Photography Ethics question. Again.

[sdsr]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

When you took the photo you chose a focal length, aperture etc. that resulted in a blurred background. Was that unethical?

As for the rest, if you say that the photo with the birds removed is what you saw, or what the camera captured, that's a lie, though rather trivial as lies go. If you enter it in a photo competition that bans such things, you've dishonestly violated an arguably stupid rule. If you sell or give it to someone who likes the image per se, I don't see why there's a problem at all, trivial or otherwise, unless they say they want it because the camera captured what you saw (which would be a tad weird), in which case we're back in the land of fairly trivial lies. If you're a journalist and want to submit it, you're bound by whatever the rules are of the organization you work for or are selling it to; ethics may not have anything to do with it except in some narrow, uninteresting sense.

If the point is to create an "art" photo - which I suspect is how most sane people would regard this photo - do what you want. If it's OK to tweak white balance, contrast, sharpness, etc., it's OK to remove birds, add kittens, etc. If it's OK to manipulate the image in-camera before you take the photo, it's OK to manipulate the image after you've taken it.

(As far as I'm concerned, there are far more significant photo ethics questions, such as those arising out of, say, using homeless people as props to make a "cool" image.)

 

[lescrane]

I've been cloning things out since cloning was invented and thought the issue was resolved, at least for me. Everyone has their own rules of what they feel comfortable doing and what they are skilled at. For me, if there's a lot of cleanup necessary it's almost not worth time.... remember it is a skill.just like graphic design is a skill, or editing for color/contrast etc is a skill

as others said, if cloning or other alterations are banned by a contest don't do it. Same for photojournalism if you are stipulating that the scene is a faithful reproduction of what you saw. If you are merely selling or displaying, or even publishing printsyou can clone to your hearts delight as you are selling a finished product that you want to be as aesthetically pleasing as it can be and you are not implying or attesting having a "unedited" final image

 

[lescrane]

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements

Is that MSI, Don? Looks familar.

 

[Don Haines]

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements

Is that MSI, Don? Looks familar.

Is MSI the Machias / Seal Island lighthouse?

This is Peggy's Cove, N.S, Canada

 

[Oceo]

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements

Is that MSI, Don? Looks familar.

Is MSI the Machias / Seal Island lighthouse?

This is Peggy's Cove, N.S, Canada

When I lived in Halifax there was a much easier way to remove people from the rocks around the lighthouse at Peggy's.
We would just wait for a late autumn nor-easter or an extra-tropical hurricane to come along and let the accompanying waves sweep those idiots off the rocks and out to sea. This proved time and again to not be a permanent solution, though. Sooner or later people would go down on those rocks, but it was never the same people twice.

 

[privatebydesign]

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements

Don, I think you missed the big distracting element

 

[dolina]

Ethics is based on your audience and the organisation you belong too.

If you are a photojournalist this becomes really important as this is part of your occupation.

As a hobbyist... again based on audience and organisation you belong too.

As far as I am concerned if it is your copyright you have every right to do what you wish to it.

I find people grabbing your photos without prior permission for the purpose of "conservation" very unethical and pretty much illegal.

 

[Don Haines]

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements

Don, I think you missed the big distracting element

According to many, I am the big distracting element

 

[Marsu42]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

My definition of "unethical" would be "change the meaning of the content" vs. "remove distaction (small like sensor spots, or larger like a leaf of grass near the subject.

In this case, I do think the content is changed as there's a bird near the lion facing the other way. Obviously, these birds don't think they have to stay clear. If you remove the bird, it looks like the birds are avoiding the lion which is creating a no-go zone around it.

 

[Hillsilly]

Assuming there is no requirement preventing image manipulation, I say go for it. It is your photo, and if you think it is a stronger image with the birds cloned out, then that's fine.

I struggle to see how anyone would consider it unethical. In fact, I think most people would automatically assume most images have been tinkered with. And while there are some areas where this is a no-no (such as wildlife and nature competitions), apart from scientific curiosity, it doesn't necessarily make those images more worthy or better or valuable.

 

[sanj]

Thank you everyone for your wonderful thoughts. I am aspiring one day to have a book. If this picture goes in there, it will be about lion behavior and not mention anything about the birds.

 

[AvTvM]

Great picture. I fail to see any "ethical question" here whatsoever.

Quite to the opposite, I find it fantastic, how digital photography enables us to get the images WE WANT so much easier than back in the old film days. And I don't consider an image "better or worse", "more ethical or less ethical" based on whether what is shown depicts the scene "exactly as captured" [but possibly arranged in some ways] or modified in whichever way after capture.

The only limitation in my opinion applies to photojournalistic work. My personal limit for modifications is where they would "potentially change the perception of a news story in the eyes of the viewers". But I would not mind at all, if in some war reportage an assistants arm and camera are cropped out of an image. But "tripling the amount of smoke in the sky over Gaza after an air raid" is certainly unprofessional behaviour and (probably) unethical too.

With respect to this very lion image: it does not matter much to any viewer, whether there were also some birds in the vicinity close to the lion at time of capture. There is no perceptible interaction whatsoever between the animals. It is a great image of a lion crouching next to the water - and this does not change with or without birds visible in the frame. Removing some or all of those birds in PP only has the effect to focus more of the viewers attention on the main subject of the image - the lion, because some distractions (unsharp birds) are removed. Cannot see anything "unethical" in that at all.

Had a second lion been photoshopped into the image, now that would change the story told and be "not acceptable" to me in the context of journalistic work or scientific work. But if only the imagery itself is concerned - for "art purposes" - why not! Even if a Tyrannosaurus Rex was added to the image, I would not mind or find this unethical" in any way. Just bizarre maybe - depending on execution.

For this specific image, even if ALL of those optically pesky birds were removed, I cannot see anything that would make the image "unworthy" to participate in any nature photo contest. I also would not mind if the lion was lured to that specific place by means of some cat food or whatever. After all it is never a lion, it's only "an image of a lion" we are looking at. And if the wolf pictured http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8470962.stm is a tame, trained animal, and not a wild one, so what, it is still a wolf in a great image.

I think most of those contests' rules are utterly ridiculous and outdated, coming from some old-school analog socks with opinions from the last century. Those rules will change in time, as soon as digital natives finally take over command everywhere and those old buggers are retired for good. 8)

 

[sanj]

Most likely I am crossing the limit now... Notice the eyes of the cub on the right.

 

[RichM]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

It is all about creating the image you want to have and what your artistic vision sees. The only time it is unethical is if you try to pass it off as something that it isn't. It is like a wedding photographer removing the two dogs having sex from the background of the wedding party shot in the park, or taking those power lines out of a sunset photo..... it is the removal of a distracting element in order that the subject of your picture stands out more.

I would agree that, if you materially change the photo and try to pass it off as unedited, then that is at least unethical. But some post processing is an integral part of the art form.

 

[Orangutan]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

My definition of "unethical" would be "change the meaning of the content" vs. "remove distaction (small like sensor spots, or larger like a leaf of grass near the subject.

In this case, I do think the content is changed as there's a bird near the lion facing the other way. Obviously, these birds don't think they have to stay clear. If you remove the bird, it looks like the birds are avoiding the lion which is creating a no-go zone around it.

This is a very good point: how other animals behave around lions is an integral part of "lion behavior." There is a difference between removing OOF birds far from the lion vs. birds near the lion.

 

[sanj]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

My definition of "unethical" would be "change the meaning of the content" vs. "remove distaction (small like sensor spots, or larger like a leaf of grass near the subject.

In this case, I do think the content is changed as there's a bird near the lion facing the other way. Obviously, these birds don't think they have to stay clear. If you remove the bird, it looks like the birds are avoiding the lion which is creating a no-go zone around it.

This is a very good point: how other animals behave around lions is an integral part of "lion behavior." There is a difference between removing OOF birds far from the lion vs. birds near the lion.

I can't agree. My thoughts:
1. These birds are generally oblivious of lions - lions seldom chase them.
2. This was shot with a 600mm lens and the birds you see are a minimum of 10 to 15 ft away from the lion and are flying around doing their thing without any concern of the lion. At waterholes birds constantly land and fly. These birds are mainly concerned with birds of prey and not lions.

 

[Orangutan]

I find it fantastic, how digital photography enables us to get the images WE WANT so much easier than back in the old film days. And I don't consider an image "better or worse", "more ethical or less ethical" based on whether what is shown depicts the scene "exactly as captured"

<snip>

The only limitation in my opinion applies to photojournalistic work. My personal limit for modifications is where they would "potentially change the perception of a news story in the eyes of the viewers".

You almost get there, but stop just short: the reason PJ work has its standards is that the customer (i.e. reader) has a reasonable expectation of a standard of truth. The same holds in all other aspects of photography, or business generally: don't fool your customers. If I buy a book about the behavior of lions I have a reasonable expectation that it will correctly reflect wild lion behavior, unless otherwise noted. It's a very short step from there to say that if I buy a single photo that appears to be a wild lion that I have a reasonable expectation that it's not a fauxtoshopped zoo lion. I emphasize: what you do for your own artistic pleasure creates no ethical problems. What you do to create a product for sale does.

For this specific image, even if ALL of those optically pesky birds were removed, I cannot see anything that would make the image "unworthy" to participate in any nature photo contest.

<snip>

After all it is never a lion, it's only "an image of a lion" we are looking at.

You're entitled to your opinions, but do you think the general population of photo customers agree with you? As a photographer you're entitled to make your image as you see fit. As a seller you're not entitled to misrepresent your image to the buyer. As I said in an earlier post, omitting information the customer would find important is a form of misrepresentation.

And if the wolf pictured http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8470962.stm is a tame, trained animal, and not a wild one, so what, it is still a wolf in a great image.

Again, you're giving yourself permission to impose your standards on everyone else. The fact that this photographer was penalized for misrepresentation should tell you that the majority opinion disagrees with you, and that you will be perceived as dishonest if you try to pass off a fabricated image as a representative image.

 

[martti]

Against the rules is not the same thing as unethical.
If you photoshop a picture to make it seem that somebody is committing a crime and put it online, that is unethical. Or...you know what.

Nice lions. I am crazy about felines big and small. It is amazing how a lion or two can turn a boring picture into something extraordinary. Or a tiger or a caracal or an ocelot...let alone a cheetah doing 65 miles an hour, hardly touching the ground. Poetry in motion.

Who wants crows, anyway.

 

[Orangutan]

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?

My definition of "unethical" would be "change the meaning of the content" vs. "remove distaction (small like sensor spots, or larger like a leaf of grass near the subject.

In this case, I do think the content is changed as there's a bird near the lion facing the other way. Obviously, these birds don't think they have to stay clear. If you remove the bird, it looks like the birds are avoiding the lion which is creating a no-go zone around it.

This is a very good point: how other animals behave around lions is an integral part of "lion behavior." There is a difference between removing OOF birds far from the lion vs. birds near the lion.

I can't agree. My thoughts:
1. These birds are generally oblivious of lions - lions seldom chase them.
2. This was shot with a 600mm lens and the birds you see are a minimum of 10 to 15 ft away from the lion and are flying around doing their thing without any concern of the lion. At waterholes birds constantly land and fly. These birds are mainly concerned with birds of prey and not lions.

You've obviously given this a lot of consideration, so I won't question your judgement on that. I have a couple final thoughts.

First: I live in the U.S. Several decades ago, when I was a child, I saw images on television about a famine in "Africa." (Africa was just a far-away place). The images that stayed with me were of starving children with flies on their faces. In my comfortable home a fly would be swatted away as soon as it landed. The fact that these children were either too weak or inured to flies was strikingly different from my existence. What the child did NOT do (swat the flies) was essential to the germination of my understanding of poverty and starvation.

Second: you may want to ask a wildlife biologist about the ethics of this particular shot. A book about lion behavior will attract the attention and critiques of experts.

Good luck with your project, it's a very nice photo.

 

[sanj]

Thank you Orangutan for the encouragement. It is a dream project, hopefully one day I get there.
Here is one photo for you: I was just amazed at how flies never frazzled them.
Photo name CR: To show that the lion in the picture I posted was crouching to pounce on another lion (to play) and not to attack any bird.
Photo name CR1: to show you the full un cropped photo. We can see some gazelles in the background: demonstrating how far they are - like the birds I removed. These gazelles would not come close to a lion.