Remove that Distraction?????

[Grady Weed]

Their in lies the whole crux of the matter HONOR. You aren't born with it, you can't buy it, you can't wish for it. You live by it, learn it, teach it and most of all, practice it. Not much of it exists in this world. That's why so many kill each other or disagree to the point of uncivil and violent reactions. We all want to be honored, trouble is many have no clue what it is to show it or live by it. Integrity, honesty, humility are just words to many.

One of the above posts says "there is no conclusion and there is no right or wrong". Sorry to inform you, there is! We have laws to live by. Sadly we have tell others it's wrong to murder and steal. It seems someone did not inform the thief who stole Ron's camera at Anhinga of this fact, or the thief refused to abide by it more than likely. So if we don't enforce the laws then we have chaos. Try telling the policeman who pulls you over for going 90 in a 30 you dont feel he has the right to do so. You will be spending the night in jail.

When the conscience is dulled anything goes. It is a shame so many think it is alright to do whatever you want. Our pictures, or images, tell others what we are inside, what we feel and what we think of life, at least at the moment of image capture.

This debate will not end here in this forum. And my thoughts will not sway others to think my way, I don't want them too. I want others to think for themselves and make changes because they want to. The best we can hope for is for ourselves and others to do the right thing no matter what someone else does.

Charles Glatzer posted a fine image of a black wolf in the wild forum. He is an outstanding and dedicated photographer. I salute him for his honest posts, images and his efforts to please our photographic palates. I do not know him, just by his work. I am sure others here, including some in this thread, are terrific photographers as well. Respect for others is something we teach and learn and share. Our words belie who we really are. It is evident the world needs more of it. As photographers we are uniquely situated to teach it by our images we create.

This is just my thoughts. I have watched this thread closely. I am surprised by somes comments. I had hoped the forum contributors would have thought better than this. Other sites I have frequented are no more than parking places for "snapshots" because they argued way too much instead of initated polite and constuctive dialogue. I think this site is better than this.

Thanks James, my firend, and Artie, Alfred and the other publishers for this opportunity to express my views. I'll go away now.

[john crookes]

John,

I'm not sure I get your point. Do you assume posters wouldn't be forthcoming if you asked them if/what they altered in case they haven't done so in their original post? Personally, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The pont is we should not have to ask

[Axel Hildebrandt]

The pont is we should not have to ask

What makes you think most posters don't do that?

[john crookes]

Axel reread the post here a lot of the photographers admit that they do not post that they remove or alter their images.

Some even went so far as to say they do not care what others thought

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Axel reread the post here a lot of the photographers admit that they do not post that they remove or alter their images.

Some even went so far as to say they do not care what others thought

Well, there is nothing in the guidelines that requires full disclosure, which means posters don't have to explain everything they did in postprocessing. For me it's good enough if posters explain their workflow if asked. Sometimes it is educational, if it is only the occasional dust spot or some other minor thing, it wouldn't make a big difference to me.

[Leroy Laverman]

I think maybe the issue here is whether we are evaluating an image as such or the craft that made the image. In forums such as this I tend to evaluate the image. While I certainly appreciate the craft behind it, a beautiful image is beautiful to me for the visual impact. If that meant someone removed branches, added back wingtips etc.. as an image it's fine with me. The increased saturation that most seem to be drawn to is certainly not true to life. The world is not velvia vivid. I don't think anyone would be accused of faking a shot by choosing velvia over standard print film, yet an artistic interpretation has been made to alter the appearance of the world. For me learning about the craft (hopefully) will help me to make better images. There is certainly no intent to deceive by failing to mention an object was removed and if someone asked I think most would be forthcoming about their post-processing.

This has been an interesting discussion so far. Clearly there are different opinions on this subject, and it's made me think about what information I should include when posting images for critique. To evaluate an image alone, I don't think one needs any technical details. We like to see them to understand the craft, either to learn or to evaluate the craft itself.

[c.w. moynihan]

Am I to understand this as it is ok to post a image whereever you like and not disclose if there were any manipulations to that image.

When that happens and then it is found out that an award winning image wasa really manipulated it ends up giving a black eye to all photographers

Yes, this is a free country and you are allowed to post and manipulate the image in any way you feel appropriate. If it is a contest submission, you follow the rules and if offending elements cannot be cloned out, then you don't. I am not sure why you are so argumentative throughout this entire thread. Just do what you want and others will do what they want in order to convey their artistic impression of an image. If there are rules, simply follow them.

Unless a forum posting guideline explicitly requests (a rule) that any and all alterations be declared in the post descripton, then fine... do it. If not, it's up to the photographer whether they want to disclose or not.

After all, the founder of this site wrote a book..."Birds as Art". To achieve that end, alterations, setups, baiting may be necessary in many cases...not all if your lucky and it also depends on the bird species in question.

[john crookes]

When i remarked that I thought the goal of the BPN was to be a educational site. There were reposts saying that it is not so. Yet Artie himself claims this as the number 1 educational and critiquing web site on the planet.

If we are to be educators is it not vital to disclose how we ended up with the finished product

When I send my children off to school i am hoping that they receive the process of learning
I hope that teachers would not walk into the room and say here is the answer ( finished product ) without explaining how to achieve that answer.

It is not a matter of right or wrong it is the honorable thing to do.

And I believe that as a nature photographer that I am held to higher principles


Thanks for the chance to vent my ravings

John J Crookes
Photojournalist and Nature Photographer

[Todd Frost]

John,

I don't think "honor" has anything to do with this discussion. It's strictly a matter of what each and every one of us decides to do to any given image. Not everyones decision will be the same and rightfully so. My way of doing things wont work for everyone nor will yours. I think the motivational factor for you is summed up in your signature line "photojournalist and nature photographer". The two are not necessarily one and the same. Your point of view seems to stem strictly from the photojournalist side of things. There is nothing wrong with that but not all see it that way when it comes to photographic ART.

Respectfully,
Todd

[john crookes]

I have never said that an artist or photographer can not alter their images.

That is up to the individual and should be



Let your conscience be your guide

Whatt i have responded with is why do photographers have a problem with saying that their image has been altered

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 cceptance.
Creators of images should be truthful in representing their work


Can we not hold ourselves to the same principles

John

[Blake Shadle]

John,

I don't think "honor" has anything to do with this discussion. It's strictly a matter of what each and every one of us decides to do to any given image. Not everyones decision will be the same and rightfully so. My way of doing things wont work for everyone nor will yours. I think the motivational factor for you is summed up in your signature line "photojournalist and nature photographer". The two are not necessarily one and the same. Your point of view seems to stem strictly from the photojournalist side of things. There is nothing wrong with that but not all see it that way when it comes to photographic ART.

Respectfully,
Todd

Well said, Todd.

We can all point to this photographer or that photographer and agree and disagree. In the end, it doesn't really matter ;) Photography runs through my veins, just as much as the blood that sustains me. When I'm laying down in the mud watching a semipalmated plover live out its life, I'm not capturing a moment in time that should be cataloged and archived for future reference. I'm trying to create an image that captures the beating heart of this small bird. I want my audience to feel something... to be moved. I do this so that others who are unaware of the life of this bird can see that it has value, that their actions can have an effect on the life of this small creature.

If removing a small stone will give my subject more impact, and make an image more beautiful, I will remove it. I've learned something from my Dad (more than just something). People value beauty. People protect beauty. If I can create a beautiful image and show people the value of the little hearts I spend so much time with, I will do whatever it takes.

[john crookes]

Once again I find no issue with a photographer deciding to alter his or her image beyond what is considered normal photographic principles.

What i find hard to believe is the feeling of Photographers that there is no moral issue in disclosing that it was indeed an altered photo

I love the photos posted by photographers and the art of photos too

I love when a photo is crafted within the computer and brought to life

What i like also is when thw artist discloses that they removed or added objects to said image


My question once again is Why do photographers have such a hard time disclosing that they altered their image ?


and please do not give me the line that because they do not have too


that is very old and tired

[Blake Shadle]

To answer your question, and I can't speak for all photographers (because we are not a collective or hive mind, we seem to be a large group of individuals), I don't find it the least bit difficult to disclose manipulation information.

What's very old and tired is this issue.

[Nonda Surratt]

And very well said Blake! Much can be accomplished, and the perception humans have about wildlife changed by an image or two or 3. It still all boils down to how the person making the image feels about tweaking, removing etc. There are few absolutes in life anyway and I don't think absolutes work well in photography.

One of the coolest things that happened to me when I first started posting was artie removing a bird from one of my images and then saying/asking if it was something that was ok with my personal ethics. He did it to make the image better, which it did, but there was also obvious respect there for my feelings if it was something I didn't agree with. It just doesn't get any better than that and it is typical of the folks on this forum.

Ramble over and out.

[john crookes]

To answer your question, and I can't speak for all photographers (because we are not a collective or hive mind, we seem to be a large group of individuals), I don't find it the least bit difficult to disclose manipulation information.

What's very old and tired is this issue.

That i beg to differ on Blake

This issue has a lot of impact

if it was old and tired it would not receive the attention that the thread is generating

John

[Blake Shadle]

It's somewhat like a train wreck... you don't want to watch, but for some reason you can't turn away.

My opinon has been expressed, and I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless neccessary for administrative reasons. I implore everyone else who doesn't have a dog in this fight to do the same.

See you in the field,

Blake

[john crookes]

Closing one's eyes does not make an issue go away

The publishers brought this issue to life and it is an ongoing issue and will probably forever be an issue

John

[Alfred Forns]

John there is actually no issue No one is forcing anyone into anything !!! That is the way it should be !!!

[Mike Dale]

I just wish I was better in the use of Photoshop!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I hate alteration to the image beyond simple colour, contrast, sharpening, cropping and dust removal. About 90% of the time I don't crop. I hate removal of offending branch, rock etc. I have decided not to do it and have never done it. While shooting, I try to use the obstruction in the form of bush, rock etc by weaving it into the picture.

I don't think it is ethical to alter. If you do so, then you should mention that it is a digital illustration and not a photograph.

[john crookes]

If you have time and want to read an interesting article that was writen almost ten years ago you can head to this link

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/photo.htm

Lots of interviews and different views from some of the foremost photographers of our time

[Grady Weed]

I have just read the link above to the works of Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell and others. The reference to Rowell quoting: Rusty Schweickart, who had followed Colonel Anders into space. "You are the sensing element for humanity," Schweickart reported on returning. "And that becomes a rather special responsibility." That special responsibility, in Rowell's opinion, is shared by photographers, too.

You really have to read the article in whole to understand what he is saying here. and the reader has to read with an open heart, one not cluttered with prejudice or preconceived ideas of their own. i think it would benefit us all to do so. Thanks for sharing the link!

[Todd Frost]

I got a totally different take from the article as I am not one to look at things in a philosophical view. I also do not hold to the idea that the "stars" of any profession or hobby are somehow made into a ambassador of ethics. Just because you have made a name for yourself and are in the publics eye doesn't mean you now have that responsibility. They put their pants one just like everyone else, one leg at a time. You see this from athletes to musicians and even photographers. As Galen Rowell was quoted, I will say that though I like a good many of his images he too looked at photography from this philosophical view. Not all of us think that way nor want to! When I make an image it is that an image. I do it because I truly love to, nothing more nothing less. It is not a view into my soul so to speak.
This topic seems to be going (as it always does) from a personal choice of disclosure of "their" craft to one of moral and ethical behavior. No place for that in this discussion as it has nothing to do with your vision of what you want to portray to the viewer in your image. As stated many times before, if there are guidelines in place then follow them (still individual choice). If you are interested in how a photographer achieved a certain image, then ask. Hopefully the photographer will be kind enough to respond with the info (assuming he saw the question) but even then it is up to them. I give a great deal of credit and have the utmost respect for the moderators and members of this site for the willingness to share the vast knowledge and help they give each of us. They do it because they want to not because someone has said you should. A question to think about, how many other professions (as a great # here are at least part time pros) are as willing to disclose or answer questions on how they achieve the final result? I would bet not many. I know personally in my years as a mechanic and later as a carpenter I cut my own throat in doing so.

Respectfully,
Todd

[Grady Weed]

Todd,

I do not look to "stars" or anyone else to make up or change my mind for me. I put no man on a pedestal. The desire to represent what I do comes from within. I make images to satisfy myself and to share with others. I share them to bring happiness. My attitude is a positive one and I choose to go forward, learn new things and help others along the way, share my knowledge.

Too many people assuming way too much from the words written in a post. Our moral and ethical behavior does have a place in everything you do. Its what makes you who you are. I choose to do the right thing no matter what others do. i do not need athletes or anyone else to guide me. I choose to live my life as my creator wants me to, with integrity, honesty, love, dignity, compassion, empathy and so on.

I happen to be close friends with the Shadles. I grew up with James. We see some things differently at times. But we still are friends, good friends. And I do appreciate the shared knowledge here on this site. Please do not assume you know me from just a few words here in this post. And I will give you the same benefit. I only responded to this thread to respectfully give my thoughts.

I don't see why some, not accusing you here, choose to be so rude or belligerent in replying or wanting to remove moral and ethical values in life. I do not live in a fantasy world or bury my head in the sand. I think all the angry, hurtful expressions do no good. I will not respond further to any other post, or others like this in the future. Sorry if this offends anyone. Thanks goes to the publishers to the site.

ADDED: I meant to this particular thread or threads like it. I have read Todd's post below. I accept his right to disagree and he did so respectfully. Thank you Todd.

[Fabs Forns]

It is ultimately up to the photographer what he does with his images. And nobody should judge or look down on others either. To each, his own, and respect to the other's opinions is the recipe for a better world.
If you fell uncomfortable about altering your images, buy Golly, don't. Now, let the others do as they wish...

[john crookes]

I am sad to hear that a Publisher is so willing to be that way.

Noboby is arguing the right to do what you want with your photos.

The point here and also completly agreed to at6 the ethics conference held at the National Wildlife Museum in Jackson was that ant image altered beyound standard photographic practices should be clearly labeled as a altered image

This standard came with a group of assorted wildlife artists that also had differing views on altering images

I am not saying it is a rule but as a wildlife photographer you should have basic principles as set forth already


all I ever asked was that

why so much about clearly stating that this is an altered image


The last time I looked this was a site open to the general public to view

as such we should hold ourselves to a higher standard


not a set and fast rule just a mention in the guidelines would be enough


Thank You

John

[Todd Frost]

Grady,
Just want to let you know that I absolutely have no problem with any of your or anyone else's comments to this post. I too am only expressing my opinion. I also come from a background and live by the guidelines set forth by the Good Lord himself. We just seem to look at this in a very different light. We all have the right to disagree and hopefully we do so in a reasonable manner. I thought that was the case here, just differing opinions is all.
Again I took absolutely no offense to any post and I wholeheartedly apologize if offense was take by mine! I would urge you to continue to share your opinions on any topic you chose as your opinion is every bit as valid and important as anyones.

Respectfully,
Todd

[Axel Hildebrandt]

John,

I can see your point regarding openness but don't agree with your reasoning. As I said earlier, it makes more sense to me to assume that every image posted is altered (which sounds quite different than your earlier suggestion to call it manipulated, which has a very negative judgmental connotation). Almost all images are cropped to some degree, which is an alteration as well as any kind of postprocessing. Therefore, it makes more sense to me to consider every image altered/processed and if there is absolutely no change, basically resized RAW, then I would call it unaltered. It would then be a more practical approach to mention if it is unaltered rather than the other way around.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I agree with you Axel. All one has to do on this particular site, BPN, is look at the top right corner...the rectangular banner promoting this site's inspirational leader...the biggest letters on there read "Birds as Art". I think that pretty much sums it up. It is not called "Birds as Photojournalism". Although I am sure not everyone discloses any or all alterations they did, I have however seen many, many more people who do tell...

Most everyone participating on this forum have one thing in common and that is wanting to produce the best looking bird photos they can. This includes techniques on and off the field (post-processing) and if that means cropping, cloning, burning, dodging, etc..., then so be it. But just remember, "Birds as Art"!!:)

[Harry Behret]

The problem is what are "standard photographic practices ". They change with the forum you display them in. PJ has one set, an art show has a different set, different contests have varying sets of standards.

Is it OK to use a filter to enhance colors from what they were in "reality". What about film photographers who used different types of film? Is it "manipulation" to use Fujichrome Velvia?

I can alter reality w/o doing manipulaton in my post processing. I'm the photographer for one of our local political parties. When I shoot an event I can make the hall look to be SRO when in actuality its only half-filled by choosing the angle I shoot from.

I'l leave it to the publishers of this site to set their standards for it and I will adhere to them just as I will to any forum I submit my pictures to.

For my own site I will adhere to my own set of "ethics" and I will leave to others to do the same. I have no interest in telling others what their ethics should be.

[john crookes]

Another article worth reading from Arthur Morris himself

www.birdsasart.com/b30.html

enjoy and please read it all

[Axel Hildebrandt]

John,

If you think disclosure is important, you could set an example and say how you processed your own images and how you cropped them.

[john crookes]

I have no problem talking about my workflow to bring an image to print or output

All done as accepted practices as defined by other organizations not myself.


Processed through Adobe Lightroom and finished in Adobe Photoshop for sizing output and sharpening

I usually shot in adobe color space and open the image in prophoto 16 bit

i will correct for any color cast do a levels adjustment a contrast ajustment and pre output sharpening.

also a hue and sat ajustment if needed

sent to Adobe Photoshop for noise reduction if needed further sharpening as needed and size ing for output and conversion of color space for output

i convert to srgb for web and adobe 98 for print also change mode to 8 bit


I will go back and repost this along with any cropping info to all my images posted here

does that satisfy you Axel

Thank You

John

PS again i did not specify that you need to reveal all your workflow I just said that if a image is altered beyound standard Photographic practices

that said image should be labeled as such

[James Shadle]

John,
Do you hold yourself to be "Found View Compliant"?
USM,dodge,burn,contrast and other chemical darkroom techniques?
James

[Fabs Forns]

I am sad to hear that a Publisher is so willing to be that way.

Noboby is arguing the right to do what you want with your photos.

The point here and also completly agreed to at6 the ethics conference held at the National Wildlife Museum in Jackson was that ant image altered beyound standard photographic practices should be clearly labeled as a altered image

This standard came with a group of assorted wildlife artists that also had differing views on altering images

I am not saying it is a rule but as a wildlife photographer you should have basic principles as set forth already


all I ever asked was that

why so much about clearly stating that this is an altered image


The last time I looked this was a site open to the general public to view

as such we should hold ourselves to a higher standard


not a set and fast rule just a mention in the guidelines would be enough


Thank You

John

John, it is not my intention to discuss my ethics with you. If you follow my posts, you will see me mention when I do something out of the ordinary. I have enough good images as not to need to add or remove a wingtip, although I am certainly qualified to do so.
My point is that it is not my place to tell others what their ethics or standards should be, It is a very personal decision. Disclosure? Of course, I do not like deceit.
What bothers me is other's trying to impose their personal ethics on me or anybody else.

[Gray Fox]

Let me ask this


Who in here has an Artist Statement in their Galleries or on their website.

Who reveals the fact that if they remove objective items in their photos with editing software
and if you do not reveal then why not

would it be deceptive if it were not revealed in your artist statement

Just to offer an existence proof, i.e. that there is at least one such statement:

Gray Fox Images > Articles > "How We Process Images"

and

Gray Fox Images > Articles > "Image Notes"

Included in the first article above is the following statement: "Finally, we offer no rationalizations for taking this approach; we follow this path simply because we like the ability to convert "near misses" into pleasing images that remain true to the original scene."

. . .I have enough good images as not to need to add or remove a wingtip, although I am certainly qualified to do so.

Perhaps when I have as many high quality images as Fabiola I will discontinue the practice. But until then I'll continue to salvage worthy "almost" images while adding nothing that was not in the original scene.

As a side note, I also don't remove anything that would render the image inconsistent with what I judge to be key aspects of the original scene. As an example, I don't remove the secondary eye catchlight of a subject photographed in full sun over water. While removal undoubtedly renders the image more aesthetically pleasing (and no offense to those who do) this modification also violates the laws of physics -- that secondary reflection is a physical property of light. As a mathematician and physicist by education and research engineer by vocation (now retired), I just can't bring myself to do that! ;)

[Rob Miner]

TONGUE IN CHEEK!

It may be necessary to create a forum for pictures taken and published in the RAW format. It will be necessary to include all info with the files submitted. No sharpening, noise removal etc. will be allowed. As each camera manufacture produces cameras that produces indiviual files differently than its competitors, so each manufacture will have its own compitition, cameras with different sensors will have seperate competition, etc.

Truely, a digital picture is a moment in time, an art work of nature that we as recorders try to capture to share with posterity. Our view of this moment in time is as individual as we are. The story that says, "show a scene to a 100 different people and get at least that many views." is as old as time.

As digital capture is new and unique history will sort out the answer. I try to share with the world what I see and feel. If the picture is not "honest" capture of time - I would be delighted if you would call it "ART."

Rob.................

[Mary Stamper]

I just wish I was better in the use of Photoshop!

I wonder if this comment doesn't point to something that lies at the bottom of all of this?

Why does anyone REALLY care whether an image was digitally altered or not? Why REALLY?

(and I assume common sense here...if one is providing documentary/informational photos or if there are rules involved then it may make sense not to manipulate) but OTHER than that, why does anyone REALLY care?

Because you love cameras and hate computers, and don't want to feel the pressure to learn image manipulation?

Because you're afraid someone will make a better image using the computer/camera combination than you will using a camera/computer combo?

Because you want to be recognized for having a SKILL rather than making a visually arresting IMAGE?

Because you are insecure about your CREATIVE ability and would rather rest on your SKILL?

Any other possibilities?

Let's be honest with ourselves folks.

[Jim Poor]

First, I think the term "education" quoted above applies to things like textbooks for something like natural history for example rather than in the sense of photographers helping photographers to improve.

Now, on to the question at hand:

I am currently swinging to one side of the pendulums arc for my own personal photography. My goal is zero manipulation other than spotting, color correction, sharpening. That includes no cropping. Can I meet that goal all the time? Not yet, an probably not ever 100%.

Just because I have my goal, doesn't mean that I believe anyone else's approach is wrong.

Just because I have my goal, doesn't mean that I won't still "settle" for manipulating an image beyond what I want to do.

Just because I have my goal, doesn't mean that you won't find heavily manipulated images posted by me here and elsewhere in the past, and probably in the future.

I do hope it means that you'll see a lot more "Full Frame, Spot, Color correction, Sharpen, that's it" comments when I post an image.

When my website gets up and running, I will probably have separate areas for images that are "pure," those that have been altered, and those that are totally digital art (think OOB).

It was interesting to see the radically different approaches taken by the two photographers that have influenced me more than anyone else when I went out for back to back weeks with Moose Peterson and Artie Morris. The following comments are my understanding of what I learned and hopefully I have it right:

For wildlife photos, Moose takes very strict approach. White Point and Black Point adjustments, dust spotting and sharpening. Period. No cropping, no flipping, no nothing. (when it comes to landscapes, there is a whole different approach).

Artie on the other hand will work PS magic on an image if he feels the result will be a better image.

Both of these guys have done far better than I have in photography and they are the two strongest influences on my "style," so it stands to reason that I fall somewhere in the middle.

Does anyone really care where I stand? Probably not. Do I really care where everyone else stands? As long as they are open about it, no, not really.

[nzmacro]

Isn't life interesting. :). For the artie stuff, anything goes. For posting in the std forums, nothing gets changed except for levels, contrast, etc. Never cropped out side the box and never plan to. Yep, they could probably could do with it sometimes, but its not going to happen. Never clone anything, thats just my opinion. So for me personally, there are two things here. Its either manipulated or its not. Just a me thing

All the best folks. :)

Danny.

[Mary Stamper]

Why limit yourself to the aspect ratios built into your camera?

Why limit yourself to shooting in perfect light?

Why limit yourself to shooting the perfect scene?

Why TAKE pictures when you can MAKE pictures?

Why limit yourself to using a camera as a glorified photocopier when you can use it as a paintbrush instead?

You still have to understand composition whether you create the composition through the viewfinder or on a computer screen.

You still have to understand light whether you get it from the sun or from pixels.

You still have to understand color whether nature gave it to you or you invent it.

It's still best IMHO to understand exposure and motion control, both of the camera and subject.

Other than that, what's changed, other than the limitations are dropping away faster and faster. And what could possibly be bad about that?

[nzmacro]

Why limit yourself to the aspect ratios built into your camera?

Because thats what I bought

Why limit yourself to shooting in perfect light?

Because thats what I want to see

Why limit yourself to shooting the perfect scene?

Because thats what I want and thats the whole challenge

Why TAKE pictures when you can MAKE pictures?

Because I make pictures only AFTER I take them

Why limit yourself to using a camera as a glorified photocopier when you can use it as a paintbrush instead?

Because its nothing like a paintbrush and who said nature needed painting

You still have to understand composition whether you create the composition through the viewfinder or on a computer screen.

Because that not how I see, I see whats in front, not what I can change

You still have to understand light whether you get it from the sun or from pixels.

Because without the sun, there are no pixels

You still have to understand color whether nature gave it to you or you invent it.

Because I can't better nature in whatever she does, nature does not need inventing

It's still best IMHO to understand exposure and motion control, both of the camera and subject.

Totally 100 % agree

Other than that, what's changed, other than the limitations are dropping away faster and faster. And what could possibly be bad about that?

The imagination is totally limitless. Whats changed ??, that to me would no longer be photography

Its fascinating how we are all different. Got to love it. :)

Danny.

[Mary Stamper]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we lost the silly distinctions between photography and painting and drawing etc and just had one concept...."image making"...and cameras, computers, paintbrushes and pencils would all be just tools in the bucket, all in the service of the image?

What's even more interesting is that it seems only to be photographers who care about these distinctions. When I talk with non-photographer artists, they only care about what they see in the image...not how you made it.

Some people can only see what's in front of their noses; others see potential. I suspect that this prospect scares a lot of (but not all) photographers. The ones with imagination and the ability to see potential don't seem to have a problem with any of the digital developments. I wonder if the ones that cling to the old ideals are scared perhaps because they doubt that they can compete with the potential limitlessness of digital. I KNOW THAT I WAS INITIALLY. But then I asked myself how many of our supposed "ideals" really stem from the limitations of the old media (film). If I had to shoot 4x5 film, I'd spend hours gazing at the scenery before pulling the trigger too. I'd wait for perfect conditions too....why? Because there's nothing I could really do about it after the fact. But today, I'm free of many of the limitations. And in time, technology will free us even more.

Do you think we'd be having any of these discussions if film had never existed? Doubt it. Digital manipulation would be the norm.

[nzmacro]

Don't get me wrong, I would probably be one of the largest manipulators of photos here Mary, its what we do. I do however make a distinct line of what a photograph is. A crop to me is only part of an image.

Another interesting way to look at this is from a macro point of view. If someone takes a 1:3 ratio and crops that with software into a 1:1 - 2:1, does that then become a photomacrograph. Simply it does not. No way can it and theres several reasons for that 1:1 has nothing to do with a crop outside the box. When an image is cropped for macro, DOF, perspectives, etc, can be way out of whack for the ratio.

And please, don't start me on what that term art means and whether photography is art. :eek:

Ok, I'm done :) and thats only all in my opinion, except the macro part, thats a simple fact.

Danny.

[Roger Clark]

Danny,
Your crop idea seem pretty artificial. The size of the field of view is an artificial limitation of particular technology. For example,you can take with the exact same macro lens a 1:1 image with a Canon 2D and a 1Ds Mark III. Both are 1:1, have the same aspect ratio, One is simply a crop of the image plane of the lens. Usr the same focal length macro lens on a 4x5 camera, and again the field of view is simply another artificial crop of the real scene. So what difference is it when you crop with
the technical limit of the camera, versus after you have captured an image?

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Jim,
I tend to view this issue like you do. Early in my digital photo career (mind you that dates back to the 1970's), I saw the potential for manipulation. When I started doing wildlife photography with digital (first with scanned film) then consumer digital cameras I saw the temptation to try and alter photos for the better. I do agree that all photography is a manipulation of reality, and must be so as the dynamic range of the real world is larger than than can be printed or displayed, and our eye's plus brain perceive the world differently than film or digital plus the output media we have available. As my portfolio of good images increase, I found little desire to want to "modify" an image by adding or removing elements. I find that changing objects correctly, and keeping lighting correct is very difficult. My scientific profession deals with lighting geometry and the spectral response of materials to light, so I usually spot fakes and alterations before many. I find it is easier to get the image correct in the first place. I feel I have enough images, then I won't add/remove components like illustrated in this thread (adding wing tips, for example). I use failure to get images as an excuse to go back and try again ;-).

But there are public perceptions, and if you want to try and sell, donate,, have others use your images, you'll find that a large fraction of the public are now quite skeptical about reality of digital photography. I have had people say that's cheating when you do levels and/or curves, yet except saturated slide film as real. But that is minor compared to their perception if you are removing/adding objects and they discover it. Many will call you a fraud. I've had people accuse me of altering my images on my web site when I have not (they thought the images were too good). I have had people email me and say I've changed images and now they are too contrasty (apparently they switched from CRT to LCD monitors). I recently got an email asking me why I replaced the eyes in some bear pictures with fake glass eyes! I had not. The point is there is a growing mistrust of photography by the public, and the more people experience photographers altering scenes (even though it's been done for 150+ years!!!) the more they will mistrust photographers. I feel we are slipping.

Personally, I'm disappointed to hear the views of many here to have a casual attitude over changing especially major elements of a scene. And am taking a liberal view: I believe it is OK to fix levels, contrast, color balance, dust, lens flair, processing artifacts (e.g if someone shoot jpeg), and I believe cropping is fine, blurring background (especially to fix bad lens bokeh), but I draw the line at adding wing tips or removing major branches or adding/removing animals.

I also do digital mosaics, so I would not consider a quick sequence of a mosaic adding components. When I mentioned adding wing tips, I meant adding it from a frame unrelated to the scene taken earlier or later, even from the same animal.

Just my opinion, but consider the consequences of your actions and the implications it has on photographers.
I have no problems if everything is disclosed, but how many photographers do that on their web sites, or in gallery images?

Here is the statement on my web site regarding photo ethics. I have not updated it since 2001--looks like I need to.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html

Roger Clark

[Jeffrey Sipress]

What amazes me most is the length of this thread and how much people want to discuss this. Are you an artist, or a forensic scientist? It's your image, and your art. If you need to fix it to make it match your vision and creation, then do it. Who cares? At least it ain't like religion where people are constantly trying to shove their imaginary friends down your throat.

Do whatever works for you. You don't need to explain it to others, as if you're doing something wrong. It's your thing. Don't live by someone else's rules.

[nzmacro]

LOL Jeff. Human nature and relating to each other. If you don't discuss it and learn from others and what they like and think, shut the forum down. No point in have a general discussion board is there.

Reading through this, I've already changed my mind about certain things because I think, hey thats actually right in the end. So why not discuss it :) ;)

Danny.

[nzmacro]

Rodger, sitting here with a coffee and reading about the cropping factor of the sensors you mention there. You have me thinking and it hurts :). You are right, the cropping factors are relevant with the sensor in use. Excellent points. However, a macro is 1:1 or above in photographic terms, that can't be changed. Lets take it the other way and throw telephoto lenses into the mix.

So someone takes a shot of a bird with a sensor crop factor of 1.4x for the sake of it, a 500mm now takes on the equivalent of a 700mm. So was the shot taken with a 700mm or a 500mm. Can someone now say that the shot was taken with a 700mm, no they can't, it was still a 500mm lens at the end of the day. Now they go further and crop that shot so that its taken with the equivalent of lets say, a 1200mm. What now. Is it a 1200mm, 700mm or still a 500mm shot. Mass confusion now sets in. Same with macro, you can't crop a 1:3 shot after the fact and call it a macro in technical photographic terms.

Sorry, getting off track here with cropping, but you have me thinking as well. Very interesting in how we see things IMO.

All the best folks.

Danny.

[Roger Clark]

Rodger, sitting here with a coffee and reading about the cropping factor of the sensors you mention there. You have me thinking and it hurts :). You are right, the cropping factors are relevant with the sensor in use. Excellent points. However, a macro is 1:1 or above in photographic terms, that can't be changed.

Danny,
I agree.

Lets take it the other way and throw telephoto lenses into the mix.
So someone takes a shot of a bird with a sensor crop factor of 1.4x for the sake of it, a 500mm now takes on the equivalent of a 700mm. So was the shot taken with a 700mm or a 500mm. Can someone now say that the shot was taken with a 700mm, no they can't, it was still a 500mm lens at the end of the day. Now they go further and crop that shot so that its taken with the equivalent of lets say, a 1200mm. What now. Is it a 1200mm, 700mm or still a 500mm shot. Mass confusion now sets in. Same with macro, you can't crop a 1:3 shot after the fact and call it a macro in technical photographic terms.

I agree. The crop factor is very misunderstood. It s a field of view crop. What is important in a lot of imaging is how large is the subject, say an eagle at 100 yards? It has nothing to do with crop factor and everything to do with focal length and pixel spacing. That is called plate scale. For example, the eagle will appear the exact same size with a 500 mm lens on a Canon 5D and a 1D Mark II, even though they have different crop factors. The eagle is the same size because the pixel spacing is the same on the two cameras (8.2 microns). The eagle woutl also be the same size in a Canon 1Ds Mark III as it is in a Canon 20D or 30D, again because pixel spacing is the same (6.4 microns). But the eagle would be 28% lager, measured in pixels, on the 1Ds mark III versus the 5D which have the same crop factor (full frame) because the pixel spacing on the 1Ds Mark III is smaller. Same with macro lenses.
But I'll stop here so I don;t get too technical, and because this is drifting off topic.

Roger