Is adding a catch light or making the sky blue when it was white ethical? I am curious in peoples thoughts. I hope this appropriate place to ask this.
Thanks Ray Rozema
Is adding a catch light or making the sky blue when it was white ethical? I am curious in peoples thoughts. I hope this appropriate place to ask this.
Thanks Ray Rozema
Ethics are VERY personal and only you can decide what is OK to you.
I agree.....and the situation matters. Nature photography is expected to be more true to life. Art photography may be all about PS. It all depends on what you are trying to do with the photo. Trying to make a landscape even more beautiful than reality? Bluer skies? More saturation? That isn't bad in itself. Cloning in predators that weren't in the original photo? That might need some explanation.........that is just as I see it.
The other day Arthur Morris uploaded a great image of a turkey vulture, well in that occasion he explained that he removed some distracting elements out of his composition, did he alter the image by doing so? I don't think so, he wanted to present a aesthetic image and he did. I believe that if you don't alter the essence of the image then is fine, but when you try to turn the skies blue or add a catch light then you trespass the border, at least that's what I believe.
I will state right here that I have no problem at all when someone does it, in fact, many of those ''great shots'' we are used to see on all sorts of magazines are full of Photoshoped pictures and that is not the problem, but we don't even notice it some times! so...
It's a lot more fun trying to get the catchlight and blue sky in the camera, and ultimately more rewarding I think.
I will use a flash to get a catchlight. If it is not there, it is not there.
I will use PS to intensify or subdue colors. Like removing cyan from an overly cyan sky, or adding black to darken a blue sky but I don't select a white sky and dump blue into it using the paintbucket or something similar.
Due to limitations of the camera's dynamic range it's not always possible to capture what the eye sees. I think news photography is supposed to be totally true to life, but not necessarily nature photography. I don't create images out of thin air, but I do use PS to enhance the visual appeal of my images. This includes sharpening, NR, blurring, limited cloning, and the usual assortment of adjustments. If I do more than that I will typically disclose the additional work in my image description.
Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
Website - Facebook - 500px
I think the problem deals with how much? Its all up to the individual and what you are comfortable with !!!
I give you one specific example Have several frames of a bird flying, you pick the one with perfect wing position etc but the membrane is down over the eye ... is it ok to take the eye from the previous frame?
If you did what is the ethical problem? Is the same bird !!!
Have thought about this for some time and can say I have never exchanged the eye but do think .. why not? Don't have an answer !!!
I think this issue will be debated in perpetuity. Where I think the ethics issue goes beyond being personal is in the disclosure, or lack thereof, of any alteration of the image. IMHO, if it is disclosed and the situation calls for disclosure (like critique forums) then people can make their own decisions about whether or not it fits their model of ethics. Clearly, there are situations where alteration of the image is not allowed and these situations should be respected (some contests require RAW images), but if your work is presented as art, then I personally tolerate alterations that make the image look better. I do not consider standard RAW conversion techniques to be "alterations", but necessary processes that just happen to allow variations.
“I had been able to realize a desired image: not the way the subject appeared in reality but how it felt to me and how it must appear in the finished print.” -Ansel Adams
It is an extremely personal question. I admit I clone funky stuff away and fix a wing tip in an otherwise great image. I have not been able to add a catchlight I think looks natural so I use a flash and better beamer. Does using flash alter the "natural" environment? I think so, but, to me, it is OK. However, I never alter the essence of the natural scene. Art idealizes the the presentation of the natural world around us. Journalism presents naked stark reality. I attempt to create art so I can present nature depicting the best of nature. If this means adding a wing tip or cloning a dead branch my ethics say it's OK.
All that said, I respect and understand that very learned and reasonable artists feel differently. That's OK with me as well.
I don't mind removing distracting elements to enhance the image or adding canvas to help the composition. I'm not a big fan of removing an eye from a frame and add it to the second frame per say but I think is pretty cool to have that capability. At the end of the day, you are creating your own image and if you are OK with it so be it!
My original post:
"I will use a flash to get a catchlight. If it is not there, it is not there.
I will use PS to intensify or subdue colors. Like removing cyan from an overly cyan sky, or adding black to darken a blue sky but I don't select a white sky and dump blue into it using the paintbucket or something similar."
I stated I add the catchlight with an electronic flash in the field using a camera. That is not the same as adding a catchlight or a wing in PS.
There was a huge debate previously if you alter an image should you disclose the manipulation. It came down to some agreeing that ethically that was the right thing to do while others felt it was an art form and the final image needed no explanation.(exceptions are areas that insist on disclosure) There were also opinions in between...I don't think anyone will have the right answer since it is a personal decision and ethical standard that the photographer alone will decide.
How about HDR images then?? - Photograph or DC??
;)
I'll give my answer: 1) I have never switched an eye on wildlife (I have in family group portraits as it seems someone is always blinking). 2) It takes so much time to do a good job. I'll just move on to the next image.
It seems to me that many people here on BPN get out an photograph a lot, more than I get out. Don't you all get so many images that you don't need to fix eyes and wings? Don't you (everyone, not just Alfred) have enough images to process that your time is filled doing that rather than trying to fix a few photos? This is a serious question. I think someone said they shot tens of thousands of flight images per year. I got 4400 images from my January trip to Tanzania, and it'll take me till I retire processing images without replacing parts (hey that's only 4.5 years). (I do process for large prints, 13x19 and larger, including some digital mosaics for much larger prints.)
I am not a fan of replacing an eye or a wing tip. I have enlarged catch lights on a few images. That's just me.
I do the following in PS/ CS4 on a routine basis: levels, curves, contrast adjustments, SH, NR, selective color, some minor cloning/ healing brush, USM sharpening and use the photo filter tool if needed. While it seems minor to me and probably much less than others, its a lot of manipulation.
My reason for these alterations is to improve the color, contrast and sharpness of my digital images. I only want to reproduce want was present during the photo session. I also came from a slide/ chrome back ground like both Mike and Artie. It's really so much more fun these days using the remarkable DSLR's available these days. I for one could benefit from Artie's work ethic of long hard days shooting in the field.
_______________
Charlie Wesley
St. Augustine Beach, FL