All,
Business brought me out of town and out of reach of the internet, thus unable to keep the discussion in a back and forth debate format. I also prefer to spend less time in front of the keyboard and more time in the field. I will address the posts – belatedly of course - in this post.
Goerge,
While I generally agree and practice your views (I don't clone out distracting elements, but will de-emphasize them with burning), I will argue your statement above does not apply to everyone. For some, for example, the primary role is art in nature, and that can include the vision of that perfect bird (e.g. so they clone out the dirt on the beak). I won't do that, but its OK if others do (although I do think such things should be disclosed).
Roger,
I agree. The key to this thread on ethics is, in my opinion, is hitting now on the important word. "Disclosure" –what information should be disclosed to the viewer? On my website some of my images have a catalog number – others do not. But that is all the information. I want the viewer to see the image itself. If someone inquires about the image(s) I will indicate location, if the original was in color, subject matter, if wildlife (captive, being rehabilitated or wild) year of image, film or digital, sizes available, model or property release available and so forth. I want my client to be well educated prior to deciding to purchase or publish an image of mine. If there s a question I will answer it to the best of my ability or provide a source of information to guide someone along.
Desmond made the distinction; documentary or art photography. I am going to assume what you refer to as a digital artist is of the second category. I see no reason why a nature photographer can't create images of either category.Therefore, as a nature photographers we are not necessarily "responsible for documenting nature and wildlife and to preserve these images as a matter of historical record."
What you are referring to is photojournalism, and no one is arguing that ethical standards don't need to be maintained. The subject has been discussed many times in this forum, and the subject has hit close to home several times. This is nothing new.
But you seem to think that deception is involved with digital artists if they do not disclose information or subscribe to an ethical code, simply because someone looking at the image may become confused on what is real or not. This seems like something they may need to discuss with their mental health care professional, but is in no way is the responsibility of the digital artist.
regards~Bill
Bill,
This is not new at all. Since the birth of art we have dealt accuracy vs. enhanced images. Many painters of early American landscapes would paint and then add people and buildings to their canvases upon return from a field trip. Many times these would be added by apprentices, who had never been there – hence why European style buildings are in American landscape paintings. These paintings were used to document the frontier, but also advertise it to potential settlers.
What I am referring to as I stated in the response above is – disclosure. Journalism, documentary photography and the like must be held to a specific ethical standard. When at the newsstand, if you wanted clear concise accurate reporting would you spend your money on the tabloid with the aliens on the cover or the New York Times for example. I would venture a guess and say - The Times, because you want facts and the truth. I am saying it should be the same in our work as photographers. I am not saying it is wrong to change, delete or add. I am saying that is should be disclosed.
I feel it should also be mentioned that most of the larger photo contests do not allow manipulation. Generally the RAW file has to also be submitted.
Bill
Bill,
You are correct. Of the few contests I do enter. I look for this requirement to ensure that all participants have a level playing field and that the images come done to the skill and vision of the photographer capturing the image that is and not what it could be with some work with a mouse and keyboard.
Welcome to BPN George. As mentioned above, this topic it not new to BPN, however, I think it is sometimes healthy that this one in particular resurfaces for discussion every now and then.
While your argument seems logical you make several false assumptions, leaps of logic, and put-up "straw-men", which ultimately cause it to break down. Agree with the others here on many of the points they have made. The key is the distinction between photo-journalism and photo-art. Though they can overlap completely, the two motives or goals can be very different. Just because you yourself appear to come from the photo-journalism camp does not mean that all nature photographers are photo-journalists, nor should they be. Why would you make that assumption? I agree that an outstanding nature image can contribute to conservation by exposing people to natural beauty but it matters little if they are motivated by an un-manipulated photo-journalistic image or photo-art that has been post-processed up the ying-yang. What matters is the impact your image has. Your scenario of a client returning a print because he/she found out it was manipulated is not realistic. I'll assume the client bought the print as a piece of wall art. Art I know about is sold "as-is, where-is" with no warranty of authenticity. Imagine someone returning a Robert Bateman (painting) print because he slightly mis-represented the cedar-rail fence in the foreground or the barn in the background! Can you really see this happening?
You paint a romantic picture of the act putting film in your camera, setting the ISO, SS and aperture, pressing the shutter release and producing a print in a darkroom as somehow "pure" with the end result representing close to exactly what you saw through the viewfinder. This is of course not true as the end result is affected by things like the film you use (graininess, colour rendition etc), the paper and chemicals you use in the darkroom, and all the myriad manipulations possible there. What about your IR photography? No human I know sees the world like that- it is pure art and not photo-journalism. The very first image on your webpage is in IR, with no disclosure. I feel misled. I don't really, but you get my point.
The question of whether to manipulate an image is clear and not a "dilemma" as you put it. If your goal is photo-journalism, don't mislead by manipulating the image. If your goal is submission of an image to a contest, abide by the rules of the contest (most do not allow much if any post-processing). If your goal is to learn by posting here at BPN, post-process but fully report whatever you do to the image. If your goal is submission to a journal or photo-magazine, make sure you meet all their expectations. If your goal is photo-art, anything goes.
People make nature images for many reasons, and before you suggest a code of ethics for this, you need to first broaden your view of what motivates people.
John
John,
Thank you for welcoming me. You are right, this is not a new subject, but one that really needs to stay alive in everyone’s mind. As computers and cameras advance in capabilities, so do the opportunities for digital manipuation.
There is a former associate/partner of mine, I stress former here. This person did have a large framed image returned to him for misrepresentation by a client. I actually saw the image on his wall and told him how I thought it was well placed in his lobby. I told him it was a pretty good combination of two images. He was shocked and the next day returned it and got a full refund. Had the manipulation been disclosed the client could have made their own decision without all of the upset.
None of the images on my home page contain any content about location, type, title. They are simply "there". If you looked further you would see the IR (Infrared Galleries) are clearly marked "Infrared". Stating what they are before the viewer enters the gallery. My IR work is not post processing manipulation either – there are several softwares that do convert images after capture for this. I started with IR Filters made by HOYA and Singh Ray. These resulted in very long exposure times. I then had a camera converted by Life Pixels, once I really started to enjoy this type of work. IR is not used a medium in the journalism or documentary fields of endeavour. Each image is captured in the camera this way and not post processed into IR. On my website some of my images have a catalog number – others do not. But that is all the information. I want the viewer to see the image itself. If someone inquires about the image(s) I will indicate location, if the original was in color, subject matter, if wildlife (captive, being rehabilitated or wild) year of image, film or digital, sizes available, model or property release available and so forth. I want my client to be well educated prior to deciding to purchase or publish an image of mine.
I have already broadened my view of what motivates people and if you study behavior of animals, people, insects and so forth, you will never stop learning. It sounds as though, you have already answered the ethics questions by your response in paragraph four.
The fact is that for many people a picture is real. The images produced, therefore, need to convey the truth. That is the problem photographs do not tell the truth they only tell the story the photographers wish to tell the truth lies not in the image but in the photographer. The only thing that has changed with digital photography is that the general viewing public now knows that photographers have always lied with their cameras. Civil war photographers routinely rearrange bodies on battlefields to produce a more compelling image, is Capas death of a loyalist soldier real or a set up. I could list a dozen more examples from Weege to Adams were the photographer manipulated the scene before pressing the shutter to tell the story they wished to tell.
Before digital photographers would place out of focus prints behind Marco subjects to get those nice creamy back grounds and I have photography books that spend a whole chapter on how to do multiple exposures so you can place a full moon next to your favorite landmark. So my question is why do they get to call their images photographs and I now have to call my images digital art. I believe in full disclosure and I really do not have a problem with people that want to call my images digital art but I do take issue with the implication that digital has somehow stained the purity of photography a purity that never existed.
I edited my post for one last comment can anyone tell me how any image produce on Velvia or any other staurated slide film was an accurate represntation of the color gamut before the photographer when they pressed the shutter 
Don,
I agree, I could do the same – there are instances in journalism, where it was not the photographer as well. It has been linked to editors and art directors too. The classic example, or one of, is TIME Magazine back in the 1990’s they chose to run the O.J. Simpson mug shot on the cover. They made the numbers smaller to give his face a more imposing look, added what can be seen as 5 o’clock shadow and darkened the image. This created a more sinister look to the suspect. NEWSWEEK ran the same image that week, but un-altered. That is when the dung hit the whirling blades. I learned early on that when someone goes to a newstand, what often helps the buyer decide on the magazine, or newspaper paper to buy is the cover art or story. The better the story the better the chance of the advertisers inside getting their ad in front of you. The 50 cents you spend on the paper does not cover the printing and overhead – the advertising does.
I think that the difference with digital art in your statement is manipulation after the image is captured. I wipe out or blur backgrounds with aperture usage. I use backgrounds when doing head-shots for companies. This is all done during and before capture.
I walked into a gallery in Moab a few year ago (before 2000). Right inside the door was a spectacular image of Arches National Park near sunset with this amazing moon in the sky. A beaming sales lady came over to me smiling as I was looking at the large print (perhaps 2 x 3 feet). She said "Do you like it? It is our top selling print!" I turned to her and said, "You do know it is faked, right?" She was stunned. She had no idea. I could tell for 4 reasons. I knew the area well and knew 1) the moon could never appear that low in the sky at that angle of view (almost due south), 2) the phase angle on the moon was different than the scene, 3) the scene was taken with a wide angle, and the moon with a telephoto (the moon appeared much larger than it should have), and 4) the phase of the moon could not be in that position with the sun still above the horizon. The image disappeared from the gallery on my next visit and I've never seen it since.
Roger
Roger,
Good example about disclosure, I hope the creator of the image learned a valuable lesson here.
The way I view it is rather simple. IMO photojournalism is a record of an event or something relevant to a news story. It is an art form but one that needs to recreate reality in a truthful manner since it's telling a related story.
All other photography no matter how manipulated should be left to the interpretation of the viewer as all other art forms are. Why should photography be singled out as being different ? Why can't a photographer have freedom of expression through manipulation?
If someone can have a piece of art made out of dung and displayed in a prestigious museum...where is the line drawn? The answer is.......there is none!!!
There is nothing that limits freedom of expression. The question here is ethics and disclosure of manipulation. Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as photography, painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Art
One word from me on this subject, its "disclosure". You can't go wrong then no matter what you call it..
I agree completely, disclosure is the key element here
Are the Eagle and Hawk headshots on your website of captive or wild animals?
The eagle and hawk headshots - These birds were photographed as part of a wildlife rehabilitation series in 2007, both in Florida. The birds were intentionally injured by the hand of man. It is doubtful that these birds will be released back into the wild. If you look at the hawk image, the one with his head turned left with the shorter beak and different lip pattern (BOPA09), the injury location is clearly evident in the feather pattern on the left side of the image. The other hawk (FSPA22) also had an injury to same side of his body as seen by the fact that the wings are not folded at the same height.
Ethics in Digital Photography
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by George Wilson
). 
