Digital post processing of the images a continous dilemma

Hi guys,

I know that this issue has been discussed numerous times, but I still have a hard time drawing a line for myself as to whether we should digitally enhance or manipulate our photographs or not. Here is one practical example:
Take a look at the cover photo of Audubon's current issue, you can enlarge the photo by clicking on the thumbnail (link). It is an amazing interaction between two bald eagles by Rob Palmer, technically it is a perfect however the membrane of the top eagle was unfortunately closed. looking at the composition it is likely that the photographer did some crop or rotation, but he chose not to touch the membrane. Suppose this was a sequence in which the membrane in the previous shot was open, would you find it acceptable to grab the eye from the previous shot and put it on this photo or not (disclosing what you have done if asked) ?

Thanks

In this specific case, I probably wouldn't. The membrane is a protective device and what better time to use it than during a fight with another bird.

IMO, if it's good enough to be on the cover, it's good enough not to have to "open" that membrane. I think the bottomline is still what's the intention of your photograph. If you want to show a perfect image (of this imperfect world), you go ahead and retouch it.

I'm not familiar with the guidelines for this competition but I doubt it that he could have submitted it with an 'enhanced' eye. As for the poll question, I guess you will get 100% 'no' answers as it is formulated. :) Maybe you could change it to 'would'.

Hi Axel, assume there were no particular rules for presentation.

You need to decide if you, as a photographer, are an artist or a photojournalist. An artist produces art that only needs to meet the expectations of the artist. In other words I have no one else to please but myself. A photojournalist has an obligation to represent the world and events at they actually happened. The photojournalist's audience expects the image to faithfully represent the scene as the photographer saw it. His/her photographs need to represent "truth" and there has to be a veracity to the print and the actual events.

Entering a contest or submitting an entry to a contest, requires any artist or photojournalist to abide by the specific contest rules. If the rules have no exclusions etc for post processing, then no need to disclose.

I subscribe to Audubon and as soon as I saw the cover I mentioned to my wife, and fellow BPN'r Mike Fuhr, who was visiting from out of state, that some of our friends at BPN were going to have a problem with the eagle's eye membrane being closed. I think the photo is fantastic as is and Jim Poor covered my thoughts exactly. Also, I can't imagine why any contest would allow the transfer of a creature's eye from one photo to another. In my opinion, that would be going waaaaayyyyy over the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Donald

You need to decide if you, as a photographer, are an artist or a photojournalist. An artist produces art that only needs to meet the expectations of the artist. In other words I have no one else to please but myself.

---

A a former photojournalist and current wildlife photographer, I basically do not agree. Granted, there is an expectation that a photojournalist will represent the scene as it happened but they must do so in a way that moves the audience; this involves artistic talent to select lighting, angles, timing, etc. Post processing will be limited to bringing the image to a faithful representation of the scene, usually without cloning of items, etc.

A wildlife photographic artist can abide by the same ethics. I typically do not change my images with cloning of items out of my images or adding other items or changing the scene but I certainly consider myself an artist, not a photojournalist

I don't tamper with biology. No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny J Brown

I subscribe to Audubon and as soon as I saw the cover I mentioned to my wife, and fellow BPN'r Mike Fuhr, who was visiting from out of state, that some of our friends at BPN were going to have a problem with the eagle's eye membrane being closed. I think the photo is fantastic as is and Jim Poor covered my thoughts exactly. Also, I can't imagine why any contest would allow the transfer of a creature's eye from one photo to another. In my opinion, that would be going waaaaayyyyy over the line.

---

Danny - I think you may be overstating the case here. I suspect the vast majority of BPN'rs have no problem at all with the membrane in that image for the purpose of the contest, and in fact take delight in the naturally stunning immediacy and beauty of the image. Just because someone might support changing an image in some cases doesn't mean they would not take pleasure in this image exactly as it is. I, for example, can enjoy both.

I see no reason why I should be limited to being either a photojournalist or an artist. I am both, and value the impact that each can have. When it comes to entering nature contests, I do not alter an image beyond acceptable contrast/tonal work/sharpening that is needed to make a raw file look like the original scene. When it comes to selling photographs to the public, I will use my artistic sense to alter an image into the work of art I want it to be using all the tools at my disposal. In the case presented by Arash, I would not change the membrane if I entered this image in a contest, and if it won a national award,I wouldn't change it when I put it up for sale to the public. However, I will occasionally change aspects of other nature images in order to achieve an artistic impression that pleases me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john j. henderson

A a former photojournalist and current wildlife photographer, I basically do not agree. Granted, there is an expectation that a photojournalist will represent the scene as it happened but they must do so in a way that moves the audience; this involves artistic talent to select lighting, angles, timing, etc. Post processing will be limited to bringing the image to a faithful representation of the scene, usually without cloning of items, etc.

A wildlife photographic artist can abide by the same ethics. I typically do not change my images with cloning of items out of my images or adding other items or changing the scene but I certainly consider myself an artist, not a photojournalist

---

Photography can be practiced at many levels. It is at it's most basic level, a craft. It is fairly easy for someone to produce a technically correct image, it's in focus (thanks to Auto Focus) and properly exposed (thanks to Auto Exposure Modes). But it is a boring photograph. It does't evoke an emotion or response from the viewer. As Ansel Adams said, "There is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept."

Painting is often referred to as the "Art of Inclusion," meaning that what is critical in a painting is deciding what elements to include in the scene. Should the painter include the telephone wires or the blade of grass obscuring part of the flower? No, the artist only includes the essential elements and leaves out the distracting background and clutter of non-essential elements. The result is a painting that works at many levels, draws the view in, evokes an emotion or feeling and gives the viewer somethings to reflect upon.

Photography, on the other had, is the "Art of Exclusion." The photographer has to decide what elements to exclude from his image and how to do it. The superior composition might be the result of moving the camera position higher, lower, closer, and left or right and thus exclude non-essential elements from the photo. However, even with the photographers best efforts a power line might still be visible or an airplane might be present in the background. The composition might be improved with the removal of other objects as well.

The dilemma for the photographer is to what ends can the practice the "Art of Exclusion." The painter really has no such limitation and therefore why should the artist photographer? However, the photographer photojournalists has other obligations to the viewer, than presenting the best composition and best view of the subject. The photographer PJ can't be removing elements from the scene, even non-essential elements, because the scene would no longer be an accurate or honest representation.

I don't believe the photographer artist has the same obligation to his viewer, any more than the painter has an obligation to paint scenes in the same manner. The photographer artist is free, like the painter, to use various tools and techniques to remove unwanted elements and create an image that reflects what the artist or photographer saw in the minds eye. These tools can include various filters, adjustments and techniques in software, like Photoshop. It could also mean using a small scissors and tweezers to remove an unwanted blade of grass from a macro shot. The end result, removal of a blade of grass, would be the same to the final composition wether it was done in software or physically removed from the scene. Just as the result would be the same if the painter didn't include it on his canvas.

Jeff; I agree with most of your comment but I feel many photographers have become less photographers and more computer technicians. In the days of film, we would constantly more and adjust to get a single bird with pleasing light and good backgrounds. Now, I see so many photographers that photograph the scene then extract the offending birds, shells, add the new background, remove shadows because of poor light angle, clone in a new wing or eye, etc. In my way of thinking, this is photo-art; not traditional wildlife photography. For me, part of the fun of photography is the continual challenge to get it correct on the original negative/digital capture.

I certainly respect the rights of others to do their photography as they wish; for me, part of the artistic challenge is doing it in the field, not on the computer. My basic disagreement with your original post was the difference between photojournalist and artists. I feel both are certainly artists if they produce moving photographs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david cramer

Danny - I think you may be overstating the case here. I suspect the vast majority of BPN'rs have no problem at all with the membrane in that image for the purpose of the contest, and in fact take delight in the naturally stunning immediacy and beauty of the image. Just because someone might support changing an image in some cases doesn't mean they would not take pleasure in this image exactly as it is. I, for example, can enjoy both.

I see no reason why I should be limited to being either a photojournalist or an artist. I am both, and value the impact that each can have. When it comes to entering nature contests, I do not alter an image beyond acceptable contrast/tonal work/sharpening that is needed to make a raw file look like the original scene. When it comes to selling photographs to the public, I will use my artistic sense to alter an image into the work of art I want it to be using all the tools at my disposal. In the case presented by Arash, I would not change the membrane if I entered this image in a contest, and if it won a national award,I wouldn't change it when I put it up for sale to the public. However, I will occasionally change aspects of other nature images in order to achieve an artistic impression that pleases me.

---

Hey David: When I said "some of our friends at BPN" I didn't mean the vast majority. I think the vast majority is much more like me regarding the smoothing of bokeh, removal of branches, cloning, eye surgery, canvas additions, etc. We love BPN for the field photography expertise more than the technical aspects of post processing. Sorry I wasn't clear - it seems I never am.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john j. henderson

Jeff; I agree with most of your comment but I feel many photographers have become less photographers and more computer technicians. In the days of film, we would constantly more and adjust to get a single bird with pleasing light and good backgrounds. Now, I see so many photographers that photograph the scene then extract the offending birds, shells, add the new background, remove shadows because of poor light angle, clone in a new wing or eye, etc. In my way of thinking, this is photo-art; not traditional wildlife photography. For me, part of the fun of photography is the continual challenge to get it correct on the original negative/digital capture.

I certainly respect the rights of others to do their photography as they wish; for me, part of the artistic challenge is doing it in the field, not on the computer. My basic disagreement with your original post was the difference between photojournalist and artists. I feel both are certainly artists if they produce moving photographs.

---

In my mind, the art is the final print. It doesn't matter if it was created entirely in the field or in front of a computer, or beneath an enlarger. Photography for me doesn't end with the clicking of the shutter. The computer (or darkroom) is an essential part of the artistic process. Like Adam's would often say, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." Two conductors with the same score, one make the music sing and come alive, the other puts us to sleep, two different performances.

I too respect the rights of others to do their photography as they see fit. However, I don't like how some will try to exclude or limit the techniques used to perform the score. This I can almost liken it to Stalin and how he forced artists to produce just one approved type of "art." Stieglitz and Steichen fought hard to have photography become an art form and many would have it's status rolled back 100 years to the days of pictorialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Donald

I too respect the rights of others to do their photography as they see fit. However, I don't like how some will try to exclude or limit the techniques used to perform the score.

---

The other side of that coin, is that I object to how some seem to imply that there is something wrong with those of us who may chose to not take advantage of all technology has to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

I don't tamper with biology. No.

---

I agree. The nictitating membrane is there for a purpose. You will often find it closed, when the bird is feeding its young or during a fight. Sculptures have knowledge about the anatomy as they have to get the proportions of the body right. I guess, only in the field of wildlife photography, people can still get away without subject knowledge in a lot of cases.

As far as cloning is concerned, that product can at best be called as digital art. I have all respects for these digital artists. Movies are far removed from reality, but still liked by millions of people. Similarly digital artists using their wildlife photos as inputs are artists in their own right and should be recognised for that. Just that we shouldn't confuse such art and wildlife photography.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

As far as cloning is concerned, that product can at best be called as digital art. I have all respects for these digital artists.

---

But why, Sabyasachi? Is it because it's done with computer? Would you call a photograph with added special effect done in a darkroom a photograph?

What is a photograph?

Quote:

---

Just that we shouldn't confuse such art and wildlife photography.

---

And, what is "wildlife photography"?


And your opinion on this one :

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...t=desmond+chan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

I don't tamper with biology. No.

---

John, I am curious, was the membrane closed as a protective measure by the bird or did it just happen that it was closed when the photograph was taken?
I am asking because I have seen hawks and harriers fighting/playing with each other and they seem not to care for closing their eyes during the interaction.

Here's my take:

When it comes to contests always, always, always adhere to the rules no matter how trivial it may look. We've recently seen what happens when contest rules are discovered to be broken:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=49270

Now, when it comes to personal use or simply to show otherwise, anything and everything is fair game. I'm certain that Rob did not expect to see a nictitating membrane when he pressed the shutter. I know I wouldn't. It happens too fast. I'd be happy to see that membrane as it is very cool behaviour to have captured "on film" and it has its place. Artistically and aesthetically though, I would prefer to see the eye without that membrane and would not hesitate one second to replace the eye with another "open" one. I haven't yet had the need to replace body parts on any of my images...but if the opportunity came, yes I would do it.

On an educational site like BPN full disclosure is, obviously, the correct thing to do when such manipulations are done!