A branch away from eternity, to tell or not to tell?

[Dave Mills]

Jay, IMHO outside of the manipulating community the general public does not know if an image is manipulated if the manipulator is "skilled" and presents a realistic image. They might wonder but would have to ask in order to know.
Let me ask you this...If I was a portrait painter and instead of sketching the face first I traced it from a photograph or traced it from a projector and then painted it would I be morally bound to tell the viewer how I did it? I'm sure folks can think up other examples of techniques which are used that are not exactly how people think they were created.
I still feel strongly that this art form, like any other shouldn't have guidelines or restrictions.(only in competitions or other areas where that is the agreed to policy) I see no moral dilemna in putting your work forward without explanations. If one choose to...fine! The ones that do are in the vast minority. I've been to more photo exhibits than I can count and have seen few if any references to manipulations unless it was obvious.

[Sebastian Erras]

What is wrong with disclosing such things as cloning out things and adding things in image?

Do you feel your image is "less good" when you mention that you have cloned out some stuff or added something?

If yes then you are kind of "cheating" the viewer. You are presenting the viewer something, which he believes to be real and naturual. At least thats the point with nature photograph. I'm sure nearly every viewer knows the amout of Photoshop in portraits shot for advertisments, but for nature photographs, be it birds or landscapes, the viewer first believes that you present him something that is unmanipulated.

I think there is nothing wrong with disclosing such things, but I feel wrong when not mentioning it.

[Dave Mills]

Cheating the viewer! Hardly! The viewer is simply seeing the image you presented as in any other art form.They see what you present...no more, no less.
This would be great at an art show:
Maker:John Smith
Title: Forest at Dawn
Manipulation: Cloned out 5 branches on top of image
Enhanced sunrise
Dodged tree trunks
Added Lucis filter to pop detail and so on and so on...
My basic argument is the disclosure necessary. I don't believe it is. It's done nowhere else in the artworld.
It's your final presented image that counts. No one sees the original except you. Let the viewer wonder as they do viewing all other forms of art. Many of the top pros manipulate today but I don't see a manipulating explanation.
I do my best to get it right in the camera but if a strong image has a flaw that I can remedy I will take it out without a seconds thought. As stated before, if I'm entering a competition or publishing in a magazine that has rules about manipulation I would abide by their rules. Thats my choice whether to submit an image under those terms. Well, I've made my opinion pretty clear...nothing more I can add.

[Jay Gould]

There are many reasons noted here for disclosure and why they should be done What I would like to hear are reasons for non-disclosure and why John

Excellent question, John. In Australia we would say that you and I are "stirring the pot"! :D Jay

[john crookes]

Dave,

Most shows that I have attended both of Photographs and other art forms have included an Artist Statement in the foyer or somewhere in the building.

Many times I have read in the Artist Statement how the presenter acheived their presentations

Both forms have divulge their info and I thought it was it was a good compliment to their artistry.

If you prefer not to divulge that is your right to do

Disclosure may not be necessary but it sure does help the viewer understand our craft

John

[Mark Fuge]

This is one of those non-finite questions. Too many "what ifs" involved to really resolve it. Just count the number of posts and the duration of this thread.

Look back to the beginning of your photographic life. Did you clone then? Did you spot the image prior to making it available for viewing? Did you airbrush the scene to remove items or add them?

When was the last post that you saw that no critique included a reference to working with Photoshop to enhance the image? Why do you use photoshop, if the original image is perfect out of the camera? Why did Ansel become a master printer to get his vision on paper?

Photography is not only the clicking of the shutter and exposing the medium. It is the collection of data on the medium and munipulating it to match your vision.

I am new to digital and sometimes frustrated that the image I saw and took is not like it use to be on my Kodachrome 25 images. (For you young'uns, buy the Simon and Garfunkel version of that statement, it is true!)

There are very few images, if any at all, that we take that we can actually say are not cropped, tweeked, enhanced, or modified, to level the horizon, remove an offending branch (topic of original post), or otherwise create the vision we "saw" in the field.

Personally, I do the minimum I can in post production to alter the image. But I do it. I view the composition and adjust as needed. I would have to say that the cropping tool is my favorite instrument of control. I try to fill the viewfinder, but often with the fleeting moment, the subject (unlike the Tetons) moves thru the space and while trying to keep up and keep all controls focused on the task, they change the composition enough to end the vision. But I will still take the shot and see what develops, so to speak.

As for disclosure, when all photoshop modified images are so noted, it will be time for the rest of us to comply. However, as noted, I am not worried about that occuring in the distant future.

Enjoy the light and record the day. For the 1/2000th of a second that the image exists will never repeat itself. It's up to you to find it, recognize it and shoot it. Then to use it to create a vision. In my case I like to refer to them as "Nature's Visions", for I only record what nature provides to me as I pass by.

Enjoy!

[john crookes]

Mark,

again there is no problem with manipulating or enhance your photography the question is whether to disclose that it has indeed been manipulated.

John

[Jay Gould]

Frankly, those that are supporting nondisclosure are taking the issue to the extreme to make their point, for example:

Maker:John Smith
Title: Forest at Dawn
Manipulation: Cloned out 5 branches on top of image
Enhanced sunrise
Dodged tree trunks
Added Lucis filter to pop detail and so on and so on...

As for disclosure, when all photoshop modified images are so noted, it will be time for the rest of us to comply.

Those that support disclosure are not going to any EXTREME when they are suggesting a very simple statement that the image either has or has not been digitally manipulated. No detailed explanation necessary; simply an admission that what is presented is not the form and structure that was originally observed.

How you choose to make the admission is up to the individual; all we (the disclosure group) are saying is make the disclosure.

Jay

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK, I'll bite........but who decides what it relavant to disclose? IMO......if you take your approach....John and Jay.......than you must disclose all 27 steps (if that is how many there were).....if you do not.....than you are decided what I need to know. I'm sure Ansel didn't say I dodged that tree and smudged that sky etc. Who is the PP police? We have the HAP and now the PP police?
In the old film days.....I made choices in film.....that made colors pop etc. We also sandwiched images, painted them, poke pin holes in them for catchlights etc. The list in darkroom tricks is also endless and moot. I've been to hundreds of galleries and a generic PP list is usually all you get.
Only the maker and buyer can decide what is too much...and if the buyer want to know.....then they need to ask.....but doesn't that take away from the ashtetic part? ....I liked it but now that I know you took out a cigarette butt....I don't?.....absurd!..... and that is the bottom line.

[Jay Gould]

OK, I'll bite........but who decides what it relavant to disclose? IMO......if you take your approach....John and Jay.......than you must disclose all 27 steps (if that is how many there were).....if you do not.....than you are decided what I need to know. I'm sure Ansel didn't say I dodged that tree and smudged that sky etc. Who is the PP police? We have the HAP and now the PP police?
In the old film days.....I made choices in film.....that made colors pop etc. We also sandwiched images, painted them, poke pin holes in them for catchlights etc. The list in darkroom tricks is also endless and moot. I've been to hundreds of galleries and a generic PP list is usually all you get.
Only the maker and buyer can decide what is too much...and if the buyer want to know.....then they need to ask.....but doesn't that take away from the ashtetic part? ....I liked it but now that I know you took out a cigarette butt....I don't?.....absurd!..... and that is the bottom line.

Ouch! Don't bite too hard!! ;)

No way are you going to get away with suggesting that the "disclosure" approach requires disclosure of the 27 steps - No way, Jose!

When the photographer discloses "This image has been digitally manipulated" that is being totally and completely honest. The photographer does not have to volunteer his techniques. If the viewer/potential buyer wants more information the viewer can ask, and then the photographer can decide whether or not to make further disclosure.

Under your suggestion there is no minimal disclosure in the first instance and it is left to viewer to ponder and guess whether there has been manipulation of the the elements.

doesn't that take away from the ascetic part

Just the opposite; it adds to the creation by acknowledging that the image is not what I saw it is what I created from what I saw.

Cheers, Jay

[david cramer]

Discussions such as this, while often inconclusive, are generally good for our profession. Kudos to all who have contributed to this thread. I don't expect a photographer or graphic artist to automatically disclose all of the steps taken to process a photo (either film or digital), but I do expect them to be honest when I inquire.

Jay - to address your question about my galleries (thank you for your compliment), the fine art gallery differs from the rest in that it contains images that may have been significantly modified in order to give it a pleasing, and often ethereal look. On most of them it is quite obvious that a unreal look has been applied. I don't consider the altered images to be nature photography, but a form of graphic art.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Again I offer what is minimal to one person is too much for another. As for what we see......any image whether it was film or digital was what we remeber what we saw....as the camera can not capture what our eyes see.....not even close........I offer this link as an example; http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=29260 of PP'ing in everyones own eye. I was the only one who was physically there at the time. Which one is correct in your opinion? This is the raw tiff..........din't look like that I can attest and even the jpeg at the back of my camera didn't look like that. Remember, as Roger stated earlier.......it's just numbers!

[Dave Mills]

As the godfather stated "just when I thought I was out, you drew me back in"
I agree with Roman totally. If you state the images were digitally manipulated you open up a myriad of unanswered questions by the viewer. They will be unanswered because you won't be standing there for weeks answering them. As Roman stated Ansel Adams took darkroom manipulation to another level and used all available technologies of the day. Did he state" manipulated extensively in the dark room" at his earlier exhibits before he became famous and made a fortune from his how to books? Highly doubt it...
One thing I have been noticing that both Jay and John very selectively address parts of the discussion.
I would like an answer to why is photography the only medium in the art world that you feel needs an explanation on methodology? Why can't you accept the notion that it is up to the viewer to make their own interpretation about a piece of art? Honesty has nothing to do with this conversation. It's about an artist(photographer) showing their creation and interpretation. Thats what artists do..plain and simple. We are artists and we use the camera and computer as our mediums.

[Jay Gould]

As the godfather stated "just when I thought I was out, you drew me back in"
I agree with Roman totally. If you state the images were digitally manipulated you open up a myriad of unanswered questions by the viewer. They will be unanswered because you won't be standing there for weeks answering them. As Roman stated Ansel Adams took darkroom manipulation to another level and used all available technologies of the day. Did he state" manipulated extensively in the dark room" at his earlier exhibits before he became famous and made a fortune from his how to books? Highly doubt it...
One thing I have been noticing that both Jay and John very selectively address parts of the discussion.
I would like an answer to why is photography the only medium in the art world that you feel needs an explanation on methodology? Why can't you accept the notion that it is up to the viewer to make their own interpretation about a piece of art? Honesty has nothing to do with this conversation. It's about an artist(photographer) showing their creation and interpretation. Thats what artists do..plain and simple. We are artists and we use the camera and computer as our mediums.

Because I believe that the average viewer is as described by Roger; simple as that!

"Whoa, that's cheating! You do that to all your photos?"

All other art mediums there is no question (someone will identify some art medium to make this statement incorrect!) that it was created from the mind of the artist. With photography, what the viewer sees is what the viewer believes the camera saw; not what the photographer did to what the camera saw.

We can agree to disagree whether the burden is on the photographer to disclose up front or the viewer to ask.

Calling a photographer an artist sidesteps the issue, and is a label in this context to avoid disclosure.

In common parlance - not in a discussion between photographers - but amongst the general public photographers are not artists; they are photographers. On the other hand, amongst photographers - to make a viable distinction for the purpose of this discussion - there are artists and there are purists.

When enough time has past that the general public accepts that photographers are artists this discussion will be moot; until such time and while the general public thinks that photographers are photographers,

"Whoa, that's cheating! You do that to all your photos?"

photographers are not artists, and when they utilize a photograph to create ART rather than an accurate reproduction of what the camera saw without manipulation of elements, honesty requires some level of minimal disclosure by the photographer cum artist.

IMHO

[Fabs Forns]

Jay, I hate to disagree on your one point. I consider myself a photographer, and as such, an artist. It takes the eye to compose a pleasing scene, and all the techs in the worls are not going to help you if you don't have an artistic vision.

[Jay Gould]

Jay, I hate to disagree on your one point. I consider myself a photographer, and as such, an artist. It takes the eye to compose a pleasing scene, and all the techs in the worls are not going to help you if you don't have an artistic vision.

Fabs, we HAVE NOT disagreed!

I, too consider a photographer an artist.

I am making a distinction between how photographers see themselves, and how the general public views photographers and the manipulation of an image.

I come back to the quote from Roger's post as truly being representative of the general public's view of an image.

I do not believe that the general public looks at, for example, the winning image of the BBC competition and says "Wow, what an artist!". I believe they say "Wow, what a great photographer!"

And the reason they say what a great photographer is because they do not think or believe that there has been any manipulation of the elements.

Before some says that is true of the rules of the competition I understand that; the same distinction would apply to someone going to see a great photograph at a museum or gallery - the thought process would be "Wow, what a great photographer!"

Cheers,

[William Malacarne]

I have been to many events and I hear all the time about how the photographers are always in the way....I have not once heard about artists being in the way.

Bill

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

In my very humble opinion I would never consider myself an artist (maybe a Bull**** artist - an Aussie slang term) :D but in reality, the way I perceive it an artist is one who creates something from nothing using paints, crayons, pencils, clay or whatever but not one who photographs a scene in nature, a model in a studio, a building or anything else with a camera and lens. Even a quick search for the definition of artist came up with these terms:

1.	a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.

2.	a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or sculptor.

3.	a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.

4.	a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.

5.	a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.

6.	a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: He's an artist with cards.

7.	Obsolete. an artisan.

Points one and five could be debatable pertaining to a camera and lens if so viewed.
Point six is to me the equivalent of too much cloning and the like. Again, referring to the Aussie slang I mentioned above. All photographers are prone to that condition to at least some degree.

Maybe I live in a little cave in the Neander Valley and am oblivious to any official title of artist being applied to anyone who photographs. I would not dare compare me nor would compare any photographer dead or alive to the likes of Rembrandt, Picasso or Michaelangelo.

Anyway, that was my BA spin on the subject matter. :)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Fabs, we HAVE NOT disagreed!


I do not believe that the general public looks at, for example, the winning image of the BBC competition and says "Wow, what an artist!". I believe they say "Wow, what a great photographer!"

And the reason they say what a great photographer is because they do not think or believe that there has been any manipulation of the elements.

I am sure that many RAW files of shortlisted images get canned because the judges see over the top enhancements having been done to the file?

[Fabs Forns]

Akos, Rembrandt, Picasso and Michelangelo were Masters. There's a lot of artists not as well gifted, but artist nonetheless :)

[Jay Gould]

Akos, Rembrandt, Picasso and Michelangelo were Masters. There's a lot of artists not as well gifted, but artist nonetheless :)

Fabs, my Dear, you artistically ;) ducked the distinction between artist and photographer in so far as the general public views artists and photographers. :D

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Fabs, you are right, they are/were Masters indeed. :)

I do know at least one landscape painter in my region (and there are more) - that no others of BPN's 6285-strong membership would perhaps even heard of - who is/are incredibly gifted and create wonderful landscapes in oils. But I still do stand by what I said. However, that is no disrespect implied to any photographer, because there are wonderful photographers right here on BPN that have all the talent anyone could ever dream of. :) I do not say these for the sake of the debate as no way all folks will agree on the matter.

[Dave Mills]

Whoa...now the conversation is debating whether or not photographers are artists. Art is ever changing and does not standstill.Photography is accepted as a modern art form. It is mandatory in many art school's curriculums. I asked my wife, who is an art teacher, if she would consider photographers artists. She said yes, due to the application of the developement of composition thru color, line, texture, contrast and all the other elements and principles of art.
Some folks are not addressing the Ansel Adams issue. He was a manipulator. A fact
By the way Jay, who says a photographer should disclose anything..there is no morality at play here. These images are their creations. The photographer composes the image...not the camera. The photographer processes the image in the method and format of his choosing. The photographer adds to his vision in the method and tools he uses to make his creation. He then displays his creation. People then interpret it for themselves.

[Jay Gould]

Whoa...now the conversation is debating whether or not photographers are artists. Art is ever changing and does not standstill.Photography is accepted as a modern art form. It is mandatory in many art school's curriculums. I asked my wife, who is an art teacher, if she would consider photographers artists. She said yes, due to the application of the developement of composition thru color, line, texture, contrast and all the other elements and principles of art.
Some folks are not addressing the Ansel Adams issue. He was a manipulator. A fact
By the way Jay, who says a photographer should disclose anything..there is no morality at play here. These images are their creations. The photographer composes the image...not the camera. The photographer processes the image in the method and format of his choosing. The photographer adds to his vision in the method and tools he uses to make his creation. He then displays his creation. People then interpret it for themselves.

What was the purpose of this thread?

Fabs stated:

here comes the purpose of the thread: Do you feel compelled to disclose your manipulation or do you feel that, since it is more or less standard practice, you should keep it to yourself? How much to disclose and how much to keep under wraps?

David asks:

who says a photographer should disclose anything..there is no morality at play here.

David, the purpose of this thread is to discuss OUGHT; it is not to discuss IS!

There is only morality at play here; that is the purpose of the thread.

Should photographers disclose to the viewing public the fact that elements in the image have been manipulated?

David, that is what this is all about: what ought to be the standard? This not about what Ansel or anyone else did in the past, or what someone is doing today? It about what should photographers disclose to the viewing public tomorrow. That is a morality issue.

Sorry, but the quote from Roger is simply too compelling and I believe truly represents the impression of the general public.

"Whoa, that's cheating! You do that to all your photos?"

Perhaps a discussion of morals needs a context?

David, and others, do you believe that the quote from Roger represents the general public's perception of photographic images? Do you believe that John and Jane Doe Public when they look at a photograph of a bird they assume that the photograph represents what the photographer saw? Do you believe they even give lip service to adding wing tips and other PP changes in the elements?

Frankly, I do not think this is difficult.

If you believe that the your viewing public - remember there are various levels of sophistication amongst the viewing public from those at street fairs to those at the Metropolitan Museum of Art - is assuming that there HAS NOT BEEN DIGITAL MANIPULATION OF THE ELEMENTS - then, when you fail to disclose that there has been manipulation of the elements, you are intentionally allowing your viewing public to assume that which you know is wrong. When you knowingly (based upon your personal belief system) allow someone to assume that the wingtips were in the original image when in fact they were not in the original image, I believe that crosses the line of appropriateness.

So David, to answer your specific question:

who says a photographer should disclose anything..there is no morality at play here

Me! Because, this is all about morality and I do not believe that you should knowingly allow and participate in allowing by your omission your viewing public to be misled. Simple as that.

Before you respond, my premise is that you either know or reasonably believe that your particular viewing public believes there has not been any manipulation. If you honestly believe that your particular viewing public assume that there has been manipulation, then there is no need to volunteer what you believe they already are assuming.

As an aside, since we are discussing morals, I would rather err on the side of caution and assume that Roger's quotation applies to the general public across the board and make a simple disclosure that the image has been manipulated. How you say it is an individual preference as long as it is honest.

Jay

[Ed Cordes]

I have really enjoyed this discussion. I must admit that I am surprised the status of photographers being artists is even being debated. As Dave said in the post above we envision the images and use tools to create the final presentation. We are artists - clear and simple.

Re manipulation, as many have said I try to get it right in the camera, but if cloning a branch or adding a wing tip transforms an image from a "nice picture" to a "wonderful image" then what is wrong with that as long as the final image still represents the essence of what my eye saw at the time of exposure? By presenting my images to the public I am trying to portray and share the beauty and wonder of nature. If my images have more impact after using PhotoShop aren't I sending a more powerful message?

The very moment I brighten an eye I have manipulated the image from the originally recorded scene. Is this wrong? I don't think so. Is cloning out an ugly branch that detracts from a beautiful bird on a wonderful perch with a killer BG in super light wrong? Does it change the "essence" of the image and the natural scene? I don't think so.

The fact that others do think this is wrong and chose not to do this is perfectly OK with me. After all we are artists and as such we can practice our craft in any way we want. The final image we present to the public is our vision of nature. If this vision means that you do not want to change anything in the original RAW file it is your artistic choice to present your final production in this manner. You are an artist after all, so you are free to create your image as you see fit.

[Dave Mills]

Jay, I don't feel the maker needs to explain their image. Your not misling anyone. Your displaying your creation.If someone else did it you would be misling them. Do I care what some fool thinks when he makes a remark like cheating. Also the past shouldn't be so easily dismissed as your doing.(pertaining to AA, It's a valid point)
Listen Jay, were going round and round on this with each of us not coming close to making headway. I feel I've stated my reasons as clearly and concisely as I can and I stand behind them.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Sorry, I am not debating who or what is an artist, just pointing out my personal thoughts, because I really do find it ironic, especially since the digital revolution, that cyberspace is littered with the photographic “artist” most of who would probably starve if they were to rely on their photography to pay the bills.

So I don’t agree with that definition, I do apologize for that, however, to me this is merely a hobby and not a form of art and I do/would always prefer to keep images simple with minimal processing as much as possible. One needs not be an artist for that just have half a good eye for composition and a few other things IMVVVVHO (v=very).

I am not here to have the last say or get into arguments or debates. Happy to disagree and be the village idiot among 6,000-odd "artists".

Wish you all great light for your photography! :)
Respectfully
Ákos

[john crookes]

Dave ,

Ansel did and always would tell what he particually did to a photograph when printing he wanted to share his knowledge with the world not keep it a secret

do you know the zone system
if he was secretive would we

John

[Jay Gould]

David, we can bring this a conclusion. What is obvious to me is that there are two points of focus: the photographer/artist and the viewer.

It is my perception that you are focusing on the photographer/artist and what they should/need to disclose; I am focusing on the viewer and what they need to know/should be told without asking.

Until we have the same subject matter for the purpose of discussion, we are discussing apples and oranges.

I believe that Fabs' thread is focused on the viewer; what do we/should we tell the viewer?

I do not believe that Fabs' thread is focused on the photographer/artist; is it necessary to tell anybody anything?

Good shooting, my cyber friend.

Jay

[Jay Gould]

I have really enjoyed this discussion. I must admit that I am surprised the status of photographers being artists is even being debated. As Dave said in the post above we envision the images and use tools to create the final presentation. We are artists - clear and simple.

Re manipulation, as many have said I try to get it right in the camera, but if cloning a branch or adding a wing tip transforms an image from a "nice picture" to a "wonderful image" then what is wrong with that as long as the final image still represents the essence of what my eye saw at the time of exposure? By presenting my images to the public I am trying to portray and share the beauty and wonder of nature. If my images have more impact after using PhotoShop aren't I sending a more powerful message?

The very moment I brighten an eye I have manipulated the image from the originally recorded scene. Is this wrong? I don't think so. Is cloning out an ugly branch that detracts from a beautiful bird on a wonderful perch with a killer BG in super light wrong? Does it change the "essence" of the image and the natural scene? I don't think so.

The fact that others do think this is wrong and chose not to do this is perfectly OK with me. After all we are artists and as such we can practice our craft in any way we want. The final image we present to the public is our vision of nature. If this vision means that you do not want to change anything in the original RAW file it is your artistic choice to present your final production in this manner. You are an artist after all, so you are free to create your image as you see fit.

Ed, I agree with everything you say. This discussion as gone off track from the original intent of the thread.

This was not about the right or wrong of PP; this is only about whether when you KNOW a person is assuming there has not been PP of the elements should you tell them? Jay

[Dave Mills]

Interesting debate...Good shooting to you also....

[Roger Clark]

Roger, you still haven't answer and you don't have to address, IMHO, the basic premise of this thread: when should you disclose?

Cheers, Jay

Hi Jay,
I have an extensive writeup on my web site about this subject. It was a little out of date, so I updated it recently after this thread was started:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
I state on that page what I disclose and do not disclose. Let me know if you think I have covered everything adequately or if I need to add something.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Jay,
I have an extensive writeup on my web site about this subject. It was a little out of date, so I updated it recently after this thread was started:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
I state on that page what I disclose and do not disclose. Let me know if you think I have covered everything adequately or if I need to add something.

Wow! Thank you for asking: I will look at it right now. :D Jay

[Fabs Forns]

This has been a very interesting debate, a little off topic sometimes, as it generally happens in all discussions. Conducted in a very respectful and friendly manner and everyone has expressed their view.

Bottom line as I see it, it is up to the photographer/artist how much he/she wants to disclose, depending of course of the venue of the image.

Do we all agree to disagree? :)

[Jay Gould]

Hi Jay,
I have an extensive writeup on my web site about this subject. It was a little out of date, so I updated it recently after this thread was started:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
I state on that page what I disclose and do not disclose. Let me know if you think I have covered everything adequately or if I need to add something.

Roger, I am going to write this like we are sitting around a fire having a chat. Since joining BPN, I have had the pleasure of being introduced to so many fine websites, and had the privilege to view so many magnificent images - works of art like David Thommason's Landscape (http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...ers#post246300). From an image standpoint, I am not qualified to judge by high photographic standards one photographer's images from the next. I know what I like and what I do not like.

When my wife walked in I said to her "I have just had an honor on the BPN. Roger, you know the guy from Colorado who I call the scientist's scientist, well - and Jackie knows about this debate - he asked me to look at and comment upon his description of his work product as disclosed to the viewer or potential buyer.

And that, in part as a retired attorney, I am qualified to do. I acknowledge that everyone will read Roger's writing differently, and I have simply applied my moral code tempered with my sense of justice and disclosure to the buyer.

And I have.

First, and I have said this before. Your website and the incredible volume of material that is provided to your readers is simply amazing in its quantity, and - and I don't understand it all - but that which I do is high quality. Don't you ever sleep? I though I was the insomniac in this group I have joined. :D

I will make a trip to Colorado one day just to meet you.

Now, to the subject at hand - what you have written. Tongue in cheek I might say that I have been setup. ;) In a GOOD way.

You have taken the time to not only provide your reader/viewer with a detailed description of your work flow, you have gone out of your way to let the reader/viewer potential customer know that if there has been any manipulation of the elements in any significance whatsoever, those manipulations will be disclosed.

I also do not remove or add elements to the scene except in rare circumstances, and when I do I note it in the captions. I have been accused of many things, such as replacing the eyes in my bear images with fake eyes. The eyes are real. The animal images are real and no manipulation has been done. I don't clear sticks from the view. For example, some photographer critics have said I should remove the stick in front of the birds in this image: The Kiss, Great Blue Herons at Sunset but I prefer to leave the stick because that was the way it was when I took the picture. That represents real nature. As a result it may never win in a photo contest, but I think it is a more powerful image with the stick.

A buyer of one of your images will know from you voluntarily any change in the the basic elements from the scene you saw and the scene you presented.

Roger, you set the standard for appropriate disclosure.

Thank you for asking me to do this.

Cheers, Mate, Jay

[Roger Clark]

Wow. It's hard to keep up with so many posts.

Regarding ethics, the issue from the viewer standpoint is they want to know if the photo is "real" (whatever that means). And different viewer have different knowledge and opinions on what constitutes manipulation, so it is an impossible target. To some the standards are "no manipulation" but the fact that you took the image and displayed it means there was manipulation as it is not the real scene as I described a couple of days ago. To some viewers if you change contrast it is manipulation. It was only a few years ago when many did not believe a digital camera image was a photo. So saying a photo was "digitally manipulated," a "digital creation" or something similar simply leads to different perceptions by different people. Again, no win.

The NANPA guide saying adding two or more frames is digital manipulation is behind the times with HDR and digital mosaics. While I disclose these, I don't feel it is necessary and I believe the general public doesn't care about such details in general.

But I think there is a threshold when things are added or removed. The public in my experience really doesn't like that and believe it is a lie and not a photo. They have the (false) impression that photos are "real," even though history of photography shows otherwise. (I don't have any scientific data to back these public perceptions, they are just my impressions from my experience.) So if I remove or add scene elements, I disclose it:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
Thank you very much!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with digital art; it just ain't a photograph any longer!

It sums up my feeling. I appreciate the expertise of most of the people in BPN in cloning and altering. I have no problem in calling them digital creations or digital art. I wish people mention that they are uploading a digital creation rather than a photograph. I don't understand the reluctance of people in mentioning it.

I was told that I should clone the blade of grass infront of the tigers face in one of my photographs. I responded that if I cannot physically go and remove the grass infront of the tigers face, then I am not going to do that in photoshop.:D The link to that image is given below.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=21521

I was hoping that the tiger moves its head or the soft morning breeze blows the grass a bit so that I can get the eye. Finally I got it.

I never used to crop before coming to BPN. Then started cropping and mentioning it in my posts. I have now gone back to photographing like I used to with slides, without cropping. It is too easy to get into bad habits and that can easily destroy your talent.

If you find a "busy background" then you can try to move yourself a bit to work around that "offending" branch or blade of grass. In the link to the tiger photograph, I waited till the blade of grass did not obstruct the eye. One can easily play with different depth of fields to make that "busy background" make sense ie. if you can show the relationship between the background and the subject then the so called busy background becomes an integral part of your image.

The reason for critiquing is to help each other in improving. If the end result is to clone, then I don't think there is any reason for critiquing. However, I like the approach of a few of our fellow moderators. For eg. Roman. Nobody can miss the Graduated Neutral Density filter in his signature. When he talks about cloning the sky, one can understand that he is simulating the effect of the GND filter and telling people that it is better to get it right in the field. There are also others who too do it.

There are some great photographers in BPN. I feel that people should take this opportunity to first learn photography from them.

I might be deviating from the topic of the thread. To conclude, the faithful representation of what was captured at the time of the shot being taken must be maintained. If not, then it should be mentioned while uploading.

Also, please check the rules for BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Contest. It makes for some interesting reading. I agree with it.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-...ntry/Rules.jsp

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Sabyasachi,

I do feel once the steps mentioned in point five of the BBC rules are exceeded the digital creations / photograph boundary is crossed once and for all.

[Roman Kurywczak]

It's gotten interesting! A crop has always been allowed in all those competitions as we have always used different slide mounts to achieve the desired effect as well as silver tape. What differs from the BBC and NANPA is that the BBC requires the RAW file at some point....to validate non-manipulation. This is a wildlife contest and that is their rules. Folllow them or be disqulified. Manipulation past rule 5 not allowed but what is minimal? Some unseen being (human), with all their flaws makes this decision. Maybe in fact my definition of minimal is stricter than that persons........so I may be playing on an uneven field as far as the competition goes. I do try and get it right in camera all the time and feel that if I removed or added something I should and do disclose it. If I feel I did too much work I put it in OOTB........but do realize this; We are in the digital infancy.......pretty soon the programs will be out there to manipulate RAW files.......pretty soon it wil be impossible to tell and every photograph will be labled digital art.......as there will be no way to tell.
If it hangs on someones wall......master or not.....it is art to them.

[Arthur Morris]

Great questions, Fabs,

Well, I do not have time at present to read the entire thread but plan on doing so one day. Here is my present stance:

re:

Do you feel it's OK to add a wing tip?

Yes.

Do you feel it's OK to evict a bird positioned in your foreground?

Yes, and ugly branches too.

And if so, here comes the purpose of the thread: Do you feel compelled to disclose your manipulation or do you feel that, since it is more or less standard practice, you should keep it to yourself?

As most of you know, I pretty much disclose what I have done all the time. Once in a while if it is just one small branch on the edge I may forget but that is done to save time not to hide anything. As I have stated before, I always strive to preserve the natural history of the image.

How much to disclose and how much to keep under wraps?

Best to disclose all all of the time. As for being a branch away from eternity, do note that many of my very best images cannot be entered in most of the prestigious contests as they allow only levels, curves, and dust spotting.

Lastly:

Where do you draw the line?

For folks who remove as much as a tiny black stone or a sliver of branch from the frame-edge, there can be no line drawn. Either you leave the image as is or you take stuff out. Period. Removing a tiny stone or three birds from the frame is the same.

ps to John Crookes: congrats on being an archive hound. YOu did however, leave folks quite confused as to who said what be omitting this preface:

"Here is a wonderfully written article by student Philip Yoder on the current (somewhat sad) state of digital manipulation in nature photography. It is a must read."

I am adding that to your post above.

The only words there that were mine were these: 'Wow, that is beautiful.' Today, my first reaction is, 'is that a straight shot or was it done on a computer?'"

All that I have ever wanted was to know the truth.

[Arthur Morris]

ps: Found View quickly became defunct... (Nothing implied there, just the facts.)

[John Hawkins]

Ansel Adams was a master at manipulation in the darkroom. Art is Art.

[Mark Fuge]

I did post previously, but reading some of these I would add the following ... my view, not nessarily the only one ... that it also depends on the intended use of the image. If you are selling it to a card or paper product user, is it necessary to tell them the same manipulation steps as you would if you were marketing to a scientific journal?

Personally I think we try too often to set standards for others when others have no intent in the entering the same market. If the question were more specific, maybe but probably not, we might be in agreement.

A contest has rules, follow them. A buyers has needs, provide them. But don't limit your images, or your interpetation of them to strict guidelines, which others may or may not choose to follow but tend to expound.

As one poster noted, we are treading on new ground. Digital is a new medium that has different ethical questions. Until we stabilize the limits of digital, it is hard to say what is and what is not out of bounds for all.

When I got into studying photography, with the old classroom 4x5 and darkroom work, the effort required limited most photogs to remove or add major items in the image. Today, a couple of key stokes does it. Does that mean that since it was forbidden, so now it is too?

Is there really a need to separate art and photography? I think we just need to understand the art of photography and provide images that address it and the required vision we seek.

Going back to Ansel Adams, whom most here have heard of, it is said that if he were to enter photography today, he would use color and he would appreciate digital. He would learn the technology to make his image fit his vision, just as he created technology to fit it with film. We need to do the same, in my view. Again, my view ... not the only one.

Enjoy!

[mikeojohnson]

I like the darkroom analogy. Traditional processing techniques in modern form are ok to me.

If you change the elements of the image (add a wing tip, remove a branch, etc) I think it OK as long as you disclose it.
Mike

[Jeff Nadler]

I have concluded that the whole topic is totally based on the end product use and "customer". I can live with this:

For editorial submissions- no cloning unless the publisher or editor comes back with a request for minor clean-up.

For photographer website posting - use personal judgement of reasonableness and disclose

For art hanging on the wall for sale - use personal judgement of reasonableness, disclosure not required unless used in educational, scientific setting.

For publication use in guide or ID oriented use - reasonably clone as desired to improve subject visual

While one may remove something-never ever add something to a scene (fake sky, clouds, composite subjects) other than a clipped wing. Cmon folks, a heck of lot in life more to worry about than if the tip of a wing is fixed.

[Jay Gould]

For photographer website posting - use personal judgement of reasonableness and disclose

For art hanging on the wall for sale - use personal judgement of reasonableness, disclosure not required unless used in educational, scientific setting.

Jeff, what is the difference between a photographic image for sale on a website and the same photographic image for sale in a gallery?

A customer walks into a gallery, looks at an image of a bird, the wing is cloned and not disclosed, the customer thinks what a great photographer - a perfect complete bird image.

Not disclosing to the customer that the wing has been cloned is, IMHO, intentionally allowing the customer to purchase under a false impression. That is not honest.

Cmon folks, a heck of lot in life more to worry about than if the tip of a wing is fixed.

"Worry" is not the right word; openness, transparency, honesty - those fit. You either believe in total disclosure OR your have a reason NOT to disclose. This thread is about those reasons NOT to disclose.

[Ken Watkins]

Sabyasachi,

I do feel once the steps mentioned in point five of the BBC rules are exceeded the digital creations / photograph boundary is crossed once and for all.

It seems we are back full circle. The winning image in last years contest did not have a photographer present so what did he see?

Finally why is the BBC to be the sole arbiter when it comes to photography, when so many of their wildlife documentaries are faked. Can you recall being told that the Tiger scenes in Life on Earth were shot using a tame tiger!

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

It seems we are back full circle. The winning image in last years contest did not have a photographer present so what did he see?

He obviously had the brain capacity to understand the animal's behavior and establish a camera trap. I personally believe he has done a great job, though, I would tapdance for him if he was tough enough to stay there in the cold all night rugged up in a hide. After all, he did not create a composite image did he? :D

Finally why is the BBC to be the sole arbiter when it comes to photography, when so many of their wildlife documentaries are faked. Can you recall being told that the Tiger scenes in Life on Earth were shot using a tame tiger!

For one, I never saw Life on Earth, so I cannot comment. If they use their set-ups and use trained or tame animals to educate people why would that be a bad thing? Do the makers of those forums spend their free time on internet forums trying to show off one cloned image after another? I think not.

In my honest opinion, and it really does not matter at the end of the day what my opinion is, I have far more appreciation for an image that was taken and had the minimal amount of processing done to it (mine especially). So the BBC rules stand firm for now, that is great if I may say! At least I know until such time that they bow to pressure - from those that cannot take an image without changing the capture later with the aid of software to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the general and "uneducated" public - then I will bow to all the winners and highly commended image makers there that use their brains and skills in creating the final image using the camera and not a computer. :)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

do note that many of my very best images cannot be entered in most of the prestigious contests as they allow only levels, curves, and dust spotting.

Maestro Artie,

I am truly shocked at that statement. You know that I am very moved by what your work has produced (you know I am NOT pissing in your pocket!) and your original ABP book (Amphoto) was my main reason that made me fall in love with birds as well as photographing them. Many images in THAT VERY book are world-class and would stand strongly against any competitive force in any comp.

Does that mean you have become lazy with the more advanced technology available to the photographers today?

If not, then what is the difference? And, thank you for your constant encouragement. :)