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

[Fabs Forns]

Let's face it, with the software technology available today, it is very tempting to do away with that annoying branch or two, and I'm afraid we've all been guilty of abusing the cloning tool (or any other tool to modify content) at some point in our career.

As I'm getting older, I'm more reluctant to clone, or let's say I'm getting more tolerant of branches :cool: but once in a while, the caption becomes a reality and we are a branch away from perfection.

Where do you draw the line?
Do you feel it's OK to add a wing tip?
Do you feel it's OK to evict a bird positioned in your foreground?

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?

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

Let's hear your opinion!

[Lance Peters]

Hi Fabs - my two cents..
Disclose anything other than what you could have done in a darkroom.
I try to avoid cloning anything these days - aim to get the shot I want in camera and if I don't well there luckily is always another day and another bird.

If you want to clone - clean up - add birds - take away birds and that sits with your personal ethics - thats fine with me - AS LONG as it is disclosed.
What I dont paticularly like is seeing a perfect shot and aspiring to get something like that out of my camera - only to learn later that it was in effect a Digital Creation.

Bet you will get some commenst on this thread :)

[Roger Clark]

I have to say that I have been a little disturbed by the amount of cloning/clean up being promoted/disclosed here on BPN. In the beginning of the digital era, I had done a few digital manipulations and disclosed that on the images on my web site. But as my experience with digital grew (that was scanned film days), and my inventory of images grew to many tens of thousands, I didn't feel the need/desire to manipulate. These days I'll try and get it best in camera and if the image has sticks or other problems, I move on to another image/opportunity. Often when I'm out for a hike in the woods (and I always carry a photo backpack full of gear) I'll often return with no images rather than any image with clutter. But sometimes sticks can be interesting. Like this leopard shot I posted a while back (some people like it, others do not):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...759.c-800.html

Actually, photographer critics tend to not like it, and the general public likes it a lot.

Here is one of my favorite images: two herons kissing at the last moment of sunset. Photographer critics say too bad about the stick in front of the bird. When I ask a non photographer about the stick, the most common response is "what stick?"
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...149.f-700.html
I like the stick. To me it shows reality. Nature is not clean.

My experience with the general public is many are skeptical of any digital image. I often get email asking if my images are real. I had one guy ask why I replaced all the eyes with fake eyes in my bear images (not if I did it, why I did it). So even if someone discloses manipulation, the fact that so much manipulation is going on raises skepticism on all images in the eyes of many people, even if you tell them you didn't manipulate an image.

If you ever go through the Denver airport, see the Thomas Mangelsen Images of Nature gallery in the main terminal. Stunning images, but many would face a lot of criticism here on BPN. Not perfect in many ways, but stunning, real, not-manipulated and bought by the general public.

[carole wiley]

I have to say, as a releative new comer to photography and photoshop that I prefer not to have things quite so neat. Part of that may be that I lack the skill to clean them up but, to me, I would rather see nature in nature than in a sterile photoshop environment created just for the moment. I have no problem with manipulation. There are many wonderful images created. But I would like to know up front what is real and what is not. I spend many wonderful but often frustrating hours out in the cold and the wet trying to come up with the perfect image only to find out that I am supposed to creat it at my desk. Besides, I think environment shots are neat.

[Mike McCarthy]

I would never ever enhance a photo with any photoshop tools whatsoever.




Seriously...though. I try hard to keep my photoshop funnies and my natural images seperate and noted. I do find this technology to be a blessing and a curse. I personally find it really merging the lines between fantasy and reality. I get blamed for photoshopping an image when I don't touch it at all. I can also make up an image from scratch and often times pass it off as "real" if I want to. I guess the context of the use of the image is what desides for me.

If it's for fun...anything goes. If it's for a bird publication that is more about the bird and it's identification and habits..then no PS tinkering. I think artistic prints that are a general representation of a natural scene ...well...this is where it gets to become a personal issue I believe. I will remove some sort of man made garbage in an osprey nest at times. Otehr times, if I feel it tells a story or adds an interest to the image, I will leave it in.

The problem is that no matter how you approach this issue ...or what ever you do, you run the risk of some folks thinking you photoshopped it. It is sad in one sense. You can nail that once in a life time action shot where it is ssooooo unbelievable and cool you will not receive the credit due for this unaltered image. You wil no doubt be accused by someone or many..that it was faked or unaturel. I guess the ability to alter images today leaves many viewers of the work in doubt or question as to it's authenticity or realness.

I try to keep things real for the appropriate use and for the humorous stuff...all tools are fair game.

[Ken Watkins]

Manipulation has been around as long as photography.
I think the problem that has occured is that it is now relatively easy, if you can afford Photoshop.
I see nothing wrong with the methods used by some, I for one am quite prepared to clone out the odd branch or two, although I do draw the line at adding things that were not there in the first place.
The technology is in place and people should use it if they wish, it is after all ART not science.

[Alfred Forns]

I think the difficulty is in drawing the line. I wish it would be as simple as using slide film but its not ... technology has evolved ... should we?

I'm still (and always have been) uncomfortable with heavy cloning/manipulating. Maybe the first step is getting to the point of when to disclose ... will be a big step.

Mike ..... I've never seen a better looking tricolor in my life !!!

[Don Saunders]

Here is a scenario I faced recently. I was photographing a sunrise along the GA coast. As the sun began to rise above the horizon, I noticed a contrail in the sky. By the time I finished, there were three contrails acros parts of the sky.

The contrails were not there when I began to shoot. They did not add to the image. In part, they are manmade. I could not move my tripod to another position to remove them from the field of view.

To produce I image I "saw", I would need to remove them from the image. However, a competition, that I wanted to enter, forbid extensive manipulation. I chose to submit an image taken before the sun appeared, that did not have contrails, and the image was rejected. I have removed the contrails on an image with the sun on the horizon and it is a far better composition.

I wonder if I should have submitted the "best" composition, without contrails, and rationalized that submission in that I was not using extensive manipulation. :confused:

I assume that Tri-Color is the new mascot for the Florida State Seminoles!

[Mike McCarthy]

Mike ..... I've never seen a better looking tricolor in my life !!!

Thanks Al. It's plumage is rather attractive. *9)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Coming from having done underwater photography for many years and having being a slide shooter prior to buying my first DSLR in March 2006, I must say the old ways still remain at least in the majority of instances. Nothing is more satisfying than capturing something and leaving it as is, knowing that whatever I did at the time and the scene I saw was unaltered. Learning more and more about Photoshop as I am learning this wonderful craft of bird photography the shortcuts can be very tempting and sometimes I do clone stuff and QM bits etc. etc... Needless to say, I always have the intention of disclosing what I have done to the image for the final presentation. Yet, I try to do as little as possible as I am too lazy to spend ages retouching something that I am not entirely happy with and the sense of achievement is greater. It's like I would much more appreciate an image where a raptor was captured up close without using baits (not that I would disregard a baited shot, as long as the shooter is decent enough to say so). I would add a wingtip until such time that I could capture an image with all parts uncut then the cut tipped images would be relegated to the DCB (Digital Compost Bin). I don't know, I am still too old fashioned in my ways. But I like being as I am.

[Dave Mills]

Good discussion...Photographic technology is now going through a period of radical change. With that change comes new and better ways to improve our abilities to create an image not only as we saw it but an improved rendition. It's human nature to take advantage of new and easier ways to achieve a goal and to expand our creativity.
A few years back I spoke to someone who knew Ansel Adams. I asked him how does he think Mr Adams would feel about Photoshop. His reply was...he would probably be immersed in it. Obviously no one will ever know the true answer to that question but being the innovator he was, the odds are he would use it to his advantage.
I was wondering how many bird photographers who are currently users of this site, would be bird photographers if it wasn't for the digital age. I can only speak for myself and say ...I would not. I would not be going through a roll of film on a long 3 1/2 second burst. With a quick look at my histogram I can tell if my exposure is right on...not on a film camera. I could go on and and on...but everyone can see the remarkable advances and ease of use which has encouraged many folks.
Finally, most critiques by folks use photoshop as a guideline for correction. Expand canvas, take out dust bunnies, fix noise and remove that disturbing branch are all methods of enhancement and improvement. I have no debate with myself when it comes to correcting an image. There is a big difference in Ansel Adams original images as opposed to his finished, enhanced images. He used the available technology of his day to improve his images.
In 20 years from now this will probably all be a mute point since new generations who will have never dealt with film will look at correction as a norm....

[Fabs Forns]

One of the things that worry me is that I see a lot of advise; "clone this or that" instead of "why didn't you take a coupe of steps to the right to avoid that distraction?" I know sometimes the distraction is unavoidable, but we shouldn't' rely on PS to do our leg work. Just my opinion.

[Desmond Chan]

One of the things that worry me is that I see a lot of advise; "clone this or that" instead of "why didn't you take a coupe of steps to the right to avoid that distraction?" I know sometimes the distraction is unavoidable, but we shouldn't' rely on PS to do our leg work. Just my opinion.

Perhaps problem is in the wild, especially shooting small birds, sometimes even leg work won't help. And when giving suggestion here, we are talking about a finished product already and how to "fix" it at that point. Having said that, I believe in the past I have seen here on BPN suggestions of the kind that you just mentioned.

I'd like to think my tolerance level of distracting elements in the foreground/background is pretty high comparing with other's, I do use clone stamp, tool, etc. have to say. But I'd draw the line on adding a wing tip, an entire wing or any other body part of the birds.

[Ed Cordes]

Interesting discussion. I agree that I have recieved several "clone out that branch" comments here on BPN. I admit that I often do clone out distracting things. Did I disclose? Sometimes! I guess I disclose less and less since I get so much advice on cleaning things up, it just kind of becomes second nature.

Now the other part of the discussion is how important is it? I guess if we are portraying an image as an exact copy of what was in the viewfinder we need to disclose. If we are trying to create an image that portrays the scene our mind "saw" and portrays nature realistically, but also with the highest level of asthetics, then it might not matter.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

One of the things that worry me is that I see a lot of advise; "clone this or that" instead of "why didn't you take a coupe of steps to the right to avoid that distraction?" I know sometimes the distraction is unavoidable, but we shouldn't' rely on PS to do our leg work. Just my opinion.

I guess if one wants perfection and all elements to fall into place with no distracting BG etc., IMHO it's better to set up an "In field studio" and concentrate on attracting the feathered clientelle to the perfect set up. :D While not my cup of tea I like those types of shots and they bear more of my personal respect than those where everything has been cloned away to make it look clinically sterile and picture perfect. Not that my opinion or approval is of any significance in the overall scheme of things. :)

[Bill Jobes]

It all depends on your intended audience and purpose for the image.

If it's 'journalism,' don't alter -- news photographers have been fired for this ethical infraction.

If it's 'art,' reasonable enhancements shouldn't be an issue. Anyone remember 'dodging and burning' in the film days? I had a childhood friend whose father was a much in-demand independent photo retouch artist in great demand by NYC ad agencies.

I also believe there's a big negative distinction between adding an element, as opposed to removing distractions.

As long as the fundamental integrity of the image is intact, reasonable editing of elements should be permitted.

[Jay Gould]

As a newbie what I am hearing is that it is OK to be a little bit pregnant and not tell anyone but once you start showing you have crossed the line.

Having never participated in a photographic site before BPN, and prior to this discussion, I would/could easily have believed that anything - just go through the post comments - ANYTHING GOES!

Where is the line between a little bit pregnant and pregnancy showing?

No longer is an image WYSIWYG; it is square the horizon (why if you didn't shoot it square?), crop this or that to make it stronger. Often here on BPN - take some off one side and (I cannot yet use all the right terms) add some canvass to the other side, [I am doing this list from memory of the posts and not a review], saturate this and unsaturate that, and on and on and on.

In the last couple of days we all looked at a landscape that was admittedly created with 27 layers. Is it still a photograph or is it digital art? Calling it digital art takes absolutely nothing away from the finished product.

I do not know where the history of doing something to change what we see began; I am not a photographic historian. I do know that Ansel Adams used a red filter to enhance his B&W magnificent images. Without the red filter would they have been as dramatic, would they have created the awe in which we hold Ansel; would they have been as salable?

Ansel did not hide the fact that he used a red filter as part of his photographic technique. On the other hand I do not recall that acknowledgment on a specific image.

Is it a question of how honest you must be? Are there accepted methods that EVERYONE expects and accepts such as squaring the horizon and cropping an image?

I would suggest that anything beyond those two actions probably should be disclosed.

Does it have to do with ego? Is there a problem admitting that we have manipulated the colors, enhanced the bird's eyes in accordance with some technique, and used all of the various tools provided by PS and other software?

To bring my thoughts to a conclusion, I will posit that anytime in PP you do more than square the horizon and minimal (whatever that means) cropping, you should disclose that the image has been digitally manipulated.

I will leave it to the photographic ethicists to debate and discuss whether you should also disclose the use of filters during the capture. Let's face it. When we use a polarizer to enhance the sky and remove the reflections from the water and leaves, what is captured on the sensor and viewed in the LCD is not what we saw with our eyes.

I believe Roger's statement

Stunning images, but many would face a lot of criticism here on BPN.

is too true. My observation is that BPN in general is more concerned with the final product and how it appears to the viewer than to the appearance of the original capture. How often does someone download someone's image, manipulate, and repost. And, we say that it is better in the repost.

I am not in anyway condemning what I just described; I support it; I will do it; I will learn from it. And, I will always admit everything done in PP.

Don said

a competition, that I wanted to enter, forbid extensive manipulation.

My perception after being apart of BPN for a couple of months is that "extensive manipulation" is encouraged rather than discouraged.

I will conclude by saying that I totally support extensive manipulation so long as it is disclosed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with digital art; it just ain't a photograph any longer!

Love this type of discussion.

[david cramer]

As has been noted, manipulation of photographs long precedes the digital age. Ansel Adams produced several very different versions of some of his works, through extensive dodging and burning. I too, think he would be immersed in PS. My own take is that I have two kinds of photographs - the natural world, where images are kept as close to the original as possible, with perhaps a minor twig or two removed; and the digital art world, where I give myself permission to play and alter as I wish. It's obvious these images are altered to produce a pleasing look.

As has also been stated above, most of my customers could care less about a branch or twig or even the quality of light, it is the content in an image that attracts them. Other photographers of course are more discerning.

[Jay Gould]

As has been noted, manipulation of photographs long precedes the digital age. Ansel Adams produced several very different versions of some of his works, through extensive dodging and burning. I too, think he would be immersed in PS. My own take is that I have two kinds of photographs - the natural world, where images are kept as close to the original as possible, with perhaps a minor twig or two removed; and the digital art world, where I give myself permission to play and alter as I wish. It's obvious these images are altered to produce a pleasing look.

As has also been stated above, most of my customers could care less about a branch or twig or even the quality of light, it is the content in an image that attracts them. Other photographers of course are more discerning.

David, on your website - which I enjoy very much - you distinguish between various categories one of which includes "fine art". How do you distinguish between the other categories and the fine art category?

I would agree that Ansel would have rocked out with PS!

You refer to the natural world and indicate that it is acceptable to remove an artifact or two; is it also OK to add an artifact or two?

As a newbie I am fascinated by this discussion amongst professionals (not me of course as a professional) and amateurs (me, rank!) regarding what is acceptable and not disclosed and what should be disclosed.

Cheers, Jay

[Dave Mills]

Hi Jay..In my opinion a photograph is your own creation. Just like a painter who creates effects at will I feel now that I have the tools,I have the right to do exactly as I please. Who is the last word on this? Absolutely no one! Yes, we all have opinions but who is to say what you can or cannot do. These are your own decisions. One exception is entering a photo comp where they have requirements that states no manipulation.
I look at fine art "photography" as an image that started with a photograph(important) and is altered to be viewed as something other than a depiction of photographic reality.(something you would see with your eye)
I feel an image should be judged in it's final, presented form.
I see nothing wrong with disclosing how we came to the final rendition since we all have the option of either learning how or not......

[Jay Gould]

Hi, Like so many members of BPN, my brother is a professional photographer (http://www.stevegouldphotography.com/), my mentor, and occasionally I send him interesting threads. I sent him this thread; asked and received his permission to add his response to this very interesting discussion. I have invited him to join our fun-loving group.

" Yes, that's a good discussion. Since you have no historical perspective and you are always a lawyer, I'm not surprised at your comments. I have already been surprised by the amount of alterations encouraged on the BPN site. I wouldn't do a lot of what I've read and seen there - like adding a wing tip, removing a branch across the bird, etc.

What your birders do is far beyond what I do and what the people in landscape photography I know do. I've learned from my "peer group". For us, the general situation, and what I tell potential buyers, is that I use the digital equivalents of traditional darkroom processes. That means cropping and straightening (your squaring the horizon), color balancing - but not changing the colors - and contrast adjustments both globally and locally (using Curves in PS), dodging and burning, and reasonable clean-up of dust (also backscatter in UW images), and removal of very minor clutter (not a branch that covers part of a bird!) such as a bit of twig at the edge of an image. I would say that adjusting the white balance falls into this area, too. None of this needs to be disclosed in writing. The use of a polarizing filter is not really a manipulation from what you can see: most people wear polarizing sun glasses. Etc, etc. the guy with the post above yours - Cremer - and the former UW photographer sound pretty much in line with how I see it.

In traditional film, one can use all sorts of different films to get different effects and all sorts of different papers to print on to get different effects. If you see a black and white photographic print, you know it's not natural. You can greatly affect - manipulate (?) - the contrast depending upon the film and the paper, and that goes for color photographs, too.

Many competitions specify that traditional darkroom processes are acceptable but further manipulation is not. That's the case for the San Diego County Fair coming up in June. I just sent in my entries, and I left out my favorite grouper shot. The grouper - the one in Mary's video - had a red tag on it, put there by biologists to track it, and the tag certainly ruins the printed image. So, I did remove it. I haven't removed something that major before, and I will tell anyone interested in the image when I show it - such as my solo show at a gallery at the end of June - but it's not likely to make any difference to them. But, I am pretty much a purist, by my definition, so I feel I want to be open on something like this.

There are some photographers still who pride themselves on never even cropping, and some - still shooting film - show the edge of the slide or negative in the actual print. This does nothing for me.

Now, adding something to an image is absolutely manipulation and should be disclosed. It's not just a digital thing, though. Jerry Ulsemann (not sure of the spelling) made a very lucrative career of doing this with film and was/is famous for this. He had/has a bunch of enlargers and he adds pieces to the image by moving the photographic paper amongst them. He does wonderful art from photographs, but it's not straight photography.

In PS, it's very easy to combine images, and the Blending Modes give us tools that don't exist in prior photography. So, when I do this, I call them montages and that's clear in what I tell people and what I put on the Certificate of Authenticity.

Since you are looking ahead and planning to eventually enter shows or competitions - even if only online - you do need to think about all this and what you are going to be willing to do and learn to do.

An interesting example was one you sent me recently where there was a strong shadow on the left wing of a bird that the guy didn't like, so he cloned a mirror image of the right wing in place of the original left wing and did an excellent job cleaning and blending everything. To me, that's manipulated and artificial. And, it doesn't look real to me because when you look at the lighting on the bird's head and body you would expect some shadow on the left wing. How much shadow? Depends upon how harsh the sun was … However, there are ways to minimize the intensity of the shadow that fall within acceptable fixes - "using the equivalent of traditional darkroom processes". On the other hand, when I read that post, I thought that something in the April Outdoor Photographer "Power Cloning" would probably accomplish the birder's objective without ending up with obviously symmetrical wings. That kind of clean up starts to straddle the line. The cloning is of color rather than of an object, and one could use the technique to just tone the shadow down without removing it completely, which would be a potentially cleaner way to get there than perhaps what extensive dodging might yield.

Very good!

Steve"

[john crookes]

This is a qoute from Peter Doyle although I wish I also said it

The adage "a photo never lies" is increasingly tested as digital photography becomes the photographic standard.

Peter Doyle wrote

We have learned to be suspicious of the photographic image. Long before the burgeoning of digital technologies, when photography was still in its supposedly “trustworthy” analogue phase, theorists and critics as diverse as John Tagg (1980), Christian Metz (1982), Roland Barthes (1982), Laura Mulvey (1975) and Susan Sontag (2001) each in their individual ways advocated deep suspicion towards the photographic image in both its still or moving forms. Broadly speaking they proposed the photographic image as governed by the dynamics of voyeurism – the power and the pleasure resided with the spectator, to the likely detriment and disempowerment of the looked-upon

[john crookes]

Here is a good read from 1998

http://graphicssoft.about.com/gi/dyn...ay%2Fphoto.htm

[Dave Mills]

It's funny but the more I read the posts it comes down to manipulate or not to manipulate at all or you can do this but not that or this example is over the line and what you can manipulate in a dark room is OK.
Photography is an accepted art form. It differs from painting in many ways but one significant difference is you need a piece of equiptment to get your image. To some that can be the end result or to others that can be the starting point now that darkroom manipulation has expanded to the computer.
Do most artists tell everything they did to create an effect. I don't think so. You go to a show and look at their work and wonder! Should a photographer state after each displayed image the 27 steps he made to get it to that level when he displays at a show? I wouldn't and I don't think most would.

[Dave Mills]

Hey John...After I just posted I read the article you linked. I enjoyed reading it and seeing what others had to say along with other photographers past methods and techniques. Could raise some eyebrows!

[john crookes]

Dave,

No one is saying you have to divulge every step you take just divulge if it is indeed a manipulation
beyound basic steps

[Dave Mills]

John, What do you consider basic steps? One persons basic steps is anothers manipulations. Thats a point I'm trying to make. How far does manipulation go before it becomes something to state.(if at all) I've always felt that in any art form the creation should speak for itself and let others interpret.

[john crookes]

from foundview which is now trust image

FoundView divides all post-shutter manipulations of photographs into two categories, manipulation of light ("tones"), and manipulation of elements in the photograph ("forms and shapes"). Photographs that have undergone the former (manipulation of tones) usually qualify as FoundView (and, if so, can be labeled with the FoundView checkmark). Images that have undergone the latter (manipulation of forms and shapes) never qualify as FoundView. The difference can be thought of as changing tone vs. changing content. Consider the expectations of sports fans: often fans monitor various media because they value different sportswriters' interpretations of a given game or athlete (variations in tone)—but they would not tolerate for a moment a sportswriter who falsified final scores or outcomes of games (i.e., changed the content of his subject). Viewers of realistic-looking photographs have similar expectations.

and


A-2. Five key tenets of FoundView

1. If it looks like a photograph that depicts the things recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, the viewer wants to know whether it is or isn't precisely that.

2. Viewers who repeatedly discover that photographs passed off as unmanipulated are instead synthesized or composite images eventually don't trust any realistic-looking photographs.

3. Photographers who try to pass off composites or other content-manipulated images as unmanipulated photographs hurt the trustworthiness of other photographers' photographs.

4. Photographers and artists are free to combine and synthesize photographs as much as they please, but the results should not be presented as photographs in which content was not manipulated.

5. Photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to hide manipulations of content.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

INteresting points there John. What is FoundView? An image database?

[Jay Gould]

It's funny but the more I read the posts it comes down to manipulate or not to manipulate at all or you can do this but not that or this example is over the line and what you can manipulate in a dark room is OK.
Photography is an accepted art form. It differs from painting in many ways but one significant difference is you need a piece of equiptment to get your image. To some that can be the end result or to others that can be the starting point now that darkroom manipulation has expanded to the computer.
Do most artists tell everything they did to create an effect. I don't think so. You go to a show and look at their work and wonder! Should a photographer state after each displayed image the 27 steps he made to get it to that level when he displays at a show? I wouldn't and I don't think most would.

Dave, I do not believe that a photographer should reveal his "27 steps" - those are the photographer's techniques. They are his secret formula!!

I do believe that the photographer MUST state that the "image" has been digitally manipulated without say how.

At the end of the day the image is a piece of art to be viewed, absorbed, and evaluated by the viewer. In the final analysis a view decided if he like the image or doesn't like the image; those viewers that only want to view or ultimately purchase only images that have not been manipulated should be able to do so at a glance. Somewhere prevalent there needs to be a notification where there has or has not been digital manipulation.

For Example, a photographer could append to their image:

"Original Digital Image; no digital manipulation or enhancements"

OR

"Original digital image: manipulated & enhanced"

Doesn't the consumer have the right to know that information? Should the burden be on the consumer to inquire, or should the industry in its desire for honesty and transparency volunteer the information?

Frankly, I do believe that beyond squaring the horizon or cropping the image, any other PP requires at a minimum voluntary acknowledgment that the image has been manipulated or enhanced.

Just my thoughts as a nonselling newbie. Jay

[Jay Gould]

from foundview which is now trust image

FoundView divides all post-shutter manipulations of photographs into two categories, manipulation of light ("tones"), and manipulation of elements in the photograph ("forms and shapes"). Photographs that have undergone the former (manipulation of tones) usually qualify as FoundView (and, if so, can be labeled with the FoundView checkmark). Images that have undergone the latter (manipulation of forms and shapes) never qualify as FoundView. The difference can be thought of as changing tone vs. changing content. Consider the expectations of sports fans: often fans monitor various media because they value different sportswriters' interpretations of a given game or athlete (variations in tone)—but they would not tolerate for a moment a sportswriter who falsified final scores or outcomes of games (i.e., changed the content of his subject). Viewers of realistic-looking photographs have similar expectations.

and


A-2. Five key tenets of FoundView

1. If it looks like a photograph that depicts the things recorded by the camera when the shutter was clicked, the viewer wants to know whether it is or isn't precisely that.

2. Viewers who repeatedly discover that photographs passed off as unmanipulated are instead synthesized or composite images eventually don't trust any realistic-looking photographs.

3. Photographers who try to pass off composites or other content-manipulated images as unmanipulated photographs hurt the trustworthiness of other photographers' photographs.

4. Photographers and artists are free to combine and synthesize photographs as much as they please, but the results should not be presented as photographs in which content was not manipulated.

5. Photographers who aren't trying to deceive their viewers have no reason to hide manipulations of content.

John, is squaring the horizon and cropping the image a manipulation of light or elements?

Does FoundView address, for example, the use of a polarizer to remove reflections? Can we get away with declaring that reflections are tones and not elements?

Cheers, Jay

[john crookes]

here is the link and it is now trueimage which their site is under remodel

http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/

By the way Artie was one of the original influences for foundview

[Dave Mills]

John...You mentioned Artie as an influence for foundview. I attended a lecture where Artie discussed methods of manipulating an image and was quite proficient at it. I know that he was shooting long before digital manipulation came to be but I wonder how he would answer this question. If he published a digitally manipulated image would he make a notation somewhere that it was digitally manipulated. Only he could answer that question and I would be interested in his answer.
I looked at the link to Foundview and saw that it is now defunct due to lack of acceptance of their policies. Someone stated That Trueimage has even more restrictive policies...Good luck!

[Roger Clark]

A reality check:
Jay's statement is a common view from "those who don't know" (no offense, Jay):
"Original Digital Image; no digital manipulation or enhancements"

There has not been any image ever acquired and then displayed that is not manipulated. And every image from every digital camera is digitally manipulated, right out of the camera.

This could get long, but let me hit the highlights. Every film image is not the real scene as the color response of film (black and white or color) is different than that of the human eye. The characteristic curve of film is different than that of the eye. Then we get to the print, which has its own and different color response and characteristic curve. So the very act of capturing an image on film and printing it is manipulation.

Same with digital. The analog signal from the electronic sensor must be digitized, so the raw file has an imprint of the electronics onto the data. If you record a jpeg, a characteristic curve is applied, and that curve mimics the shoulder in film's characteristic curve, which is again different than that of the human eye. And the colors from the digital camera respond differently than the eye. If you record raw, you don't have a viewable image until converted, which requires the interpolation which is an invention of data for each color (the jpeg did that too), and then a characteristic curve is applied, again similar to film. Next you must display the image and the display device (LCD, CRT, print) has it's own color response and characteristic curve. Result: lots of manipulation.

So every image seen everywhere has been seriously manipulated, unless it is the original view seen real time. (;););) Hmmm maybe that has something to do with why no image I have ever seen compares to the real time view of the Grand Tetons in Wyoming.;);) -- seriously!)

[Jay Gould]

A reality check:
Jay's statement is a common view from "those who don't know" (no offense, Jay):
"Original Digital Image; no digital manipulation or enhancements"

There has not been any image ever acquired and then displayed that is not manipulated. And every image from every digital camera is digitally manipulated, right out of the camera.

This could get long, but let me hit the highlights. Every film image is not the real scene as the color response of film (black and white or color) is different than that of the human eye. The characteristic curve of film is different than that of the eye. Then we get to the print, which has its own and different color response and characteristic curve. So the very act of capturing an image on film and printing it is manipulation.

Same with digital. The analog signal from the electronic sensor must be digitized, so the raw file has an imprint of the electronics onto the data. If you record a jpeg, a characteristic curve is applied, and that curve mimics the shoulder in film's characteristic curve, which is again different than that of the human eye. And the colors from the digital camera respond differently than the eye. If you record raw, you don't have a viewable image until converted, which requires the interpolation which is an invention of data for each color (the jpeg did that too), and then a characteristic curve is applied, again similar to film. Next you must display the image and the display device (LCD, CRT, print) has it's own color response and characteristic curve. Result: lots of manipulation.

So every image seen everywhere has been seriously manipulated, unless it is the original view seen real time. (;)Hmmm maybe that has something to do with why no image I have ever seen compares to the real time view of the Grand Tetons in Wyoming.;) -- seriously!)

Hey Mate, no offense taken - I may be a newbie/I do understand your point :p ; however, what was you point? :confused: (I deleted some of your smiles so I could have my own!)

Cameras by their very nature manipulate the light that comes in from the outside. OK!

This thread is about what you do with what the camera produces and when have crossed some imaginary line that requires notification to the viewer that "something" was done; I expanded it a bit tongue in cheek to raise the issue of pre-image manipulation, e.g, filters.

Cheers, Jay

[john crookes]

Roger,

Every point you make has to do with the tone of the photograph and not changing shape or form which is the gist of all of this and whether or not it should be disclosed that you have chaged form and shape.

The general public looks at it in the same way and wants to know if there was any thing done in post that was not there in the original capture

John

[john crookes]

In wildlife photography I don’t see a problem with small corrections like cropping, sharpening, levels, contrast and saturation these manipulations keep the original real but when removal of artistically offending image content or adding content is utilized we no longer record reality but alter it to our own preferences. Such manipulation needs to be divulged right at the get go and called by what it is “an artist’s rendition.” In its own right artistry is something to be aspired to but needs to be distinguished from the art of photography. If capturing the perfect light/wildlife shot were easy anyone could do it.

[Roger Clark]

Roger,

Every point you make has to do with the tone of the photograph and not changing shape or form which is the gist of all of this and whether or not it should be disclosed that you have chaged form and shape.

The general public looks at it in the same way and wants to know if there was any thing done in post that was not there in the original capture

John

Well, there was discussion of contrast adjustments being modifications. As far as the general public, here is an incident that illustrates what some feel. I was showing a non-photographer how to improve a photo with simple curves adjustment, and not an extreme adjustment. The adjusted image looked great and the original flat. He exclaimed, "Whoa, that's cheating! You do that to all your photos?" He felt that was manipulation and "not fair." Of course if he sent his film into the shop and the prints came back on high contrast paper, it would be OK, as he didn't see it.

But it minor compared to the manipulation already done by the camera. Try outputting your raw image as a true linear conversion (photoshop does not do that; you'll need DCRAW or something equivalent). The result will not be pretty, yet that is the closest thing to the original scene.

The point is that there is a lot of analog/digital manipulation in all images, much more than people realize.

[Dave Mills]

Actually the general public(outside of the photographic community) when they see a picture in a magazine they generally don't ponder if the image was manipulated. They generally look at it and accept it for what it is....
The bottom like is everyone has their own standards and beliefs regarding this issue and I doubt very strongly if anyone or organization will have the ability to control it. It will be up to the individual to state manipulation or not and let the chips fall where they may...

[john crookes]

From the NANPA site

Ethics Committee

What Happens When We Manipulate Images
By Kennan Ward
Although the issue of image manipulation brings up questions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, it is not religious in nature. I am not against captive animal or manipulated (computer-enhanced) photography per se. Rather, the question lies in disclosure: how the photograph is presented to the public. In the past there has been an assumed truth to photographic imagery. The limited amount of manipulation possible made it easy for people to believe that what they were seeing was an accurate record of real events. This basic attitude is still prevalent today, but the development of digital image manipulation has given the public good reason to doubt the inherent truth of photography. In nature photography, people want to believe that the image they are seeing is a glimpse into the natural world. If what is being presented is unnatural (captive animals or manipulated scenery) it ought to be labeled as such or leave itself open to criticisms of deception. Photography as a means of natural history communication has been invaluable. If it is to continue to play this role it must be presented honestly.
People now routinely ask me, "Is this photograph real?" This shows how much things have changed. Not long ago the usual question was, "How did you get this picture?" There was an interest in what went on behind the scenes, the thousand words that make up the picture. I am proud to describe field adventures lasting weeks or months in which I was finally able to observe or photograph something magical in the natural world. Often these stories turn from photography to survival in the wilderness. On a morning when the sunrise is glowing crimson red, I wonder how a photographer could miss such an opportunity. Nature is far more creative than anything I could imagine! The photographs I make at such times are the truths of my life and as I look at them I feel thankful that I was able to see nature in its prime. Nature at its purest is sometimes unbelievable. How could I improve upon it?
Ironically, many of my assignment projects have been requests for animals in captive or controlled situations. Magazines want immediate results. It has been less than fulfilling work, but as a surviving nature photographer, I am lucky to get the work for a few days. It is a tough business, isn't it? These new images became a crossroad and a challenge to my hard-found, real photos. So in the early 1990's I developed a series of icons labeling my work as "Truth in Photography." The majority of my work is labeled "Wild Animal" and "Authentic Photograph," with the rare exception being "Captive" or the nearly extinct "Enhanced Photograph".
I am the first to admit that the lines of authentic photography are difficult to judge. How often have you seen a favorite photograph of yours reproduced in a magazine with odd colors? I have had a Polar Bear image published on three covers: one was magenta, another was yellow, and the third lacked any color, appearing primarily gray. All were made from the same batch of 70 mm dupes. These shifts are standard and anticipated within the standards of four-color press printing.
But the line becomes clear as images are worked, intensified, and things added to purposely stretch the truth of the original beyond a reasonable doubt. The image then becomes an illustration and should be identified. For the gray area that exists between these examples, I revert to darkroom photography as my ancestral guide. If I was able to dodge, burn or remove flaws on a print in the darkroom then I should reasonably and morally be able to do the same with a computer. We all know Ansel Adams's great photograph of the "Moonrise, Hernandez" was a creative darkroom experiment. Ansel was not afraid to show us how he changed the original. We all agreed it was in good taste and realistic to the light at the time and the limits of the film. I respect my audience and try not to deceive them with unreal images. They want to know the truth. More than any other photographic field, nature photography has suffered from the moral issues surrounding manipulation. Unusual images are dismissed as being altered or enhanced until proved otherwise. What remains at stake is the intent of the photographer.
An adventurer-naturalist, Kennan Ward photographs and writes about wilderness and wildlife. He has dedicated his life to capturing rare forms of nature on film. Whether it be an endangered rhinoceros, a once-in-a-lifetime glance from a grizzly cub, or a split second lightning strike, Kennan continues to explore remote regions of the world to bring back messages of uncommon beauty. His wife Karen travels with him in the field. Since 1986, Karen has significantly contributed to the imagery as a photographer in her own right, as well as assisting with the research and business management of their successful publishing company Wildlight Press, Inc.

[john crookes]

And from another view on NANPA

Ethics Committee

Why Not Manipulation
By Ron Sanford
I made a NANPA digital presentation in 1996 at San Diego and in 2000 at Austin. In the interval, emotions have clearly calmed. Digital technology has become a commonplace tool for nature photographers, even though they may disagree on how the technology should be used.
In both presentations I made it clear that I make images for love and money. Keeping abreast of technology and the business of photography is more than a curiosity to me. It's my livelihood. But that's only part of it. By nature I tend to celebrate rather than document. In the early 1970s I cut my teeth in black and white. I deeply enjoyed the control I had in making the field exposure, moving the visual idea along as I developed the film, and finally in the thrill of watching the print evolve.
And then Kodachrome happened to me in 1976. I was stuck with a field technique that was best described as "bracketing." The results could be good, bad, or boring, but the perception came about that if the process stopped there the work could be considered honest, or truthful. The K14 process, and later the E6 process, with all their shortcomings, became the standard for what was real.
By the early 1980s I was slowly developing a personal color duping process that allowed me a second E6 step. I regained some control over the color and contrast of the image, and yes, could even combine two images together. Ernst Haas once described frustration as the highest form of inspiration. I guess I would agree with him, but now I was beginning to manage this frustration.
Then in 1993 I had my first glimpse at Photoshop. Ironically, my response was not to look forward, but to look back some 20 years. I could have control again. With this software I could more accurately authenticate my field experience. Color photographers finally had a tool that could overcome the narrow limits of their film.
But that's where "straight" and I separate. Some years ago, in a school setting, a student asked me the difference between a photographer and an artist (meaning painter). I told him, "The artist starts with a blank canvas and adds. The photographer starts with clutter, and subtracts." But today I can do both.
When Photoshop appeared, art directors began to ask, "What if whales could breach, or eagles could fly, in their natural settings, without the predictable blurry backgrounds?" Or, "Must some of the flock always be out of focus?" Now I could make things look the way they looked to my naked eye.
But there's a thin line between how it was, and how we wish it was. I'm guilty of crossing that line. Sometimes I'm a photographer and sometimes I'm a designer. I enjoy creating images both within and outside my visual experience. And at the age of 61, I can't remember having more fun.
So what's NANPA to do about people like me? I think the issue is labeling. I see this as a question about individual integrity, and not about some committee action. As a businessman the last thing I want to do is surprise, disappoint, or embarrass a buyer or seller of my work. In any trade, client relations is a crucial element. When I send images to a client or stock agency, I make it clear what they're getting.
I'm constantly humbled by the good work of others, however it was achieved. I believe photography to be a creative medium, and there is no right way. Tui De Roy does it her way. Art Wolfe does it his way. Kennan Ward does it his way. James Balog does it his way. Diversity is a wonderful thing.
I can't imagine an Ansel Adams exhibition with this disclaimer at the door: "Warning: these photographs have been manipulated. The scenes depicted here are not real." I once saw John Sexton, one of Ansel's assistants, show a "straight" print of Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. The difference between this and the heavily dodged and burned final print was astounding. I'm glad Ansel didn't limit himself to making straight prints of Moonrise. The world of photography is richer because he "manipulated" this image.
I feel deeply privileged to be able to make a living so near to the wonder of it all. I've experienced moments that defy any form of communication. My life's challenge is to find adequate portrayal... however.
Ron Sanford is a long-standing member of ASMP. He and his wife Nancy have worked extensively throughout the world. Their work is currently represented by 8 stock photo agencies.

[john crookes]

As said before no one is questioning whether you can manipulate your images the question was if you should label or disclose the info

NANPA's Quidelines


N

O R T H A M E R I C A N N A T U R E P H O T O G R A P H Y A S S O C I A T I O N

N A N P A

Committed to Photography of Our Environment
10200 WEST 44

TH AVENUE, #304 • WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80033-2840

303/422-8527 • FAX 303/422-8894 • E-MAIL: info@nanpa.org • WEB: www.nanpa.org

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

acceptance.

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.

[Don Lacy]

In wildlife photography I don’t see a problem with small corrections like cropping, sharpening, levels, contrast and saturation these manipulations keep the original real but when removal of artistically offending image content or adding content is utilized we no longer record reality but alter it to our own preferences. Such manipulation needs to be divulged right at the get go and called by what it is “an artist’s rendition.” In its own right artistry is something to be aspired to but needs to be distinguished from the art of photography. If capturing the perfect light/wildlife shot were easy anyone could do it.

So the manipulation of the scene at the time of capture is photography but the manipulation of the file is not. In other words if I remove a distracting element before I record the image thats fine and I do not need to declare it but if I remove it latter in PS I am now obligated to report it and my image is no longer a photograph but a digital creation. By your above definition of photography the use of wide angle and telephoto lenses is no longer photography since their very nature alters the reality of the scene the same with using a shallow DOF, what about using a slow shutter speed to blur action thats no longer an accurate reproduction of the scene as viewed thru the view finder. I can go on what about double exposures with film or moving a leaf to a rock in a stream is the resulting image still a photograph? I do not think your really making that argument but rather that all the artistic decisions should be made prior to the moment of capture which is fine to each their own but to go on to say if I decide to make those same decisions latter in PS that my finale image is no longer a photograph is were I have difficulty excepting your definition.
Respectfully

[Fabs Forns]

It amazes me that NANPA being so mush against manipulations as it seems by John's posts, they WILL NOT ask for the RAW versions in their contest, as well as other reputable competitions. Is their level of confidence in the members honesty THAT high?????

[john crookes]

Again

No problem in doing whatever you want.

It is only a sugestion that if you go beyond standard dark room practices IE tonal corrections and manipulate the image IE form and structure that it should be disclosed.

Most if not all orginizations suggest the same guidelines

If you prefer not to disclose then that is your ethic

[Don Lacy]

" The limited amount of manipulation possible made it easy for people to believe that what they were seeing was an accurate record of real events. This basic attitude is still prevalent today, but the development of digital image manipulation has given the public good reason to doubt the inherent truth of photography."

Thats simply not true an image can be manipulated in hundreds of ways pre-capture and while there was a belief in the inherent truth of photography that belief was based on ignorance and naivety the only thing that has changed is that the public has figured it out.

[john crookes]

Fabs,

My editors never ask for a Raw file either they base their response on the Photographers honesty

If it is found out to be different then the Photographer will suffer the damage up to and even termination of work

I believe if a Photographeer is bought up to question by a Nanpa member then that photographer would have to produce the raw file or suffer loss of winnings

John

[john crookes]

John, Artie, here. I am OK with your quoting from the Bulletin Archives, but as presented, I was totally confused as to who said what. I went back to the Bulletin and saw that you neglected to quote this:

"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."

From a Birds as Art bulletin the year 2000

"Nature photography is one of the last bastions of pictures most people accept as real.. Those who lie about the reality of their photos are taking advantage of everyone else and undercutting the basis of all our success." - Gary Braasch, chairman of the North American Nature Photography Association's Environment Committee.
Nature photographers are worried, excited and in utter disagreement about what is ethical in the growing realm of digital manipulation. With heavyweights Galen Rowell, a self-proclaimed purist, and Art Wolfe, a lover of digital technology, on opposite sides of the page, nature photographers have been engaged in a heated debate for several years on the implications that digital manipulation will have on their profession.

The North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) has remained eerily silent on the subject, perhaps waiting for the dust to settle before proposing guidelines. But with some photographers embracing the artistic endeavors of digitally enhanced nature photographers and some utterly opposed to any manipulation, NANPA must propose some ethical guidelines to keep the two fields separate. An upstart group, FoundView, has already proposed a labeling system, but how far must these rules or suggestions go, and just what is considered "lying about reality"? Everyone knows that nature photographers have been manipulating photos in the dark room for decades. Ansel Adams, one of the fathers of the profession, once removed the initials "LP" from a hill in a photo of a winter sunrise over Lone Pine, California. Adams, and almost all current photographers, also routinely dodged (under-exposed) and burned (over-exposed) his images in the darkroom for particular effects. Kenneth Brower, who witnessed Adams's darkroom techniques says, "The small adjustments to reality that occurred in Ansel Adams's darkroom, if crimes at all, were misdemeanors. That photographs should be 'straightforward records of what the photographer witnessed and recorded on film in a single instant' still seems a worthy ideal, despite the fact that some of our greatest have stretched and jiggered it." Until the last ten years, these techniques were limited to experts in a darkroom. But with the advent of converting photos to enormous digital files, even amateur photographers can manipulate their photos in ways the darkroom magicians never could. One of the first and most prominent occurrences of digital manipulation was a 1982 photograph of Egypt's pyramids, in which National Geographic altered several elements to squeeze the pyramids closer for its cover shot. The magazine apologized, but editor Bill Allen says that almost twenty years later, he is nevertheless asked, "Do you guys still move pyramids? This reminds all of us just how fragile our credibility is. If you lose it, it's almost impossible to ever get it back. It's why we're such fanatics about disclosure now at National Geographic." The issue exploded again in the mid nineties when celebrated nature photographer, Art Wolfe, published a collection of photos entitled, Migrations. The collection featured herds of animals in amazing patterns, revealing what most thought to be the natural aesthetics of animals in movement. It was later discovered that about a third of the 98 images in the book were digitally manipulated. Wolfe cloned animals, such as zebras and ibises, to make the herds and flocks look more impressive and "artistic." Straggling individuals that interfered with the pattern he was trying to portray were removed from the image because they were "wandering in the wrong direction." Migrations sparked a myriad of ethical questions. What is nature after all? Kenneth Brower asked, "Whose patterns is the nature photographer supposed to celebrate - nature's or his own? In the human herd, that animal wandering in the wrong direction would be the Buddha, or Luther, or Einstein. . Animals turned in the wrong direction are a truth of nature." In a Photographic Society of America Journal essay, Colin Smith writes, "My goal as a nature photographer is to portray the beauty of nature, not to try and make it more interesting or beautiful. I'm not up to the task." But more than the essence of nature, Migrations raised the question of disclosure. How should one go about telling the viewer that an image has been manipulated, or should the viewer know at all? Wolfe included a few words about digital technology in the introduction, but made no mention of which photos he manipulated in the captions. He defended the book saying, "This is not a biology book. It's an art book based on nature. We led the way in a beautiful new technology, and I'm proud of that. I think this concern with computers is an hysterical reaction." Perhaps Wolfe didn't understand the public's relation to photographs. Because of personal use, people are accustomed to photographs portraying exactly what they saw through the viewfinder. No one wants to be deceived, even if the photo is beautiful. It is the equivalent of describing an extraordinary scene that never happened. We call that a lie, not art. Wolfe has since published another book with manipulated photos, although this time the altered photos were marked with a delta symbol. ".we figured out that people were upset less because we used the technology than because we did not always say we had." But, of course! People love to read fiction, but they don't want to read it under the label of truth. People love art, but they don't expect it in a nonfiction photographic environment, such as a book about animals in movement. (See figures 1 and 2.) Digitally altered photos can be beautiful, but the audience needs to be aware of what it is viewing. One helpful test that can key us in to why Wolfe's Migrations created a breach of trust is Tom Wheeler's "essence of the image" test that he defines in Phototruth or Photofiction?. Is the manipulation highlighting an aspect of the image, or is it the entire point of the image? In Wolfe' case, his manipulations of the patterns of traveling animals were what made many of the images so fantastic. In this case, the manipulations should have been disclosed in the captions. Period. While Wolfe may not care about the public's perception, Galen Rowell thinks quite differently. A photo of a roaring brown bear once hung in Rowell's gallery. When people would ask him how he managed to get the shot and survive, he would tell them (as did the caption under the photo) that the bear was an "actor." Rowell saw how people reacted to this disclosure, and he eventually removed the photo, fearing they would view all his work through distrusting eyes. Rowell recently had one of his favorite photos, Rainbow Over the Potala Palace, (Figure 3) blown up for sale as a poster. When the print portraying a rainbow ending at the Dalai Llama's residence didn't sell well, Rowell speculated that viewers thought the photo was a composite. It was just too stunning for an untrusting audience that had been duped before. As a testament to the divisiveness and disagreement, a three-year discussion about the issue on www.photo.net has garnered more than 85 responses from professional and semi-professional photographers. The responses run the spectrum. "Ethical? In the end, who really cares? If you like the results, it's fine," says Bob Atkins, a frequent contributor. Frederick Thurber is 180 degrees away. "The public is not discriminating enough to look at the photo credits and say, 'Hmmm, that is Arthur Morris and he does real photography', or 'Hmmm, that is Art Wolfe and he's an 'artist' so his work could have been altered.' Nope, the public now thinks all nature photography is fake." The discussion covers a myriad of subjects, and reaches no clear conclusions, but the convergence of opinions indicates that something must happen. NANPA continues to sit on its hands, perhaps not wishing to upset any of its "artistic" members. "[NANPA] could only suggest, not enforce," says Arthur Morris, a well-known bird photographer. "And several big name pros have already told them that they will caption their images the way that they want to. To me, this is a most unfortunate situation." Another professional photographer and NANPA member, Warren Williams, feels similarly. "I firmly believe that [NANPA] should set such standards, not only for the viewer of the images, but to distinguish the difference between a photographer who spent hours, days, or weeks, in the field to get that perfect shot." Some believe that if the end result of the photograph looks realistic, then what's the big deal? But photography is a process that is tied to its historical "rules." Sure, someone can run down the basketball court with the ball tucked under her arm and throw it in the basket, but she'll be called for traveling. While the end result is the same - the ball goes in the basket - the process of getting there is important. Whether one calls it the grammar of photography or simply an unwritten code, the public expects photographers to adhere to a standard. Without some clearly stated guidelines, the fate of nature photography is in definite jeopardy. With this in mind, a group of volunteer professional photographers created FoundView in 1997. It is simply "a label that helps viewers discern whether realistic-looking photographs are real or synthesized." FoundView divides manipulations into two categories: those involving light and those involving forms and shapes. Manipulating light to a degree that doesn't deceive viewers is acceptable, and manipulating shapes and forms are never acceptable. While FoundView has lengthy philosophical discussions to back up its notions, the organization asks merely two questions to discern a FoundView photo from a non-FoundView photo. "Has there been any post-shutter manipulation of any forms or shapes in the photograph? Would the typical viewer feel deceived about any aspect of the photograph?" If the answer to both questions is no, then the individual or publisher is free to use the FoundView label (Figure 4). In forming FoundView, the organizers addressed an essential problem to previous labeling systems. Although it would make more sense to label the digitally manipulated images instead of the unmanipulated images, who is going to comply? Certainly not the image maker whose goal was to deceive the public in the first place. By placing the label on the unmanipulated images, compliance would theoretically be higher. Presently, any photographer found "faking" shots can plead that he or she is an "artist," while anyone found faking photos with a clear label would have trouble resurrecting his or her career. The FoundView label is a thoughtful and appropriate response to the growing distrust among image viewers. "Too few photographers, I think," says Kenneth Brower, "appreciate how directly the new technology aims at the heart of the credibility that distinguishes this art form from others" That credibility may be retained with a label. FoundView could work for several reasons. First, it considers the viewer. "Without viewers' high expectations," the organization states, "realistic photos wouldn't have any credibility at all." While this a fairly straightforward sentence, many who believe all ethical decisions belong to the photographer would disagree. FoundView also keeps the tests extremely simple and philosophical instead of spelling out long lists of rules that no photographer would want to read or think about anyway. In the author's opinion, something must, and will, be done in the near future regarding labeling of "true" nature photographs. The argument that the end product is what matters does not hold up because photography is a process to which the public has become accustomed. The FoundView label shows great promise, but public trust will have to diminish even more (and it will) before photographers will consistently label their work. "A decade ago, when I saw a spectacular natural history image, my reaction was always, 'Wow, that is beautiful.' Today, my first reaction is, 'is that a straight shot or was it done on a computer?'" - Arthur Morris, professional bird photographer. "Photography is at a crossroads. The fate of its trustworthiness is in the hands of its practitioners. Its integrity and unique position among the arts should not be discarded lightly." - Creators of FoundView

[Jay Gould]

Actually the general public(outside of the photographic community) when they see a picture in a magazine they generally don't ponder if the image was manipulated. They generally look at it and accept it for what it is....

The bottom like is everyone has their own standards and beliefs regarding this issue and I doubt very strongly if anyone or organization will have the ability to control it. It will be up to the individual to state manipulation or not and let the chips fall where they may...

First, I do not agree with you that the general public doesn't ponder if the image was manipulated. If they are reading a magazine they probably do not think about image manipulation because the focus is on the article; however if they are at an exhibit or a street art show I believe Roger's description of the person's reaction:

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

is spot on when a member of the public is looking at photographs and their focus is on the photograph.

When you say

It will be up to the individual to state manipulation or not and let the chips fall where they may...

isn't that what this thread is all about? A discussion within BPN regarding photographers' ethics and not whether it is right or wrong to manipulate; simply, when should you disclose?

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

[john crookes]

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