honest views specifically on what is allowed and what is not allowed in the professional photography world - so that I can start to learn new things and keep off on certain things.

Cheers
Asif

[Harshad Barve]

Asif
I think it depends on your own ethics
I do bird photography and mamals specialy Tigers. I have limited myself to few limitations in digitalization of image. Crop , levels, brightness & contrast , shadow & highlight. Though I am pretty good at cloning I am not big fan of it. many times I get suggations to remove grass blade infornt of tiger eye. I tried those suggations in PS and found useful but still I post image with grassblade in front of eye:D;) because grassblade was there in field.

Though I have never won/entered in any big competition but most of them wont allow you to enter digital creation and will ask you for RAW

For me , it all depends on your OWN ethics

Harshad

[Asif Khan]

Hi Harshad, Thank you so much for your feedback. I agree with your view - i'll just have to manage my ethics around and not get tempted by being too much digital on post processing. I have limited myself to basic adjustments like you have e.g. crop, levels, bright/contrast until now and will continue to do so.

btw: I have seen your pics and they are awesome. I like your pictures much. Have you been to Gir to shoot asiatic lions or planning to go there ? I think you would be able to take some great shots there.

Cheers

[Harshad Barve]

btw: I have seen your pics and they are awesome. I like your pictures much.
Cheers

Thank you very much Sir


. Have been to Gir to shoot asiatic lions or planning to go there ? I think you would be able to take some great shots there.

Cheers

Gir NP is on highwish list Asif ,but I want to shoot asiatic Lions on green tops only. I had planed oct 2009 trip to Gir but due to some reasons I have to drop that , Will try to do it in Oct 2010. Oct is great season to see Lions and amazing time for variety of birds that Gir hosts.

[Harshad Barve]

ps , BTW you have amazing collection of images on your website :)

[Asif Khan]

ps , BTW you have amazing collection of images on your website :)

Thank you Sir. I am just a beginner...have a lot to learn !

Cheers

[RakeshDhareshwar]

Asif, Like Harshad mentiones, you have to decide your own boundaries . My point is that whatever major alerations you do , it would be ethical to mention it .

[Harshad Barve]

My point is that whatever major alerations you do , it would be ethical to mention it .

Very well said Rakesh

[Roger Clark]

Asif,
I agree with Harshad on the ethics. If I do an insertion for some artistic reason I explain it.

I also agree with Harshad that you have many nice images. But watch your highlights. Some of the whites on your bird images are significantly blown.

Roger

[Ed Cordes]

I try to do only those things that I used to do in the dark room in the "old days". However, I am not above cloning out a branch. If I fix a clipped wing I will tell you. I guess I consider selective sharpening to be OK without mention.

[Desmond Chan]

Again, I think this article is pretty good for anyone who is lost :) :-)

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/conservation-and-ethics/40-conservation-a-ethics/345-fine-art-photography-vs-documentary-photojournalism-


I'm not sure photographers like them would think it is necessary to disclose to you everything they've done to create their images :

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/scroll.php


http://versacephotography.com/gallery/index.html


This gentleman actually said there was something these days called "photograph for photoshop":

http://thebestofben.com/


And here you can see some bird photos, too:

http://www.garyhellerphotography.com/various%20works/index.html

[Dick Ginkowski]

Each of us an expert only in our own stories.

Discussions such as these run the gamut from the gonzo school of "Hey, that's why they invented Photoshop" to those folks who religiously observe the foul line in recreational bowling and suffer headaches from their halos being too tight.

For me, I think my basic standard is that in postprocessing I am trying to recreate what I actually saw when I took the image. For example, even though the 7D is supposed to have a 100% viewfinder, it's really like 99%. I truly didn't see the little tiny sliver of a rock or twig in the viewfinder when I took the image and I have zero issues recreating what I saw when the image was taken nor in a case of normal postprocessing feel any need to disclose anything to anyone. We should assume that EVERY image has some postprocessing, just as if you dropped a roll of print film at Walgreen's.