Remove that Distraction?????

There are a few members interested in elaborating our frequent comments of "removing" something from an image, and it is ethical or even necessary. See this post in Wild and Free:

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...ead.php?t=7320

Folks, the venue is open here. We would love to see your opinion about removing branches, rocks, or in this case, feather or dirt in the bill. SInce we are at it, adding a wing tip or a toe? Cropping? Adding canvas? Sharpening? Blurring background?

Are you against it? Why? Are you OK with it? Why?

I'm not a "purist" on this issue. I have no problem cloning out a distracting element in an image but I won't add an element to an image (I'm excluding "adding canvas" here).

The intended purpose of the shot is also a consideration. If I'm trying to document my subject in its environment then I don't want to add or subtract anything from the image. If I'm going for an "artsy" capture then anything goes.

As long as you are honest in your presentation of the shot I have no problem with the photographer's choice.

To me it depends on whether you're an artist, or a natural historian. Photographers seem to end up dividing themselves into those two categories. As an artist, an image is what I want my audience to see and experience. I'll do my best to capture this in the field, making sure there aren't any distracting elements at the edge of my viewfinder, etc. If removing something would add more impact to my subject (the focal point of my art), I'll remove it.

Adding canvas is reverse cropping ;) I'm alright with that...

One of Clyde Butcher's most popular prints is a composite image. First, an image of a dwarf cypress forest, then an image of the moon layed on top. It didn't happen that way naturally, but it's beautiful none the less.

The problem is where do we draw the line. If it is represented as a altered image or as a fine art print that is one thing with that it is up to the individual to represent his own art in the way he sees fit.. The problem lies with the general public's view in that they believe that all photos get "photoshoped" and that it was not that way in real life.

It is like the current steroid problem in sports. There are some that believe that all pros cheat .

So I feel that maybe a seperate category for altered subjets could be in order .

As a photojournalist we are allowed to remove dust just like we did to negatives and contast adjustments are allowed as are sharpening and color corrections.

Cloning out objects is enough to get yourself in deep dog doo and therer have even been photographers fired over such matters.

In the end it lies on each individual to do what he or she feels is right

John

Charles says it best when people talked about removing a pine sapling in his picture

Hey gang,

Thanks for the comments. The image appears as taken. While I am quite competent in CS... I think moving/eliminating trees, bushes, etc. around is past my line in the sand. I think nature is still a derivative of the word natural. Less is often more, but sterility is another issue altogether.

I would hate to think Nature Photo contests are being won in the digital darkroom w/o stating ... elements within the image have been digitally eliminated, moved, altered.

Respectfully,

Chas
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Charles Glatzer M.Photog
Shoot the Light® Photographic Instructional Workshops , e mail shootthelight@mchsi.com
<!-- / sig --><!-- edit note -->

John don't understand why we need to compare to the times all you could do is remove dust etc If at that time the technology was available to remove twigs believe me they would have been removed


I'm with Harry on this issue I understand there is a limit to how much and commons sense is a must Not sure if we will ever have a consensus as to what to do As a mater of fact I don't think we will ever have a consensus !!!!

In my humble opinion, the best guideline follows an old saying,,,,,,Don't do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about. Just ask the Governor of NY about that!

My personal view,,,,,for artistic uses, anything goes. If the use is a fine print, it does not matter if a cardinal is suddenly blue. The buyer will decide if it's ok or not.

For scientific, legal or news uses, no manipulation.

For posting in online critique forums, disclosure of manipulation is probably the best policy. Just be prepared to defend your position!

Your mileage may vary.

Best Regards,
David

Like I said it is up to the individual but to me it is all the more rewarding when my work pays off with a nice clean image while in the field not in the computer.

The feeling i get after spending hours tracking down a nice photo i hope i never replace with the " this photo is ok and I will remove any imperfections later on i the computer" mentality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

Charles says it best when people talked about removing a pine sapling in his picture

Hey gang,

Thanks for the comments. The image appears as taken. While I am quite competent in CS... I think moving/eliminating trees, bushes, etc. around is past my line in the sand. I think nature is still a derivative of the word natural. Less is often more, but sterility is another issue altogether.

I would hate to think Nature Photo contests are being won in the digital darkroom w/o stating ... elements within the image have been digitally eliminated, moved, altered.

Respectfully,

Chas
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Charles Glatzer M.Photog
Shoot the Light® Photographic Instructional Workshops , e mail shootthelight@mchsi.com
<!-- / sig --><!-- edit note -->

---

That's only best said if you agree with what's being said...

Here's my question. What if there is an element of an image that is so distracting that it should either be removed, or the image should be canned? Which do you think makes for a better suggestion? "Can the image" or "This could be much improved by removing the distracting element"?

In the future, we'll make sure to pay more attention to our subject and any distracting elements (trying to remove them by changing our shooting angle N,S,E and W)... BUT, what can be done to improve the image now?

I would in ny honest opinion either show it as photographed or in the trash it would go

sorry but that is my view

and also the view of quite a few notable photographers that I have attended workshops with or asked the same question to

even asked that question at Photoshop World Conference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

I would in ny honest opinion either show it as photographed or in the trash it would go

sorry but that is my view

and also the view of quite a few notable photographers that I have attended workshops with or asked the same question to

even asked that question at Photoshop World Conference

---

I wasn't asking what you would do if you were the photographer. I was asking to see what you would tell someone in a critique if you were trying to help them improve in their photography.

I would never tell them to manipulate the photo in the computer to remove a object or to add an object.

I would ask if there was a chance to better position yourself to Photograph the object or to try againn

Thats what makes the joy of photography so special to me is to be able to go out and refine the skill to photograph


As I said before if it is a fine art print than Artistic lincense applies

If it is to be refered to as a Nature photo than it should be natural

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

I would never tell them to manipulate the photo in the computer to remove a object or to add an object.

I would ask if there was a chance to better position yourself to Photograph the object or to try againn

Thats what makes the joy of photography so special to me is to be able to go out and refine the skill to photograph


As I said before if it is a fine art print than Artistic lincense applies

If it is to be refered to as a Nature photo than it should be natural

---

Okie dokie, that's all I was looking for :)

I think we all agree that for documentary use (newspaper, magazine,etc) the photo should be unaltered. Its kind of funny though that the one image (it was unaltered) I sold for documentary use was an eagle shot. The National Parks Service bought it for a brochure for a park in Minnesota and the image was taken at a landfill in Florida. :D

Then comes our use of our images as art. I feel that as an artistic expression the photographer can do whatever it takes to bring his/her vision to life. I have no problem with the opposing views on this issue. I do have a problem with one side trying to impose their view on the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Behret

I think we all agree that for documentary use (newspaper, magazine,etc) the photo should be unaltered. Its kind of funny though that the one image (it was unaltered) I sold for documentary use was an eagle shot. The National Parks Service bought it for a brochure for a park in Minnesota and the image was taken at a landfill in Florida. :D

Then comes our use of our images as art. I feel that as an artistic expression the photographer can do whatever it takes to bring his/her vision to life. I have no problem with the opposing views on this issue. I do have a problem with one side trying to impose their view on the other.

---

Point well made and taken.

I think Harry hit the nail on the head One group should not impose its will on the other

If someone feels he wants to present an image RAW as it comes out of the camera it would be fine with me One thing to note Most contest are allowing greater latitude in the rules !!! In that case if you are allowed to remove a minor imperfection and you choose not to then you would be handicapped Nothing wrong with going that route!!!

In regards to what Al said referring to "Photo Contests" allowing greater latitude, it then becomes a "Photoshop Contest". with all the tools that are available nowadays, i dont think that is fair. that really narrows the field. i can see where this could go in a direction where a handicap system needs to be implemented like in golf!:(

i'm not sure how i feel about that. gut is that i dont like it.

as far as the original topic, i could care less what one does with his/her photos. i dont look down on either opinion. i highly respect the person that works extra hard to make the pure photo, while i like the artistic creations made by using the tools we have.

to each his on, live and let live!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

If it is to be refered to as a Nature photo than it should be natural

---

True. But even in-camera capture is often un-natural. Flash on a shaded bird, or fill-flash to rid of harsh "natural" shadows comes to mind. Then, for those who use JPG, the in-camera settings for saturation and contrast is not the same for every make, plus not everyone sets them to the same amount. Which one is more natural? Using a wider aperture to blur a scene more than the eye can naturally perceive? Super high shutter speeds to freeze wings that are only naturally seen as a blur? All these are thereotically un-natural and we have yet to download the captures to the computer!:)

Lets say you are photographing side-by-side with other people and your position relative to your neighbors makes it that an extra "distracting" branch is introduced to the image and you decide to clone it out - does that make the image un-natural where as your colleague's image of the same bird on the same perch with the same background is OK because that branch was not in his photo to begin with? I guess it is up to the user...and both ways of thinking are OK with me.

Quote:

---

Like I said it is up to the individual but to me it is all the more rewarding when my work pays off with a nice clean image while in the field not in the computer.

---

It is safe to say that the above statement is true for all photographers...

Always an interesting topic, and always great and informative to read both sides.

I find I vary a lot in how much I will change an image. I leave a lot of branches, or OOF leaves, etc. in my images (where others say get rid of it). So long as it doesn't REALLY bother me... Mainly because they're part of the birds habitat and natural.

Dirty bills, out of place feathers, annoying branches or highlights get deleted right away 95% of the time! To me, these are very minor changes that add greatly to the final image. And from the "Natural History" point of view, don't bother me at all. (The bird HAS a bill below that stuck feather, as an example... so getting rid of it, isn't creating anything too un-natural).

I find I rarely do major adjustments to a BG (eg, turning a gray sky blue), or clone out a bad perch with a new one. Just my personal preference!

I find some of most "photoshop work" I will put into a photo is to "save" it from some stroke of bad luck! Below is an example where I did a fair amount of work, but to me, doesn't seem very un-natural. Many photog's will say they'd rather capture the whole bird without photoshoping in a wingtip (or deleting a branch)... but I think I would have a hard time getting a vertical topside shot without photoshop in this situation, so I'm very happy with the result.

Full frame original:
http://www.peregrineprints.com/NSN/real.jpg

End result:
http://www.peregrineprints.com/zzNHOW13.jpg

In the end, I think there are a lot of people here, and everyones "line" will be drawn at a different place when it comes to photoshop. It's a forum to get feedback on our images, and we should listen to all replies from each extreme of the photoshop scale (and everywhere in between), in order to improve our photography! We don't have to follow everyones advice we get when our images are posted, but we can learn something! Draw your own line and keep having fun - would be the best advice i could think of.

Happy shooting!

Brandon

I think above all, remember......we are not in competition here on these forums
Honestly divulge manipulation in techs and enjoy what's here

Don't we still use filters to ENHANCE our images?? deleting a branch here and there is about the same thing. Things are changing folks! My own opinion.

For what it's worth I tend to err on the side of what ever it takes to make the image better. I'm not a news reporter or documenting evidence for a court case. I'd like to make a good image. Preferably with less photoshop work but sometimes it doesn't work out as hoped for or expected in the field. We all manipulate images even in the field with the choice of f/stop, shutter speed, field of view etc..

My only real problem with editing after the fact is when someone is intending to deceive with digital manipulations. I often clone out a branch here and there or unpleasant bits floating on the water's surface. I suppose I should make a point of mentioning that in the tech details.

My bigest question for all is where is the line drawn.

or is there a line anymore for that matter

I think someone cloned it out

I've seen discussions of this in other forums before - including here at BPN. They all tend to go in a similar manner as this one here. There are some for and some not so for digital alteration.

I've often wondered what folks think about altering nature in the real world. Pulling branches out of the way, moving a rock or even making a noise to get a bird to look towards the camera. Is this different than digital manipulation?

Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leroy Laverman

I've seen discussions of this in other forums before - including here at BPN. They all tend to go in a similar manner as this one here. There are some for and some not so for digital alteration.

I've often wondered what folks think about altering nature in the real world. Pulling branches out of the way, moving a rock or even making a noise to get a bird to look towards the camera. Is this different than digital manipulation?

Just curious.

---

Not only is it different it is illegal to do so in a national park or reserve.

So there is a whole seperate set of ethnics at work there and it is frowned upon also.


will it end when we photograph our subjets on a green set and suplement any bg or setting we desire

I hope not
I like the outdoors too much

I can empathize with John in his desire to capture the world without manipulations. It is very rewarding to get that perfect shot that requires nothing more than a bit of sharpening. It seems to me at times that it is so easy to alter reality digitally that one is tempted to get overly picky about minor things (like twigs etc...) that in the past would have easily been forgiven. At the same time in the interest of making aesthetically pleasing images I don't have a problem with 'fixing things' to a certain degree.

I wonder what Ansel Adams would have done with photoshop. Would he have been a Scott Kelby or Bruce Fraser?

Ansel would have used all that was available.
Nobody can replicate to date what he did in his darkroom.

There is no right or wrong answer. It's up to the photgrapher as to how they share his/her vision of the image and whether or not they decide to disclose cloning, baiting, setup's or the like. This posting ethics issue has been discussed on many forums over the years ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong, it's a good healthy discussion. It does however, always ends up with the same conclusion...there is no conclusion.
Cheers !

Basically is what CW is saying There is no conclusion

The image of the owl by Brandon brings out many points To star with I would be uncomfortable posting without disclosing and would probably not post at all. However if you stop and think we have the ability for making changes in the image Are we suppose to ignore? In order to make changes you need to make a good image. From a weak image no amount of work will bring it to be a good one.

Probably most of the negative thought come from the begging of digital. At that time it was all about swapping heads between different animals and creating. It was not thought as photography. As the quality came up and it became the film replacement some or
f the prior issues came up. Some people actually feel there is something evil about the digital capture. Time will sort things out

On the mean time I think the correct approach is to let everyone have its own opinion. If you do some manipulation beyond the normal levels/curves/dust etc I would mention At this time I think its accepted by most the removal of small imperfections so I would probably would not go into it. More comprehensive endeavours would !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c.w. moynihan

There is no right or wrong answer. It's up to the photgrapher as to how they share his/her vision of the image and whether or not they decide to disclose cloning, baiting, setup's or the like. This posting ethics issue has been discussed on many forums over the years ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong, it's a good healthy discussion. It does however, always ends up with the same conclusion...there is no conclusion.
Cheers !

---

Am I to understand this as it is ok to post a image whereever you like and not disclose if there were any manipulations to that image.

When that happens and then it is found out that an award winning image wasa really manipulated it ends up giving a black eye to all photographers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

Am I to understand this as it is ok to post a image whereever you like and not disclose if there were any manipulations to that image.

When that happens and then it is found out that an award winning image wasa really manipulated it ends up giving a black eye to all photographers

---

I think every posted image is manipulated in some kind of form. If the alterations go beyond the usual, posters could either state the changes or should at least answer candidly if asked.

As for contests, there are specific rules, if a photographer decides to break those, this is his/her personal problem and I don't think it has anything to do with 'all photographers'.

Like it or not it is what happens when a photographer gets caught doing it .

How many times have you seen Photographers critisized in the Massbird Emails as a group for something one photographer did.

Ask Jim Fenton

and I am sure you have seen it too Axel

the same thing happens when a photograph is found out to have been Modified beyound normal darkroom practices

The whole photographic community takes a hit

Lets get some perspective here.

If I post a shot on my web site I feel that I can do anything I dang well feel like doing to the image.

If I submit a picture to a newspaper it will be unaltered.

If I submit a picture into a contest I will adhere to the contest guidelines.

If I cheat and I'm found out its to my own discredit and has no impact on any other photographer.

Its like saying all Democrats make use of prostitutes because of Gov. Spitzer or all Republicans are homosexual because of Sen. Craig.

Photography is an art form and you just can't make up rules to cover the whole spectrum.

I was not making up rules I was just saying what i have seen happen time and time again

My only wish is that if you are going to change a photograph at least notify that it
has been changed


Of you want to put the moon next to the sun during a blizard on the fourth of july in the Sahara desert next to the Pyramids then by all means do so

Just be brave enough to say you did it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

Like it or not it is what happens when a photographer gets caught doing it .
How many times have you seen Photographers critisized in the Massbird Emails as a group for something one photographer did.

The whole photographic community takes a hit

---

This criticism has little to do with postprocessing, right? From what I remember, those are the usual idiosyncrasies between birders and photographers and how someone made an image.

If people start generalizing because one person did something they don't like (justified or not) then they simple make a really poor argument that is not exactly convincing.

I did not say it had to do with post processing

it had to do with what groups of people will come to a conclusion about another group of people

I have walked through galleries and heard people talk and say the photographer must have manipulated the image to get that result

Even when I know that the photograph in question was not manipulated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

I did not say it had to do with post processing

it had to do with what groups of people will come to a conclusion about another group of people

I have walked through galleries and heard people talk and say the photographer must have manipulated the image to get that result

Even when I know that the photograph in question was not manipulated

---

I prefer to see them as individuals, and there are many people with strong opinions about subjects they don't know too much about. :)

This is true and I prefer to see as an individuaql also but I am afraid that is not the way of the world

Here's my 2 cents.
I prefer not to alter the image except for colour, light, sharpness and straight skylines.
That said my two web galleries are there to share the beauty of nature.
So I am prepared to remove dust specs and occasionally clone to remove overblown highlights in order to better display the subject.
I prefer not to do gardening to remove small branches etc but will consider it for one offs of hard to get pictures.
Flexibility with a minimum of editing.
Ian Mc

I really don't care about the "way of the world". Last week the top grossing movie was 10,000 BC a piece of dreck that is a remake an earlier very bad movie that was a remake of an even earlier bad movie. Now its the way of the world for these types of entertainment to be popular but I just won't be pulled in and follow the "way of the world".

There will always be those who will say "that's a good picture you must own a very good camera".:(

There will always be those who will say "that's too good to be real you must have photoshopped it". :(

All you can do is say "uh, huh" and go out and take some more pictures. :D

Good one Harry.

Let me ask this


Who in here has an Artist Statement in their Galleries or on their website.

Who reveals the fact that if they remove objective items in their photos with editing software
and if you do not reveal then why not

would it be deceptive if it were not revealed in your artist statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

Let me ask this


Who in here has an Artist Statement in their Galleries or on their website.

Who reveals the fact that if they remove objective items in their photos with editing software
and if you do not reveal then why not

would it be deceptive if it were not revealed in your artist statement

---

John,

It is quite a leap to suggest that non-disclosure equals deception and to me it seems quite argumentative.

I asked if it would be not if it was
just a question

I don't have an artist statement on my web site and I don't feel the need for one. My images are what they are, take 'em or leave 'em.

I have a few thousand image son my web site and I really don't have the time to say "oh, I cloned out a distracting leaf on the heron's butt in the left of the frame" etc, for every shot.

I don't actively try to sell my shots (I try to discourage that kind of activity, its too much like work ). If somebody insists and if I remember I'll tell them if I altered the shot or not before I sell it them.

If that seems to be deceptive all I can do is say "uh, huh" and go out and take some more pictures. :D

Most of the times it seems perceptions from one group or another are a result of misinformation. I personally don't give a rats *** about someones mis or uninformed perception. As far as digital manipulation goes unless you are "documenting" as opposed to creating a piece of art then I have no problem with the sky is the limit opinion. As Maxis stated times are changing. This same thread idea could be applied in many other professions and hobbies. We are in a changing world like it or not (most of the time I do not). The masters of film certainly used everything at there disposal both in the darkroom and in the field. I am certain there would be the same division among them with the should or shouldn't we's. Disclosing info is also a personal choice and there is no right or wrong answer here either. When I look at an image on this website or elsewhere I don't ask myself if I think something has been removed or added, I enjoy that persons ART !!!! No one has to draw a line anywhere as my photos are mine and yours are yours, whatever you decide to do and share is fine by me, I'll just enjoy the beauty it portrays :)!

Respectfully,
Todd

Printed from the nanpa web site
all I ask is if this forum is considered to be an educational tool

NANPA Truth in Captioning:

A Statement and Suggested Wording for Images

Statement:

As part of its mission, NANPA encourages and helps develop the highest standards of honesty,
communication, and comprehensive captioning of nature photography. NANPA believes in
photographers' creative freedom to make images as they wish. Yet, it also recognizes that
images presented in educational and other documentary contexts are assumed by the public to
be straightforward records of what the photographer captured on film. Communicating clearly,
efficiently and fully about the making of nature images is thus linked to public trust and cceptance.
Creators of images should be truthful in representing their work.

Suggested Wording:

NANPA offers the following categories to assist in maintaining the integrity and trust among
nature photographers, photo users and the public. These suggested categories, words and
abbreviations are not intended as laws or mandates; they are merely suggestions. Consistent use
of them is entirely up to the individual's professional or informed choice. Such choices would
include identifying organisms whose status is obvious, such as bacteria and domestic animals. In
fulfilling its stated goals, NANPA realizes its responsibility and seeks to provide guidance
consistent with truth and integrity for informed individual choice.

WILD

As "Wild," this term, or no wording to indicate otherwise, would identify any creature having the
freedom to go anywhere and to disregard artificially set boundaries, with the exception of tracts
established to protect the creature for its own sake, and where it lives in a natural state.

CAPTIVE

Abbreviated "Capt," this term applies to any living creature in a zoo, game farm, cage, net, trap,
or in drugged or tethered conditions.

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Abbreviated "Phil" or an actual situation: "Dbl. Exp.," "Digital Retouch," "Composite," etc., this
indicates assembly of an image from two or more images or parts, or removal of significant parts,
by computer, darkroom or other means. It may include addition or subtraction of elements,
duplicating elements within an image, sandwiching different images and removing
obstructions.This definition does not include removing scratches or dust, repairing damage to
images, or making slight alterations that have traditionally been made by filters or in the printing

process.

Funny you should quote NANPA.
They DO NOT require a RAW file to back up their contest's entires, as opposed to Nature's Best or Shell's BBC.
So it is ABSOLUTELY and honor system :)

John,

I'm not sure I get your point. Do you assume posters wouldn't be forthcoming if you asked them if/what they altered in case they haven't done so in their original post? Personally, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

This is really beating a dead horse. Many of us are NANPA members but this is not a NANPA website (as far as I know). I'm also pretty sure that their use of "educational" does not include posting pictures for critique on an internet forum. You will note that its address is bpn.net not bpn.edu.