Ethics in Digital Photography

[George Wilson]

This is a short piece I recently posted on my website (www.wilsonphotographyfl.com (http://www.wilsonphotographyfl.com)). There is no correct answer to this, only the answer that we ourselves as individuals choose. I know I will get responses from all sides of the issue. Each of you will make valid points. I can only ask for you to decide what your individual answer is and stick to it, defend it and understand why you feel as you do.

Thanks for reading and thanks for responding

Here is my post:

An Ethical Issue for Today's Photographers
　

I first picked up a point and shoot camera, when I was eight years old. By the time I was in high school I had saved my paper route money and bought a used SLR, a totally manual one at that. I learned darkroom techniques that were simply dodging, burning and cropping. I exhibited and sold some tremendous images. Each one was a captured using a combination of shutter speed, aperture and ASA rating – nothing more.

Today, I hear photographers explain that they blurred the background, added or deleted elements, changed colors or something else. I am shocked and appalled by this. I understand that technology has changed and that we should explore and understand it. But one of the major problems I face, as a photographer with a journalistic/editorial background is the fact that the public is losing faith in us as photographers. I, as a member of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and as a wildlife photographer, have a responsibility to convey what I see – nothing more and nothing less. To do otherwise is deceiving my viewer.

I am not writing to provide you with a definitive answer to this dilemma. I merely wish to bring forth the issue for discussion so that we all can make our own decision for the benefit of our viewers. This is an ethical issue that must be answered by each person alone. They must then choose how they wish to express their decision to the people who enjoy their photographs. Not everyone will agree with my point of you, I am not saying you obligated to. I am saying that this is the start of a process and it is a process you should consider before processing your next batch of images.

The first issue I wish to address now is deceiving the viewer. The digital age has made it very easy to manipulate images, change metadata and combine multiple images into one. This fact alone is enough to call into question all images created in an electronic format. Our images are now more malleable, changeable and fluid, because of the computer. We no longer have a fixed image, as all pixels are moveable and able to be copied, the public view of what a photograph is has dramatically changed.

We, as nature photographers, as naturalists and recorders of natural history are, in my opinion, obligated to maintain the last vestiges of credibility. We must ask ourselves, when working with an image – will this deceive the viewer? – is this an accurate representation of what I saw? - have I created digital art instead of a photograph?

I have stated my moral high ground now – let’s look at the ramifications.

1. You just sold a wonderful image of a bald eagle to a client for his office. To make the image more appealing, you eliminated most of the background clutter and tossed in some clouds. The catch here is that you did not tell the purchaser of the change. He or she may find out and then return the image to you for non-disclosure terms. You have just lost personal credibility with that person and with whom they may ever speak about the photograph.

2. On a grander scale, you sold the image to a publication, which found out about the manipulation after publication. They now print a retraction, you again lose credibility as well as future work and the publication has to rebuild their credibility among the readership.

So, what in my opinion are changes that can be made to a photograph? Again, this is my opinion and the standards I hold myself to. Each of you will have to set your own limits and live by them.


I believe that we are able to make, what has always been called "technical" changes. These simple alterations make the image more readable to the public, but do not change the meaning or representation of the image. These mirror the same techniques of cropping, color correction, contrast control, dodging and burning, that I learned in the darkroom many years ago.

I am so extreme in my view, because when photographing nature, I am creating documentary images, which will give others a view on natural history. It gives others a chance to be present for unique moments, which otherwise may never be seen.

Non-manipulated images are real and real images carry more weight for the public with regard to environmental issues; they can change how we view lands that need protection and not development into shopping malls. Therefore, don’t we have an obligation to leave behind a collection of real images?

[jack williamson]

Welcome George. Here at BPN it is encouraged to disclose any and all work done to an image before
uploading for presentation. I think that most people here do just that. For years I shot with a Nikon F3
and kodachrome slide film and because of the expense of film, processing, etc. I slowly got away from
photography for a while. When in 2008 I renewed my interest I was surprised to find that film and manual
cameras were almost obsolete. I went ahead and started gathering digital equipment and here three years later I am hooked big. I love this new technology but, I really do not like the computer part of this
new age photography. Unfortunately it is the new darkroom. I have learned a great deal from the people who participate on this site and I am striving to create images that requires the smallest amount of time
at the computer. I have no problem with cloning away distracting elements in an image or any other enhancement as long as it is disclosed. Again I have made it a goal to create images with as little post
processing as possible. Welcome and I am looking forward to seeing some of your work.

Jack

[George Wilson]

Yes, digital is the new darkroom. When the AP Leaf system came out in the late 1980's, that is how we referred to it. We would scan from a negative and then transmit it to the wire. Technology still has come a a long way from that.

Manipulating dust specs and such is something we did by hand on a print and sometimes on negative with spot-tone. but cloning out backgrounds, fence posts and such crosses an ethical line in my opinion. We all have to make the decision for ourselves as to what is acceptable. Should we be able to compete with an image in a competiton with a cloned or manipulated image? Where is the line between digital art and photography?

I strive every day to create the image in camera with little post processing. Just as you do, I do sharpen the image because of the low pass sensor, I also lighten, darken and so forth as needed for technical changes. But I have never cloned out so much as a small leaf, it is against the photojournalists code of ethics, which in my opinion is something we, as recorders of natural history, should adhere to. This is where the personal decision has to be made.

[William Malacarne]

Manipulating has been around for a long time, but photo journalism supposedly it is still taboo. Then aagin NY Times and many other have been caught doing it.

http://www.simple-snapshot.com/2010/09/15/why-ansel-adams-would-love-photoshop/

Bill

[George Wilson]

Yes they have been caught as did "A Day in the Life of America", National Geographic, Newsweek and others. It does not make it right, just because someone else did it. These publications had a lot of repair work to do with their credibility afterwards.

The fact is that for many people a picture is real. The images produced, therefore, need to convey the truth.

[Desmond Chan]

Where is the line between digital art and photography?

Here lies the problem: the insistence on a photograph has to be this and that in order for it to be a photograph despite the changes in photography. Most likely those requirements for a photograph to be a photograph are based on what you know about about a photograph from the past.

I can agree that if the intention of your photograph is to report and inform (likely something more), then all those blurring, cloning, etc., shouldn't be there.

However, for those camera operators who see themselves as artists or art photographers, they most likely will tell you that they have no intention to make a photograph that reflect reality as we all know it and familiar with. Their subject matters may be the same as yours but their message (if there is one) is not the same. As a result, I would say they can do whatever "manipulation" they want to their photographs. They do not even need to tell you what they have done to their photographs (like many other artists in do).

The problem is not the "manipulation" itself; it's the misrepresentation of one's photograph as a photograph to report rather than one that is created based on the photographer's imagination.

[George Wilson]

Exactly, I agree.

So, let's take this another step further. What should the obligation be for the digital artist or photographer? Should he/she be liable for explaining that the image was manipulated and let the buyer/publisher or end user make their own ethical decision about what the content of the image is.

Should the photographers/artists exempt themselves from contests and award programs because their images are manipulated.

Should we, as nature photographers, have a code of ethics to work by. Should digital artists also have one.


Should the code of ethics for nature photographers read something like:

As nature photographers we believe the primary role of our craft is accuracy; therefore, we firmly adhere to the principle that altering the content of a photograph is a violation of trust bestowed to us by the viewing public.

As nature photographers, we are responsible for documenting nature and wildlife and to preserve these images as a matter of historical record. We believe that alteration or manipulation in any image must be expressed to the public, publishers, judges and others.



Thoughts??

[Roger Clark]

As nature photographers we believe the primary role of our craft is accuracy;

Thoughts??

Goerge,
While I generally agree and practice your views (I don't clone out distracting elements, but will de-emphasize them with burning), I will argue your statement above does not apply to everyone. For some, for example, the primary role is art in nature, and that can include the vision of that perfect bird (e.g. so they clone out the dirt on the beak). I won't do that, but its OK if others do (although I do think such things should be disclosed).

Here is my statement on my ethics (needs updating--mostly applies to film):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
If you get down to "The Kiss" image, that generated a fair amount of discussion here on BPN on whether or not to remove the stick.

Roger

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Desmond made the distinction; documentary or art photography. I am going to assume what you refer to as a digital artist is of the second category.
I see no reason why a nature photographer can't create images of either category.
Therefore, as a nature photographers we are not necessarily "responsible for documenting nature and wildlife and to preserve these images as a matter of historical record."

What you are referring to is photojournalism, and no one is arguing that ethical standards don't need to be maintained. The subject has been discussed many times in this forum, and the subject has hit close to home several times. This is nothing new.
But you seem to think that deception is involved with digital artists if they do not disclose information or subscribe to an ethical code, simply because someone looking at the image may become confused on what is real or not. This seems like something they may need to discuss with their mental health care professional, but is in no way is the responsibility of the digital artist.
regards~Bill

Images Previously posted at Texas Photo Forum (http://avianimagesource.com/NEW)

[William Malacarne]

I feel it should also be mentioned that most of the larger photo contests do not allow manipulation. Generally the RAW file has to also be submitted.

Bill

[John Chardine]

Welcome to BPN George. As mentioned above, this topic it not new to BPN, however, I think it is sometimes healthy that this one in particular resurfaces for discussion every now and then.

While your argument seems logical you make several false assumptions, leaps of logic, and put-up "straw-men", which ultimately cause it to break down. Agree with the others here on many of the points they have made. The key is the distinction between photo-journalism and photo-art. Though they can overlap completely, the two motives or goals can be very different. Just because you yourself appear to come from the photo-journalism camp does not mean that all nature photographers are photo-journalists, nor should they be. Why would you make that assumption? I agree that an outstanding nature image can contribute to conservation by exposing people to natural beauty but it matters little if they are motivated by an un-manipulated photo-journalistic image or photo-art that has been post-processed up the ying-yang. What matters is the impact your image has. Your scenario of a client returning a print because he/she found out it was manipulated is not realistic. I'll assume the client bought the print as a piece of wall art. Art I know about is sold "as-is, where-is" with no warranty of authenticity. Imagine someone returning a Robert Bateman (painting) print because he slightly mis-represented the cedar-rail fence in the foreground or the barn in the background! Can you really see this happening?

You paint a romantic picture of the act putting film in your camera, setting the ISO, SS and aperture, pressing the shutter release and producing a print in a darkroom as somehow "pure" with the end result representing close to exactly what you saw through the viewfinder. This is of course not true as the end result is affected by things like the film you use (graininess, colour rendition etc), the paper and chemicals you use in the darkroom, and all the myriad manipulations possible there. What about your IR photography? No human I know sees the world like that- it is pure art and not photo-journalism. The very first image on your webpage is in IR, with no disclosure. I feel misled. I don't really, but you get my point.

The question of whether to manipulate an image is clear and not a "dilemma" as you put it. If your goal is photo-journalism, don't mislead by manipulating the image. If your goal is submission of an image to a contest, abide by the rules of the contest (most do not allow much if any post-processing). If your goal is to learn by posting here at BPN, post-process but fully report whatever you do to the image. If your goal is submission to a journal or photo-magazine, make sure you meet all their expectations. If your goal is photo-art, anything goes.

People make nature images for many reasons, and before you suggest a code of ethics for this, you need to first broaden your view of what motivates people.

[Don Lacy]

The fact is that for many people a picture is real. The images produced, therefore, need to convey the truth.
That is the problem photographs do not tell the truth they only tell the story the photographers wish to tell the truth lies not in the image but in the photographer. The only thing that has changed with digital photography is that the general viewing public now knows that photographers have always lied with their cameras. Civil war photographers routinely rearrange bodies on battlefields to produce a more compelling image, is Capas death of a loyalist soldier real or a set up. I could list a dozen more examples from Weege to Adams were the photographer manipulated the scene before pressing the shutter to tell the story they wished to tell.

Before digital photographers would place out of focus prints behind Marco subjects to get those nice creamy back grounds and I have photography books that spend a whole chapter on how to do multiple exposures so you can place a full moon next to your favorite landmark. So my question is why do they get to call their images photographs and I now have to call my images digital art. I believe in full disclosure and I really do not have a problem with people that want to call my images digital art but I do take issue with the implication that digital has somehow stained the purity of photography a purity that never existed.

I edited my post for one last comment can anyone tell me how any image produce on Velvia or any other staurated slide film was an accurate represntation of the color gamut before the photographer when they pressed the shutter :bg3:

[Roger Clark]

That is the problem photographs do not tell the truth they only tell the story the photographers wish to tell the truth lies not in the image but in the photographer. The only thing that has changed with digital photography is that the general viewing public now knows that photographers have always lied with their cameras. Civil war photographers routinely rearrange bodies on battlefields to produce a more compelling image, is Capas death of a loyalist soldier real or a set up. I could list a dozen more examples from Weege to Adams were the photographer manipulated the scene before pressing the shutter to tell the story they wished to tell.

And then they added clouds to boring skies. And airbrushed things out of prints and even altered slides.




Before digital photographers would place out of focus prints behind Marco subjects to get those nice creamy back grounds and I have photography books that spend a whole chapter on how to do multiple exposures so you can place a full moon next to your favorite landmark. So my question is why do they get to call their images photographs and I now have to call my images digital art. I believe in full disclosure and I really do not have a problem with people that want to call my images digital art but I do take issue with the implication that digital has somehow stained the purity of photography a purity that never existed.

I edited my post for one last comment can anyone tell me how any image produce on Velvia or any other staurated slide film was an accurate represntation of the color gamut before the photographer when they pressed the shutter :bg3:

Exactly. I guess it comes down to ease. Pre digital, it was difficult to modify content of an image, and required great artistry. They weren't called artists. Now it is easy to alter images with digital so now it must be called digital art. Go figure!

I walked into a gallery in Moab a few year ago (before 2000). Right inside the door was a spectacular image of Arches National Park near sunset with this amazing moon in the sky. A beaming sales lady came over to me smiling as I was looking at the large print (perhaps 2 x 3 feet). She said "Do you like it? It is our top selling print!" I turned to her and said, "You do know it is faked, right?" She was stunned. She had no idea. I could tell for 4 reasons. I knew the area well and knew 1) the moon could never appear that low in the sky at that angle of view (almost due south), 2) the phase angle on the moon was different than the scene, 3) the scene was taken with a wide angle, and the moon with a telephoto (the moon appeared much larger than it should have), and 4) the phase of the moon could not be in that position with the sun still above the horizon. The image disappeared from the gallery on my next visit and I've never seen it since.

Roger

[John Chardine]

Roger- You know too much!

[Dave Mills]

The way I view it is rather simple. IMO photojournalism is a record of an event or something relevant to a news story. It is an art form but one that needs to recreate reality in a truthful manner since it's telling a related story.
All other photography no matter how manipulated should be left to the interpretation of the viewer as all other art forms are. Why should photography be singled out as being different ? Why can't a photographer have freedom of expression through manipulation?
If someone can have a piece of art made out of dung and displayed in a prestigious museum...where is the line drawn? The answer is.......there is none!!!

[Don Railton]

Hi All

One word from me on this subject, its "disclosure". You can't go wrong then no matter what you call it..

DON

[Doug Campbell]

There is little or no difference in what we do today and what pioneers like Ansel Adams did in his day. "Normal" processing of his negatives would have never revealed what was there. As long as you admit what you did, I have no problems whatever with manipulation.

[peter delaney]

There will always be unscrupulous photographers/editors/governments who for what ever reason will want to use the medium of photography for their own gain. They will do it by manipulation of the image or censorship or propaganda.

What we have to do is give the viewer a little more credit. They are not all naive and willingly accept the image at face value.

This current digital age has given us powerful tools are our disposals.We as photographers must adhere to our own self imposed ethics not just in the digital darkroom but also in how the image was captured.

In the end we can not be responsible for the actions of others . We must just follow our conscience and hope that those individuals who bring our profession into disrepute will be found out and discredited.

[Dave Blinder]

But one of the major problems I face, as a photographer with a journalistic/editorial background is the fact that the public is losing faith in us as photographers.

Are the Eagle and Hawk headshots on your website of captive or wild animals?

[George Wilson]

All,

Business brought me out of town and out of reach of the internet, thus unable to keep the discussion in a back and forth debate format. I also prefer to spend less time in front of the keyboard and more time in the field. I will address the posts – belatedly of course - in this post.


Goerge,




While I generally agree and practice your views (I don't clone out distracting elements, but will de-emphasize them with burning), I will argue your statement above does not apply to everyone. For some, for example, the primary role is art in nature, and that can include the vision of that perfect bird (e.g. so they clone out the dirt on the beak). I won't do that, but its OK if others do (although I do think such things should be disclosed).


Roger,

I agree. The key to this thread on ethics is, in my opinion, is hitting now on the important word. "Disclosure" –what information should be disclosed to the viewer? On my website some of my images have a catalog number – others do not. But that is all the information. I want the viewer to see the image itself. If someone inquires about the image(s) I will indicate location, if the original was in color, subject matter, if wildlife (captive, being rehabilitated or wild) year of image, film or digital, sizes available, model or property release available and so forth. I want my client to be well educated prior to deciding to purchase or publish an image of mine. If there s a question I will answer it to the best of my ability or provide a source of information to guide someone along.



<dl><dd></dd></dl><dir>Desmond made the distinction; documentary or art photography. I am going to assume what you refer to as a digital artist is of the second category. I see no reason why a nature photographer can't create images of either category.Therefore, as a nature photographers we are not necessarily "responsible for documenting nature and wildlife and to preserve these images as a matter of historical record." </dir><dir>

What you are referring to is photojournalism, and no one is arguing that ethical standards don't need to be maintained. The subject has been discussed many times in this forum, and the subject has hit close to home several times. This is nothing new.
But you seem to think that deception is involved with digital artists if they do not disclose information or subscribe to an ethical code, simply because someone looking at the image may become confused on what is real or not. This seems like something they may need to discuss with their mental health care professional, but is in no way is the responsibility of the digital artist.
regards~Bill

</dir>
Bill,

This is not new at all. Since the birth of art we have dealt accuracy vs. enhanced images. Many painters of early American landscapes would paint and then add people and buildings to their canvases upon return from a field trip. Many times these would be added by apprentices, who had never been there – hence why European style buildings are in American landscape paintings. These paintings were used to document the frontier, but also advertise it to potential settlers.

What I am referring to as I stated in the response above is – disclosure. Journalism, documentary photography and the like must be held to a specific ethical standard. When at the newsstand, if you wanted clear concise accurate reporting would you spend your money on the tabloid with the aliens on the cover or the New York Times for example. I would venture a guess and say - The Times, because you want facts and the truth. I am saying it should be the same in our work as photographers. I am not saying it is wrong to change, delete or add. I am saying that is should be disclosed.

　


I feel it should also be mentioned that most of the larger photo contests do not allow manipulation. Generally the RAW file has to also be submitted.





Bill
Bill,

You are correct. Of the few contests I do enter. I look for this requirement to ensure that all participants have a level playing field and that the images come done to the skill and vision of the photographer capturing the image that is and not what it could be with some work with a mouse and keyboard.

　


　


Welcome to BPN George. As mentioned above, this topic it not new to BPN, however, I think it is sometimes healthy that this one in particular resurfaces for discussion every now and then.





While your argument seems logical you make several false assumptions, leaps of logic, and put-up "straw-men", which ultimately cause it to break down. Agree with the others here on many of the points they have made. The key is the distinction between photo-journalism and photo-art. Though they can overlap completely, the two motives or goals can be very different. Just because you yourself appear to come from the photo-journalism camp does not mean that all nature photographers are photo-journalists, nor should they be. Why would you make that assumption? I agree that an outstanding nature image can contribute to conservation by exposing people to natural beauty but it matters little if they are motivated by an un-manipulated photo-journalistic image or photo-art that has been post-processed up the ying-yang. What matters is the impact your image has. Your scenario of a client returning a print because he/she found out it was manipulated is not realistic. I'll assume the client bought the print as a piece of wall art. Art I know about is sold "as-is, where-is" with no warranty of authenticity. Imagine someone returning a Robert Bateman (painting) print because he slightly mis-represented the cedar-rail fence in the foreground or the barn in the background! Can you really see this happening?

You paint a romantic picture of the act putting film in your camera, setting the ISO, SS and aperture, pressing the shutter release and producing a print in a darkroom as somehow "pure" with the end result representing close to exactly what you saw through the viewfinder. This is of course not true as the end result is affected by things like the film you use (graininess, colour rendition etc), the paper and chemicals you use in the darkroom, and all the myriad manipulations possible there. What about your IR photography? No human I know sees the world like that- it is pure art and not photo-journalism. The very first image on your webpage is in IR, with no disclosure. I feel misled. I don't really, but you get my point.

The question of whether to manipulate an image is clear and not a "dilemma" as you put it. If your goal is photo-journalism, don't mislead by manipulating the image. If your goal is submission of an image to a contest, abide by the rules of the contest (most do not allow much if any post-processing). If your goal is to learn by posting here at BPN, post-process but fully report whatever you do to the image. If your goal is submission to a journal or photo-magazine, make sure you meet all their expectations. If your goal is photo-art, anything goes.

People make nature images for many reasons, and before you suggest a code of ethics for this, you need to first broaden your view of what motivates people.

<dir>John</dir><dir></dir><dir>


</dir><dir></dir>
John,

Thank you for welcoming me. You are right, this is not a new subject, but one that really needs to stay alive in everyone’s mind. As computers and cameras advance in capabilities, so do the opportunities for digital manipuation.

There is a former associate/partner of mine, I stress former here. This person did have a large framed image returned to him for misrepresentation by a client. I actually saw the image on his wall and told him how I thought it was well placed in his lobby. I told him it was a pretty good combination of two images. He was shocked and the next day returned it and got a full refund. Had the manipulation been disclosed the client could have made their own decision without all of the upset.

None of the images on my home page contain any content about location, type, title. They are simply "there". If you looked further you would see the IR (Infrared Galleries) are clearly marked "Infrared". Stating what they are before the viewer enters the gallery. My IR work is not post processing manipulation either – there are several softwares that do convert images after capture for this. I started with IR Filters made by HOYA and Singh Ray. These resulted in very long exposure times. I then had a camera converted by Life Pixels, once I really started to enjoy this type of work. IR is not used a medium in the journalism or documentary fields of endeavour. Each image is captured in the camera this way and not post processed into IR. On my website some of my images have a catalog number – others do not. But that is all the information. I want the viewer to see the image itself. If someone inquires about the image(s) I will indicate location, if the original was in color, subject matter, if wildlife (captive, being rehabilitated or wild) year of image, film or digital, sizes available, model or property release available and so forth. I want my client to be well educated prior to deciding to purchase or publish an image of mine.

I have already broadened my view of what motivates people and if you study behavior of animals, people, insects and so forth, you will never stop learning. It sounds as though, you have already answered the ethics questions by your response in paragraph four.

　

　


The fact is that for many people a picture is real. The images produced, therefore, need to convey the truth. That is the problem photographs do not tell the truth they only tell the story the photographers wish to tell the truth lies not in the image but in the photographer. The only thing that has changed with digital photography is that the general viewing public now knows that photographers have always lied with their cameras. Civil war photographers routinely rearrange bodies on battlefields to produce a more compelling image, is Capas death of a loyalist soldier real or a set up. I could list a dozen more examples from Weege to Adams were the photographer manipulated the scene before pressing the shutter to tell the story they wished to tell.





Before digital photographers would place out of focus prints behind Marco subjects to get those nice creamy back grounds and I have photography books that spend a whole chapter on how to do multiple exposures so you can place a full moon next to your favorite landmark. So my question is why do they get to call their images photographs and I now have to call my images digital art. I believe in full disclosure and I really do not have a problem with people that want to call my images digital art but I do take issue with the implication that digital has somehow stained the purity of photography a purity that never existed.

I edited my post for one last comment can anyone tell me how any image produce on Velvia or any other staurated slide film was an accurate represntation of the color gamut before the photographer when they pressed the shutter http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/images/smilies/biggrin3.gif
　

Don,

I agree, I could do the same – there are instances in journalism, where it was not the photographer as well. It has been linked to editors and art directors too. The classic example, or one of, is TIME Magazine back in the 1990’s they chose to run the O.J. Simpson mug shot on the cover. They made the numbers smaller to give his face a more imposing look, added what can be seen as 5 o’clock shadow and darkened the image. This created a more sinister look to the suspect. NEWSWEEK ran the same image that week, but un-altered. That is when the dung hit the whirling blades. I learned early on that when someone goes to a newstand, what often helps the buyer decide on the magazine, or newspaper paper to buy is the cover art or story. The better the story the better the chance of the advertisers inside getting their ad in front of you. The 50 cents you spend on the paper does not cover the printing and overhead – the advertising does.

I think that the difference with digital art in your statement is manipulation after the image is captured. I wipe out or blur backgrounds with aperture usage. I use backgrounds when doing head-shots for companies. This is all done during and before capture.

　


I walked into a gallery in Moab a few year ago (before 2000). Right inside the door was a spectacular image of Arches National Park near sunset with this amazing moon in the sky. A beaming sales lady came over to me smiling as I was looking at the large print (perhaps 2 x 3 feet). She said "Do you like it? It is our top selling print!" I turned to her and said, "You do know it is faked, right?" She was stunned. She had no idea. I could tell for 4 reasons. I knew the area well and knew 1) the moon could never appear that low in the sky at that angle of view (almost due south), 2) the phase angle on the moon was different than the scene, 3) the scene was taken with a wide angle, and the moon with a telephoto (the moon appeared much larger than it should have), and 4) the phase of the moon could not be in that position with the sun still above the horizon. The image disappeared from the gallery on my next visit and I've never seen it since.





Roger


Roger,

Good example about disclosure, I hope the creator of the image learned a valuable lesson here.

<dir>The way I view it is rather simple. IMO photojournalism is a record of an event or something relevant to a news story. It is an art form but one that needs to recreate reality in a truthful manner since it's telling a related story.</dir><dir>
All other photography no matter how manipulated should be left to the interpretation of the viewer as all other art forms are. Why should photography be singled out as being different ? Why can't a photographer have freedom of expression through manipulation?
If someone can have a piece of art made out of dung and displayed in a prestigious museum...where is the line drawn? The answer is.......there is none!!!
　

</dir>
There is nothing that limits freedom of expression. The question here is ethics and disclosure of manipulation. Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as photography, painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Art

　

<dir>One word from me on this subject, its "disclosure". You can't go wrong then no matter what you call it..</dir><dir>
　

</dir>
I agree completely, disclosure is the key element here

　


Are the Eagle and Hawk headshots on your website of captive or wild animals?



The eagle and hawk headshots - These birds were photographed as part of a wildlife rehabilitation series in 2007, both in Florida. The birds were intentionally injured by the hand of man. It is doubtful that these birds will be released back into the wild. If you look at the hawk image, the one with his head turned left with the shorter beak and different lip pattern (BOPA09), the injury location is clearly evident in the feather pattern on the left side of the image. The other hawk (FSPA22) also had an injury to same side of his body as seen by the fact that the wings are not folded at the same height.

[Dave Mills]

IMO as long as you follow the stated rules by the publisher,contest, forum or venue where your image is displayed no disclosure is necessary. Ethics only apply to stated rules that one needs to follow other that that the interpretation is up to the viewer as in all other art forms......

[Don Lacy]

Hi George, I just followed the link you posted in another thread http://www.naturephotographers.net/ which lead me to an amazing image that I believe is a set up which brings me back to my point. Even if the image is a true representation of the Raw file it is still a manipulated scene and not a found image captured in the wild, where is the call for full discloser and why is this less of a sin then someone cleaning up some dirt on a bill or cloning out a small distracting element. I just do not get the hang up with post manipulation of a file to achieve the photographers vision cloning out distracting elements is no more dishonest then setting up the whole image.

[Bill Jobes]

Ethics in photography can be as simple as this: follow the conventions and accepted practices of your present realm of endeavor. And be honest and straight-forward about it.

Here are a few principles learned in a lifelong career in daily journalism.

Photojournalism, art, advertising, commercial, industrial, legal, contests, etc. -- they all have varying accepted professional practices. If one wishes to tread these paths, know those rules and follow them to the letter.

Know that your intended audience has generally accepted presumptions, and your photo products hopefully fulfill those expectations.

Even in photojournalism there are sub-sets of variants.

Spot news photography, and photos in general in the 'news' section of a paper are the strictest.

The image must portray the actual event. Nothing more; nothing less.

I once worked at a newspaper where a photographer who carried an old shoe in the trunk of his car, and tossed it on the road at the scene of traffic accidents, lost his job when an editor over time noticed the 'shoe' turning up in too many photos.

Most daily papers have graphic artists who create artwork for a feature or magazine section. The images may contain photo elements, or appear as a photo alone, but with alterations to make an editorial 'point.' That's a valid pursuit. Often the graphic artist gets a credit line, and that's disclosure.

Your concerns, George, seem to be on post-camera digital manipulation. I would suggest that the photographic process is a dynamic one, and that 'manipulation' starts before the shutter is even engaged, as the photographer selects shooting parameters, chooses a position, and records the image.

Post-processing is just the end-point of that sequence of events that starts with a vision, and ends with an image product.

If you are taking a photograph to 'document' a moment in time of a bird or animal's behavior, then of course, excessive manipulation of the image could lead to erroneous conclusions about the behavior, the habitat, and any number of other considerations. But if the photo is of a beautiful snowy egret preening, for example, removal of distracting elements to create a more pleasing artistic image, is not only acceptable, it's to be expected.

In other words, a piece of 'art' that is principally a photograph 'should' be presumed to have undergone a number of alterations to meet its present visual state.

Whenever I see photographic art, online or in person, I just presume that it has undergone a complex process to arrive at its present state. And that's ethical.

In recent years, I've adapted my personal definition of acceptable photo practices into two categories: News ... and Everything Else.

Best ethical practices demand that the extent of the post-processing be governed by the rules of your playing field.

You've prompted a worthy discussion of an important topic. Particularly in these times, when fewer and fewer things are what they appear to be.

[Ofer Levy]

Welcome to BPN George. As mentioned above, this topic it not new to BPN, however, I think it is sometimes healthy that this one in particular resurfaces for discussion every now and then.

While your argument seems logical you make several false assumptions, leaps of logic, and put-up "straw-men", which ultimately cause it to break down. Agree with the others here on many of the points they have made. The key is the distinction between photo-journalism and photo-art. Though they can overlap completely, the two motives or goals can be very different. Just because you yourself appear to come from the photo-journalism camp does not mean that all nature photographers are photo-journalists, nor should they be. Why would you make that assumption? I agree that an outstanding nature image can contribute to conservation by exposing people to natural beauty but it matters little if they are motivated by an un-manipulated photo-journalistic image or photo-art that has been post-processed up the ying-yang. What matters is the impact your image has. Your scenario of a client returning a print because he/she found out it was manipulated is not realistic. I'll assume the client bought the print as a piece of wall art. Art I know about is sold "as-is, where-is" with no warranty of authenticity. Imagine someone returning a Robert Bateman (painting) print because he slightly mis-represented the cedar-rail fence in the foreground or the barn in the background! Can you really see this happening?

You paint a romantic picture of the act putting film in your camera, setting the ISO, SS and aperture, pressing the shutter release and producing a print in a darkroom as somehow "pure" with the end result representing close to exactly what you saw through the viewfinder. This is of course not true as the end result is affected by things like the film you use (graininess, colour rendition etc), the paper and chemicals you use in the darkroom, and all the myriad manipulations possible there. What about your IR photography? No human I know sees the world like that- it is pure art and not photo-journalism. The very first image on your webpage is in IR, with no disclosure. I feel misled. I don't really, but you get my point.

The question of whether to manipulate an image is clear and not a "dilemma" as you put it. If your goal is photo-journalism, don't mislead by manipulating the image. If your goal is submission of an image to a contest, abide by the rules of the contest (most do not allow much if any post-processing). If your goal is to learn by posting here at BPN, post-process but fully report whatever you do to the image. If your goal is submission to a journal or photo-magazine, make sure you meet all their expectations. If your goal is photo-art, anything goes.

People make nature images for many reasons, and before you suggest a code of ethics for this, you need to first broaden your view of what motivates people.
Agree 100% !!
Here is an example of an excellent image which I felt needed some digital "manipulation" in order to make it even better. Why should anyone be " shocked and appalled" by such manipulation...? Is the repost a false representation of the scene? I don't think so....:w3
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84757

[Roger Clark]

Your concerns, George, seem to be on post-camera digital manipulation. I would suggest that the photographic process is a dynamic one, and that 'manipulation' starts before the shutter is even engaged, as the photographer selects shooting parameters, chooses a position, and records the image.


Yes. A classic recent example occurred a few months ago on the Today Show. The scene opens with the reporter in a boat and there seems to be water everywhere. The reporter is talking about how bad the flooding is when someone walked between the camera and boat: all we could see passing by is the person's ankles and lower legs. The water was only a couple of inches deep and the camera was a couple of inches above the water! I just about sprayed my coffee all over!





If you are taking a photograph to 'document' a moment in time of a bird or animal's behavior, then of course, excessive manipulation of the image could lead to erroneous conclusions about the behavior, the habitat, and any number of other considerations. But if the photo is of a beautiful snowy egret preening, for example, removal of distracting elements to create a more pleasing artistic image, is not only acceptable, it's to be expected.


I wouldn't go that far.

Roger

[John Chardine]

Agree 100% !!
Here is an example of an excellent image which I felt needed some digital "manipulation" in order to make it even better. Why should anyone be " shocked and appalled" by such manipulation...? Is the repost a false representation of the scene? I don't think so....:w3
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84757

That's a really excellent example Ofer (I missed that post from Grace- what a superb image and your repost is a subtle but big improvement).

[dankearl]

Interesting discussion.
I don't know when the OP ever thought photography was true and represents reality though.
Is cloning any different than cropping?
Photojournalists have always cropped photos to get the desired effect.
The oldest form of photography is portraiture which is completely staged. Makeup, wigs, etc. were always part of portraits.
Is makeup on models disclosed?
It is just assumed.
Is that being dishonest?

[George Wilson]

All,

As I had suspected, this healthy argument has and always will draw two distinct camps with a small middle of the road group of photographers. We are all photographers, all artists - we draw with light as the derivation of the word photography expresses.

What we have to do, in my opinion, is decide what our limits of manipulation are and the ramifications to our work as professionals, as amateurs or a combination of the two. My own conservative view is founded in my association with editorial work. Post processing manipulation, cloning, set ups and such are all taboo. My clients and viewers know this. They accept my work as such.

Others have found that they can enhance their work a bit to achieve a sale or a prominent place on a gallery wall. The levels of manipulation get more extreme from there.

The common thread that we must decide to follow, again in my opinion, is disclosure. I believe we have an obligation to disclose to the publisher, buyer, viewer, contest manager and so forth that an image has been manipulated. To do so means we have operated in good conscience. I know that in the vast majority of cases I will not be in the room when my pictures are seen. The picture has to be speak for itself and of the values I hold myself to.

NANPA Truth in captioning statement: http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Truth-Captioning.pdf

Is Manipulation Bad for Photography: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/18/is-photo-manipulation-bad-for-photography/

Photography in the Age of Falsification: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98may/photo.htm

NANPA Ethics Committee Pro Manipulation: http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_pro.php

NANPA Ethics Committee Against Manipulation: http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_con.php

Thanks

George Wilson
www.wilsonphotographyfl.com (http://www.wilsonphotographyfl.com)

[George Wilson]

Hi George, I just followed the link you posted in another thread http://www.naturephotographers.net/ which lead me to an amazing image that I believe is a set up which brings me back to my point. Even if the image is a true representation of the Raw file it is still a manipulated scene and not a found image captured in the wild, where is the call for full discloser and why is this less of a sin then someone cleaning up some dirt on a bill or cloning out a small distracting element. I just do not get the hang up with post manipulation of a file to achieve the photographers vision cloning out distracting elements is no more dishonest then setting up the whole image.

I followed the link that you posted and found the background information on the image you saw. Here it is:

Sacred Chamber

I recently finished my 17 day solo SW shoot (with two photo tours interjected) and a huge highlight of my trip was getting to spend 3 full days (no hurry) alone in this very remote Arizona canyon seeking an original take on the slot canyon motif. Once I found this composition (my favorite) I spent the ENTIRE next day sitting here waiting for the absolute best moment of light. It is amazing to me how bland the canyons can look (early in the morning and really late afternoon) and then hours later they can go up like a flame with awesome reflected glow, and then fade away in just minutes (or sometimes even seconds). Wind from a very windy day (the reason I chose to shoot in the canyon these particular days) kept a lot of dust in the air creating a somewhat faint (compared to Antelope Canyon) light beam. I wanted the darks to be a little darker than my usual here with punchy contrast so I purposely allowed a minimum of dark pixels to plug (a sin to somehttp://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/smileys/icon_eek.gif ).


Technical info:

This is a 15 shot DOF / Focus bracket, as well as exposure bracketed + and - 2 stops (45 total shots). The blend came out AWESOME in PS (using the "Auto Align" and "Auto Blend" commands, found in CS4 and CS5, which automatically mask out the softer pixels in a layer stack) and since I used the sharpest f/stop (5.6) with a very high quality prime lens I should be able to produce a huge gallery print with great detail (I'm anticipating 73.5" x 49")! http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/smileys/icon_smile.gif

Canon 5D Mark 2
Canon 14mmL2
f/5.6
100 ISO

As you can see, this is a composition of 45 images. This photographer did disclose what he did to the image in the captioning information.