November 26, 2014, 01:46:59 PM

Author Topic: Wrong Photography Ethics?  (Read 39808 times)

Jackson_Bill

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #90 on: May 11, 2013, 12:13:49 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #90 on: May 11, 2013, 12:13:49 AM »

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #91 on: May 11, 2013, 12:23:44 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #92 on: May 11, 2013, 12:30:16 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?
Good question, because that simply isn't true.
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #93 on: May 11, 2013, 12:44:02 AM »
This is a pretty stupid topic. It's all opinions vs opinions. It's never going to go anywhere. To the OP I like your photo either way, heck put the trees back and add a thunderstorm enter it into a contest and win. Heck if the contest doesn't state you can't edit photos then go for it! Everyone else has access to the same tools as you do. People can take photos of cheetahs if they want to. What's the big deal? No one wants a boring photo, if that's what the OP saw but nature changed before he could get the photo then recreate to how it was in the minds eye. If I bought that PHOTO from the OP I wouldn't care about the edit because looking at it everyday would better my mood. Is the film negative the photo and everything after is a print or copy of the photo? This debate will be even worse 100 years from now, when photography will probably have evolved yet again. How about Instagram are those photos or digital art? Just enjoy life and take photos or whatever you want to call them! Print them share them sell them. Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!
Quote
This is a pretty stupid topic.
Quote
Enjoy what you and others create and stop wasting time criticizing!
That was a bit critical, no?  :)  Seems like, "I like his image" would have been more apropos!


I did say I like his photo! And I truely do, ethics shouldn't apply to this. If that's what he wanted the photo to look like or how he saw it and he's got the ability to make it so then by all means do it.
Sorry Kenne, you did say you liked his photo.  I was just pointing out the bit of irony that you were criticizing the thread about people criticizing each other in the thread... More appropriately, I should have said; "Seems like, "I like this thread" would have been more apropos!  Just trying to lighten things up, I did however misstate my thought and I apologize.  No hard feelings I hope!  All the best!
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3477
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #94 on: May 11, 2013, 12:49:40 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?
Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.
The best camera is the one in your hands

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #95 on: May 11, 2013, 01:05:39 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?
Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.
I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3477
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #96 on: May 11, 2013, 01:09:08 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?
Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.
I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...

My favourite is the February 1982 issue where they moved the pyramids closer together on the cover shot.....but that was done in a darkroom so it must be ok......
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #96 on: May 11, 2013, 01:09:08 AM »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #97 on: May 11, 2013, 01:19:05 AM »
My view is quite a simple one. If you look at National Geographic magazine you will see photographs beyond what we see on here. Yet,they were all taken in camera. If such can be taken in camera, why do you need a computer to make your images look better when they dont?
+1
Mick, are you saying that no photos published in Nat Geo has been post processed?
Good question, because that simply isn't true.

Ever hear of Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife? They provide "wild animals" for the film and photography industries. National Geographic is one of thier best clients. Go look them up on the web and look at thier client list and credits list.

National Geographic passes off trained rent-an-animals as wildlife..... and Mick would have us believe that they are so ethical that they do no post-processing of images.....  National Geographic has a long history of manufacturing articles that runs all the way back to faking Peary reaching the north pole.
I believe I've even seen some HDR in a NGM not to many months ago...

My favourite is the February 1982 issue where they moved the pyramids closer together on the cover shot.....but that was done in a darkroom so it must be ok......
Lol!  Yes, perfectly acceptable in that case...
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 970
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #98 on: May 11, 2013, 01:34:43 AM »
Interesting thread and I think the worse thing about it is the choice or words in the title. I do not see this as having anything to do with ethics (unless you try to cheat, fraud or break laws etc) and more to do with where the boundaries between art, digital art and photography lie.

I agree with those that say that as soon as you add elements (or take away elements) from a photograph then you are entering the world of make believe, and consequently art. You are creating something that did not exist, but that your mind wanted to see.

One example of this, would be the CR forum member Gary Samples who posted a picture of two eagles fighting. The one on top was pushing the other into a stream. It is an amazing picture, and I would bet money on the fact that Gary changed very, very little and most definitely did not add or subtract anything from the shot (which is in the 1D X image gallery section. I suggested at the time that he enter it into a competition as I had never seen anything like it. That is photography. If he had added a fish to the beak of one and possible added a bear in the background then it becomes digital art. Incidentally if someone were to paint that moment on canvas, I am sure it would make for an amazing painting too. That would be art.

HDR is on the very verge of this, and possibly on the verge of video too, but as it does not actually add, or subtract, elements that did not exist I still see it as photography.

I am quite possibly the worse artist in the world, and that is saying something considering some of the c**p that sells for millions. The camera allows me, and possibly many of us here to be better artists. We recognise the beauty of something, but if you give us paint, canvas and a brush, then it just is not going to come out the way we would like. I admire anyone like Banksie (is that the right spelling?) and I adore his art. I make the best of my limited talents and try to capture moments with a tool which allows me to do so, but I am a billion miles away from ever being an artist. Even digital art is absolutely amazing and requires some very special people to create what they do. Me, I just point and shoot.  :)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 01:45:03 AM by expatinasia »
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #99 on: May 11, 2013, 03:05:53 AM »
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.

Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.

Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?

Thx

Read the birdsasart-blog.com, and Alain Briot's articles on luminous-landscape.com...
What is truth?

mb66energy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #100 on: May 11, 2013, 04:46:28 AM »
Just my 2 ct.

  • Adjusting an image before exposure by using the right focal lenth, position, composition, exposure values, film/sensor, LIGHT is photography.
    Adjusting what the negative/RAW contains to adapt it to what you have seen in a wet/digital darkroom is photography.
    HDR and focus stacking is sth. that recreates what we perceive - by our highly dynamic biological sensors (retina + brain) and adjusting focus by our eyes. So it is too photography.
  • Everything else is no longer photography - in german language I would say "Montage" or composite. And I think it should be referenced as "Composite: Photogs Name" instead of "Photo: Photgs Name"
.
I would count each removal and addition of components to the category "Composite".
[/list]

Both are valuable contributions to art (at least in some cases - I produce a lot of non-art photos for the trash).

To sanj: Thanks for the thread, it was a good starting point to think about what photography is ... or might be.
TOOLS: EF-S 10-22 | 60 || EF 2.8/24 | 2.8/40* | 2.8 100 Macro* |2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200* | 5.6/400* || 2 x 40D | 600D | EOS M  [* most used lenses]

pharp

  • Guest
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #101 on: May 11, 2013, 07:54:59 AM »
I wouldn't even consider this an ethical issue. Maybe, if you were to sell it under false pretenses or entered it into a contest that prohibits such manipulation. What you do with your images is your own business. I assume that ALL advertising "photography" is heavily manipulated and I don't consider that unethical. Then you have things like 'fine art photography'- ethical?  http://www.lik.com/thework/clouds-skies-stars/bella-luna.html

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1515
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #102 on: May 11, 2013, 08:09:38 AM »
I wouldn't even consider this an ethical issue. Maybe, if you were to sell it under false pretenses or entered it into a contest that prohibits such manipulation. What you do with your images is your own business. I assume that ALL advertising "photography" is heavily manipulated and I don't consider that unethical. Then you have things like 'fine art photography'- ethical?  http://www.lik.com/thework/clouds-skies-stars/bella-luna.html

I was just wondering when Peter Lik would be brought into this debate ... Moon inside the earth's atmosphere ... Shooting with a 2000mm lens (or equivalent) and having massive DOF with outrageous claims ... Sheesh

Thse links are deep inside CR vault ... Threads which ultimately convinced me to sign up at CR  ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3156.0
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:36:20 AM by J.R. »
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #102 on: May 11, 2013, 08:09:38 AM »

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 986
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #103 on: May 11, 2013, 08:43:33 AM »
I like to leave reality behind..and create something...some like it, some don't...oh well...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8255/8649648621_3b1df8baf7_b.jpg

If you are a photojournalist, content should stay but you can definitely run image enhancing software on it to give it some snap etc.. as far as I am concerned. I know everyone does not feel that way. MOST images (even Nat. Geo) are heavily worked on...not photo comp. per say...but they are ALL run thru software. I think that probably 90% of "pro" images are today, generally you cannot compete if you just use the "in-camera" image. It's just the reality of the photography industry in 2013.
Whatever that is????
A little bit of ethics can go a long way tho!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 09:05:19 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Mick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
  • Wildlife, Landscape and above all sport.
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #104 on: May 11, 2013, 06:05:32 PM »

If you feel your photography is exceptional and you are a top photographer, try sending your images to Nat Geo.

They only have one rule. You must send them the RAW image aswell. If its tweeked, its in the bin.

Dont believe me? Then give it a try.
1DX, 1DMK4, 1DS3, 7D, 16-35 F2.8 mk2, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8 is L mk2, 500 f4 mk2, 300 f2.8 mk2 1x4 and 2x mk3 extenders.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« Reply #104 on: May 11, 2013, 06:05:32 PM »