Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: PS Ethics Part Deux.

  1. #1
    Co-Founder James Shadle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Valrico, Fl
    Posts
    5,108
    Threads
    1,419
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default PS Ethics Part Deux.

    In an earlier thread, Ray asked about the ethics of adding catch-light to a subject or changing the color of the sky in Photoshop.


    I would like to expand the question. Where do you draw the line? Or is there no line?
    If you modify an image in PS do you disclose the changes?


    Ethics:
    1.a system of moral principles.
    2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.
    3.moral principles, as of an individual.
    4.that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such.

  2. #2
    Alfred Forns
    Guest

    Default

    James this is a tough question and there is no answer !!!

    The first thing I would hope is for people to be honest then all will be well.

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer Rocky Sharwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    397
    Threads
    64
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I don't think there is a line as long as you disclose. The one problem I see is that on occasion I will send images to friends who sahre them with other friends w/o sharing the disclosure..

  4. #4
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    As I have written before, once you remove one tiny black rock or a speck of dirt on a white bird's plumage, you are headed down the slippery slope. After that, there is no line. As most folks know, I do strive to let folks know what I have done.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  5. #5
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    If you modify an image in PS do you disclose the changes?
    James, I think as phrased you are asking too broad of a question.

    "Disclose the changes" might require a step by step enumeration of how you PP.

    Without addressing the definition of "modify", I would suggest that the appropriate question should be phrased:

    "If you modify an image in PS do you disclose that the image has "been digitally modified"?

    I believe the steps used to accomplish the modification are the work product of the modifier and that is proprietary information not required to be disclosed.

    Just a newbie's thoughts on a difficult subject for some; an easy subject/answer for others. :D

    I just read this post to Jackie - SWMBO - and she responded: "As a nonphotographer/nonmember of BPN, why are there all of these discussions about something so simple as if you make changes simply acknowledge that you made changes. No one cares about the specific changes; simply say 'this photograph has been modified'".

    Makes sense to me!
    Last edited by Jay Gould; 05-16-2009 at 05:30 PM.

  6. #6
    Lance Peters
    Guest

    Default

    All is fine - if disclosed, yes somehow it may get used by someone else without them disclosing/knowing about the changes, in my books as long as you have disclosed the changes at some stage. Which is totally different to presenting a image with no disclosure only to have someone pickup some cloning artifacts.

    Never seen a Image of Arties here without disclosure!

  7. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    3,469
    Threads
    495
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    In my book, if you disclose that you "PP'ed" an image, that covers it! If you have done some trick stuff and you want to describe the process, great! I come straight from the "slide film" world and feel that there isn't a digital image that hasn't been altered due to what the camera itself is doing (sharpening, contrast adj, white balance, etc). You didn't do anything to slide film (well, maybe a push or two!). Now, If you were into printing, then the manipulation started, in the darkroom, which leads me to were we are today, the digital darkroom!

  8. #8
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Peters View Post
    Never seen a Image of Arties here without disclosure!
    Well Lance, that is not exactly true.... I post lots of images with only Levels, Curves, Hue-SAT, and other basic adjustments. As I have gotten better with Photoshop folks seem to forget that I made a few good images with film for 19 years. :) :) :)

    And sometimes when I take out only a few minor distracting BKGR elements for example I do not mention it.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  9. #9
    Lance Peters
    Guest

    Default

    You misunderstood me Artie - What I mean is -- you seem to always mention what you have done, I haven't seen any images that you have posted were someone has picked you up on changes to the image, where you had not Disclosed the changes - even often posting tutorials to help us less advanced P.S users understand what you have done and how - and thats not even to mention all the free knowledge you supply via the bulletin and Blog.

    I didn't mean you change all your images!!
    and I would have to debate your statement " a few good images with film"
    Thats why us mere mortals are here, to learn from the Master!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    Well Lance, that is not exactly true.... I post lots of images with only Levels, Curves, Hue-SAT, and other basic adjustments. As I have gotten better with Photoshop folks seem to forget that I made a few good images with film for 19 years. :) :) :)

    And sometimes when I take out only a few minor distracting BKGR elements for example I do not mention it.

  10. #10
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Lance,

    re:

    You misunderstood me Artie - What I mean is -- you seem to always mention what you have done, I haven't seen any images that you have posted were someone has picked you up on changes to the image, where you had not Disclosed the changes - even often posting tutorials to help us less advanced P.S users understand what you have done and how - and thats not even to mention all the free knowledge you supply via the bulletin and Blog.

    I did understand that but wanted to make sure that everybody else did. I was not at all pissed that's why I put the three :)s. And while I usually mention what I have done I do not always do so....

    I didn't mean you change all your images!!

    That is good.

    and I would have to debate your statement " a few good images with film"
    Thats why us mere mortals are here, to learn from the Master!

    Thank you sir for your kind words. Do remember that I honestly feel that I have no great talent other than being determined and being willing to work long and hard.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  11. #11
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default More Food For Thought: From NANPA

    http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_intro.php:

    Ethics Committee:

    IMAGE MANIPULATION?

    Introduction

    By Michael Frye, Former Chair, Ethics Committee:

    Photographers have been manipulating images since the medium was invented. If you look closely at the work of the great 19th century landscape photographer Carlton Watkins, you might notice that the same exact cloud formation appears in several of his images. The contrast in his glass-plate negatives was too great to hold detail in both the landscape and the clouds, so he used a separate negative to put clouds into his prints. Ansel Adams didn't want the white letters "LP," implanted by local high school students on a hillside above their town, to ruin his famous "Winter Sunrise From Lone Pine, California" image, so he spotted them out of the negative.

    Until recently the amount of manipulation a photographer could make was limited. But the advent of digital imaging changed everything. Photographers can now add or delete things from photographs, combine images, or radically alter colors, with results that appear "real" and unmanipulated. We now have to ask ourselves how far we should go. Are there limits to what we should do with this new technology?

    Several years ago NANPA issued a document called "Suggested Guidelines for Images and Labeling." Its stated goal was "the promotion of clarity and honesty in the presentation of photographic and other images." While Ron and Kennan may have different approaches to creating photographs, they both agree on the importance of being honest about how images are created.

    But the suggested guidelines are just that. NANPA does not set or enforce rules for ethical conduct. Rather, it is our hope that articles like these will promote thought and discussion among NANPA members, and allow each individual to make informed choices about ethical behavior. While nature photographers often disagree on ethical issues, they usually show respect for other people's opinions, and refrain from personal attacks. We hope this trait continues.:p>:p>
    I invite readers to comment on this topic. We may publish (with permission) some of these responses in Ripples or on the NANPA web site. Please send your comments to arogers@resourcenter.com.

    What Happens When We Manipulate Images
    by Kennan Ward:

    Why Not Manipulation
    by Ron Sanford:

    Member Responses to the Articles:

  12. #12
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    1,225
    Threads
    14
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Shadle View Post
    In an earlier thread, Ray asked about the ethics of adding catch-light to a subject or changing the color of the sky in Photoshop.


    I would like to expand the question. Where do you draw the line? Or is there no line?
    I think the line depends on the context ... doesn't it?

    Example 1: A picture in a newspaper of a public official speaking to a crowd. I think there's a tacit "contract" that news publications make -- or should make -- with their readers: "What you see in our pictures is what you would have seen had you been there." The crowd hasn't been augmented by copy and paste, the speaker hasn't had a toupee added by Photoshop, etc. (Many a recent uproar has issued from the very fact that news organizations have published photos that were altered in such ways so as to deceive readers.)

    Example 2: A picture of a movie star on the cover of an entertainment magazine. I don't know of any comparable "contract" that these publications make with their readers. In fact we all know that cover shots are usually touched up considerably -- pounds are taken off here, inches are added there, wrinkles vanish, dull skin blooms, etc., etc.

    Example 3: A picture of a bird in a BPN forum. Is there any tacit contract, any unstated (or stated) assurance that the images faithfully portray the original scene? I don't think so, nor do I think such an understanding would be reasonable. This isn't journalism. It is (in varying degrees) photographic art. Photographers use various filters to alter light, various apertures to alter depth of field, etc. In post processing they use other tools to make other modifications.

    If there's any worry about such practices, maybe the forum should post a blanket disclaimer: Individuals who post here are free to alter their images in any way they choose in the name of "artistic license." How far and in what ways individuals exercise that license is a matter for their individual judgment. If you want to know whether and to what extent any image has been edited, you may ask the person who posted it.

    How about that?
    Last edited by David Thomasson; 06-20-2009 at 02:00 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics