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

[Ken Watkins]

Akos,

I do not think you understood my point, the BBC can bend its own rules when it sees fit to do so, it can also continually mislead its viewers (whether you watched it or not is irrelevant). This is not in my opinion a good moral basis for determining how others should act.
If it is OK for entertainment or education then it must be OK for us.
As far as I am concerned the image you took is yours do what you like with it, what on earth is PS for if it is not to improve your images.

Personally I do not take images to enter into competitions I take them to please myself and hopefully others, so these limitations mean nothing to me.
But I would not consider myself a photographer if I set up remote traps and went to sleep, in a nice warm tent, I would consider myself a research scientist.

The Leopard took the photo!

I do not really care what Art does I just admire the immense skill and patience, it certainly could not be described as lazy.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Akos,

I do not think you understood my point, the BBC can bend its own rules when it sees fit to do so, it can also continually mislead its viewers (whether you watched it or not is irrelevant). This is not in my opinion a good moral basis for determining how others should act.
If it is OK for entertainment or education then it must be OK for us.
As far as I am concerned the image you took is yours do what you like with it, what on earth is PS for if it is not to improve your images.

Personally I do not take images to enter into competitions I take them to please myself and hopefully others, so these limitations mean nothing to me.
But I would not consider myself a photographer if I set up remote traps and went to sleep, in a nice warm tent, I would consider myself a research scientist.

The Leopard took the photo!

I do not really care what Art does I just admire the immense skill and patience, it certainly could not be described as lazy.

We are all entitled to an opinion whether others like it or not or agree or not. :) One of the best Aussie photographers has done light traps at night sitting in a hide not far from owls' nests. He is not a research scientist but a photographer and educator via his books and does very little if anything with software. If it was not for digital cameras and photoshop, there would be far less people in the world today photographing nature and trying to impress one another in online forums. :)

Artie knows I have immense respect for him and his work and I doubt he would be offended at my honest question to him. I personally do care about the amount of manipulation in the post process more so as it takes far less skill and effort to manipulate an image later than in the camera itself by composing etc. Well that's what I believe, and maybe I am kidding myself. Perhaps I better go back to my little bear cave and give up photography. :p Refer to my first sentence above. :)

[Jay Gould]

Akos,

I do not think you understood my point, the BBC can bend its own rules when it sees fit to do so, it can also continually mislead its viewers (whether you watched it or not is irrelevant). This is not in my opinion a good moral basis for determining how others should act.
If it is OK for entertainment or education then it must be OK for us.
As far as I am concerned the image you took is yours do what you like with it, what on earth is PS for if it is not to improve your images.

Personally I do not take images to enter into competitions I take them to please myself and hopefully others, so these limitations mean nothing to me.
But I would not consider myself a photographer if I set up remote traps and went to sleep, in a nice warm tent, I would consider myself a research scientist.

The Leopard took the photo!

I do not really care what Art does I just admire the immense skill and patience, it certainly could not be described as lazy.

If it is OK for entertainment or education then it must be OK for us.

Ken, what must be OK for us?

This debate as framed by Fabs simply related to the issue of whether to disclose or not to disclose.

I believe it has evolved into a split between commercial use of a photograph and noncommercial use of a photograph.

On the commercial side, I believe overwhelming the majority participating in this debate agree that if the elements in the image have been manipulated - voluntarily disclose.

On the noncommercial side - you classify that as education and entertainment - the I believe there is a greater split amongst the participants; more BPNers would opt for nondisclosure in when the image is used in a noncommercial event or on a noncommercial website.

Frankly, I agree that the BBC doesn't set the standard; we set the standard for ourselves and this discussion is about our personal standards.

Some of us believe that disclosure = transparency and honesty; other believe that nondisclosure has nothing to do with transparency or honesty - it is just that they believe they don't have to/ do not have a need to voluntarily disclose.

Cheers,

[Mark Fuge]

Frankly, I don't know how we can separate the issues of disclose and non disclosure from the identified markets and usage as some have indicated.

We can take a hard stand that all images shall be disclosed. Put it right below to our copyright, something like, "This is a true and exact image of the scene, which you see here. No alteration of depth of focus, shutter speed, lens selection, artificial lighting, filters or other in camera, or post processing techniques were used to manipulate the image or enhance and change its character. The colors, proportiions, tonal range, etc., are as depicted by the natural light as visual preceived by the photographer. With the pro camera sensor used, being equal to that of the human eye, no definition was lost in the processing and printing of the image."

For the rest of us, we can state, "This is not as found in nature, camera setting were changed to agree with lighting condition at the time, and separate the subject from the background through depth of field techniques; a flash was used to enhance the shadow areas of the subject, stop action, and address the tonal range of the digital sensor; cropping of the scene in camera, by lens selection and zooming, or during post production, may have been used to balance the scene; tripod was used to stabilize the camera to enhance the images due to possible camera shake during long exposures; other techniques may have been used in post processing and printing to correct for some lighting and other imperfections and nuisances."

As for me, I will disclose the obvious, if I ever try to represent the image as a scientific statement of subject, or of the environmental nature. Not because it is required by some photo agencies, who do not reimbuse directly for use of the images, but because I feel it is right to do. However, I personally choose to not openly disclose, to those that receive my Christmas card, or marketing areas that do not have it in their requirements, that the photo was changed in camera or post processing.

The market should control, not the photographic community. Digital changes the working plane. As some have said, anyone can now create an acceptable image in digital. Personally, I am glad to hear that. For it means that more people can enjoy what we do and share in the events that we enjoy while doing it. It opens more eyes to the sights around them. Maybe, in some small way, that will help to change the world as well.

Disclosure versus non disclosure. I vote for full personal choice.

[Arthur Morris]

Do realize that if I label an image: body parts composite--3 frames of the same bird--and a birding magazine opts to use it then they will almost never disclose. Same with images of captive birds....

The only magazines that give a darn are Ranger Rick (the leader in the field and the first to ask), My Big Backyard, and National Wildlife (all three in the same family).

[Dave Mills]

Mark, I think you stated your opinion quite well. I'm also on the personal choice ticket!!

[Arthur Morris]

Yeah, I am fine with personal choice but my very great preference for images posted here on BPN is that folks let other folks know if they have done anything major in Photoshop.

[Mark Fuge]

Artie, I agree with you. It is subject to the rules of the road. My reason for supporting personal choice is that unless there is a need, why??? :confused: I know you indicated a similar feeling on the topic. Thanks.

As for BPN, this is a learning site and sharing such information helps all of us learn and also helps others help us when we are in need. Without the dialog of what and how, none of us would benefit from this site. Thanks to you and the other founders for providing it.

I appreciate the critique comments... I have learned new things here, as well as things that I knew but forgot in the mechanics of photography ... all is well with me and critiques, once my blood pressure cools down! :D :D

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for your kind words about BPN. If your blood pressure rises after reading a critique, then you need to do the work: www.thework.com

[Mark Fuge]

I'm cool :cool: with it Artie, just past life experiences sometimes get in the way. Being an engineer, I faced many issues of disagreement and I'm still here! :D Don't know about the other guys, but ... ;)

[Aidan Briggs]

I don't often manipulate my images in a major way, but when I do I always say what I have done. It is as simple as that.

[Dave Phillips]

I don't often manipulate my images in a major way, but when I do I always say what I have done. It is as simple as that.

and it does make a fun pp challenge