Photography Ethics question. Again.

[sanj]

Looking at the photo, I wonder if you realize, Sanj, that it looks like you've replaced one whitish bird (camera right, slightly above lion) with two piles of poop? :

Looks like that whitish bird was another lion in the background and there was also a part of a bird on the middle-right edge of the frame.

Not another lion for sure. Cant make out what it actually is. My guess is an Egyptian vulture. I posted the full frame above.

 

[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.

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.

Of course all replies in this thread are heavily biased, we're all photogs, after all. Remember someone asking "is it unethical to shoot outside designated hunting periods" in a hunter's forum, the answer would be "not if a good cause merits it, and even if not, what the heck".

But think of some bird scientist researching the net about how large mammals and birds co-exists in nature preserves. And surprise, no birds to be seen anywhere near photo opportunities... and none of these images marked as "edited".

There are endless possibilities with which an image can be observed, probably that's why magazines' rules are as they are - not to harass photogs to dump a shot because a bird got in the way.

 

[monkey44]

When we digest all the responses here, it suggests varying opinion about what can be accomplished with PP, but it never gets to the OP point. The over-articulation of "individual pieces of this puzzle" expressed here do not examine the ethical component of our work as photographers and artists.

No reason exists in any form of image expression that constitutes "unethical" images -- images don't contain properties of ethics. It's the photographer that determines how the image is received (or published). We can manipulate any file any way we choose, as long as we don't misrepresent what we exhibit.

The bottom line in most of what has been written here illustrates that very clearly.

No one says:: You can't digitally manipulate an image. No one says if you manipulate images you become an unethical jerk. But an artist suggesting to the public the image is not manipulated, when it in fact has been manipulated extensively -- that's where the ethical violation will always occur ... (Now, of course, we'll have a discussion about how we define 'extensively) -- (which is fairly easily defined unless one chooses to peep at the atomic level.)

I believe we are all in agreement that minimal clarity, minimal sharpening, some cropping occurs as a matter of preparing the digital image for production without changing the image reliability... same as with the original B&W processing in a darkroom... Generally, an accepted factor in film processing.

So the ethical violations may occur only when and how the artist presents the work, and never in the work itself.

 

[AvTvM]

No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think. Just get over it. As long as there is no misleading or deceiving story/message sold with/through or about an image, everything is fine with me.

The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals bevahiour and resulting subsequent images than cropping out some of those birds or changing closed eyes to open eyes in PP.

By today's ridicoulous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted. ;D

 

[monkey44]

Quote:: "By today's ridiculous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted." ;D

As I understand it, a simple muddy paw print is sufficient for a release. Except in the case of monkeys. ;D ;D

 

[Orangutan]

No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think.

That strikes me as a bit of a false dichotomy: the fact that it's not a perfect representation of reality doesn't mean it's not a very good representation of reality. More important, though, is the fact that there's a long-established expectation regarding how well photographs represent reality.

Just get over it. As long as there is no misleading or deceiving story/message sold with/through or about an image, everything is fine with me.

I suggest you ask non-photographer friends what they think the standard ought to be. You may find that the standards set by photographers are very different from those set by non-photographers.

The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals bevahiour and resulting subsequent images than cropping out some of those birds or changing closed eyes to open eyes in PP.

That would be a good question for a wildlife biologist/lion expert to address. It's plausible, but I doubt anyone on this forum has sufficient lion expertise to address it in any meaningful way.

By today's ridicoulous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted. ;D

Here's a recent cartoon that's almost on-topic: http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/bizarro/s-1626528

 

[monkey44]

QUOTE:: "The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals behavior and resulting subsequent images

Quote:: "That would be a good question for a wildlife biologist/lion expert to address. It's plausible, but I doubt anyone on this forum has sufficient lion expertise to address it in any meaningful way."

IF you'll accept a wildlife behavior anthropologist word on this :: It is absolutely true that photographers will unbalance species behavior in the wild, particularly predators. Altho, I have no experience with lion behavior, in general across any predatory species, intrusion by any unfamiliar species, including humans (or machines as well) will upset that balance and create unique and different responses instead of normal behavior. The greater (or a newer) the intrusion, the greater the unbalance to normal behavior.

Animals in general are much more aware of human intrusion than humans realize, or even how soon animals perceive that intrusion -- Animals are extremely aware of the local environment, and don't require visual confirmation of a threat ... animals will respond only when they perceive that threat to be real and timely -- but the normal behavior will adjust any time even a minimally unusual situation occurs (Like a photographer entering the territory -- even in a blind or hiding)

SO, basically, I agree with quote one here. However, in many areas where research or photography occurs frequently, the effects will lessen over time, and eventually become a normal occurence and cause limited behavioral reactions from the animals. Thinks zoos, or wildlife preserves open to the public here.

 

[sanj]

I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.

 

[AvTvM]

I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.

Sanj, sorry but in my extremely limited experience and as an absolute non-expert i have often noticed clearly discernible reactions of wildlife to the presence of humans / cars ... to the point of "very active interaction". Once I had a spotted hyena or rather her 7 young cubs playing with our car for almost an hour.

Yes, there will be less reaction or no easily recognized changes in behaviour if human/s and/or machines are further away and/or well camouflaged - but ... if we humans get close enough to a wild animal like large cats to get a clean picture of it (with any focal length) i am sure the cat is fully aware of our presence.

Other than for scientific purposes I do not see this as "a problem in terms pf photography/imaging". It might be a problem for the wildlife, but I am also not too much fettered by that. As I said i don't mind at all stamping away some OOF birds in PP or cloning open eyes to another image. And wildlife imaging competetion rules that ban any sort of "visual content modification" are simply yeasteryear. I prefer to see "visually improved end results" ... i.e. IMAGES, rather than "raw captures".

Personally I prefer your lion shot with less or no disturbing birds in it and your lion cubs with eyes open. And I fail to see any "ethical dimension" involved here. WE are the photographers, WE call the shots in OUR images, WE decide, what we capture, how we capture it and what OUR final images look like. It is our privilege to create images from light, "any imaginable image in the entire universe - real or "invented"- as we see fit, and as best as we can pull it off usin all and any skills and means at our disposal.

So, your final images look pretty darn fine to me! 8)

And no, I would not want having to read a page of legalese small print attached to those lion images, detailing what steps were taken in PP and that a few OOF birds were stamped out. Demands for "full disclosure" are so utterly ridiculous. We are photographers, we create (stunning!) images from mere photons! How we do that, is nobody else's business. If we choose so, we may kindly explain where, under what circumstances, with what type of euqipment and how exactly we created an image - but we are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.

 

[monkey44]

I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.

You don't know if you change the behavior, unless you observe them the same amount of time when you're not there. You only see them when you are there and how they behave when you're close enough to see them -- and believe it, every time a human or other 'device' approaches, regardless of what you think, they KNOW you are there way before you do -- and the behavior changes. IF they are in an area where human encroachment is frequent, they will adjust to human presence, but the behavior is different than when they are undisturbed, no matter how subtle the change.

 

[pwp]

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

You bet! The birds lawyers will be contacting you shortly...

This is a huge subject that desperately needs to be deliberated on by better heads than mine. My personal view is that the ultra hard-line taken by some media outlets and competitions needs some examination and refinement and possibly a chill-pill. There has been a farcical element to the World Press Awards every year for the past few years.

What if the birds were near the edge of the frame and you cropped them out. Is that unethical? A news editorial picture needs to tell a story. So long as manipulations or cropping don't alter the truth of an editorial image, then I say go for it. Is a staged or setup shot ineligible or unethical?

Since the dawn of editorial photography images have had areas cropped, burnt in or dodged in order to bring emphasis to the key subject. We routinely use very long lenses or very large aperture lenses to isolate a subject to emphasize it. Is that unethical? We use ultra-wides to create a different look, often far from reality. Is that unethical too? Is the only truly ethical shot one that is taken with a standard 50mm lens, uncropped and with no refinements in post production?

You could write a PHD on this subject...

-pw

 

[monkey44]

Once again PWP, you miss the point -- no one here has accused anyone that manipulates an image of unethical conduct in doing so ...

Where the ethics engages is ONLY when a photographer manipulates an image, and then states s/he did not manipulate it. Therein lies the ethical dilemma - never in creating the image, but only in the denial of that fact.

I suspect many of the responders here do not read all postings in a discussion - but merely read the initial post and jump in with a comment that lacks continuity within the thread. Happens a lot, and in a lot of threads -- and creates a lot of inaccurate redundancy in the subjects.

 

[Besisika]

No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think.

That strikes me as a bit of a false dichotomy: the fact that it's not a perfect representation of reality doesn't mean it's not a very good representation of reality. More important, though, is the fact that there's a long-established expectation regarding how well photographs represent reality.

As long as it is not a perfect representation one may have a reasonable doubt - I am one of them.
Agreed, it tells a lot about reality.
What bothers me, though, is the fact that one have the power to manipulate what he perceives (or more specifically, he wants to show because that's how he sees it) as reality and I have to agree that it is the reality because it is a photograph.

May be it is time to change that long-established expectation.
When I was a non photographer I took it for granted that a photo always tells the truth as it was caught on camera, but as further I advance in my techniques I understand more what possibilities I posses to be able to manipulate public perceptions.
The point is that we convert a 3 dimensional reality into a flat 2 and as a result we use only one, out of gazillion, aspect of that reality to represent it. It is a good representation but may not be good enough for some.

 

[AvTvM]

"faithful representation of reality" is not even an illusion. It is simply impossible as long as individual human brains are any different from each other. ;D

An image is always only an image. It is never a representation of reality. It might be a representation of one "surface of reality" - if "reality" even exists. After all, we might all be living in a matrix, and the whole world, inclduing any image we see and this forum is just ... "virtual reality". 8) ;D

 

[pwp]

Once again PWP, you miss the point -- no one here has accused anyone that manipulates an image of unethical conduct in doing so ...

As a fallible, curious human being I frequently deviate from the point!

This is a fascinating thread that re-visits a highly contentious subject, especially for committed working editorial photographers.

In this case I was extrapolating outwards from the core thread material towards a broader viewpoint. (well tsk...)
I'll attempt to keep the conversation right on-topic in the future.

-pw

 

[martti]

When Disney's film crew threw lemmings off the cliff filming the White Wilderness, that was unethical.

 

[mackguyver]

Lots of good discussion on this topic, and I think at the end of the day, it's a personal choice and only matters if you're entering a serious contest or having your work published in venue that requires unretouched work (see this example of a disqualification for a simple clone vs. a crop).

Specific to this photo, you might look at it this way - had you been able to capture the photo a few seconds/minutes later, perhaps the birds wouldn't have been there. I have this happen all of the time with certain birds to feed in groups (mainly Ibis) and get in the shot when I'm trying to get a portrait of a single bird. If you wait, you might get the clean shot but miss the moment. Again, this is what typically happens to me.

In your photo, I don't think that removing the birds (which are quite distracting) constitutes a change that would alter the meaning or behavior of the subject, so I don't see it as serious change. On the other hand, it is an alteration and you have to decide to either discard the image or alter it.

If it were my photo, I would likely discard it in favor of another photo, unless it was my best shot or the only shot of the subject and I really wanted it. I try very hard to reposition myself or wait for a better moment, but sometimes it just isn't possible. Over the years, I have retouched a total of 3 of my wildlife photos (portraits and commercial work are another topic) because they are 3 of my favorite shots and each shot is a special moment that I tried to capture without distraction but for one reason or another, I couldn't. I wish I could enter these in contests, but I can't. Here they are:

Removed distracting twigs and spider webs from perch

Removed distracting branches and leaves

Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw

EDIT: Here's a shot that pains me and one I have considered retouching, but haven't. I hate the distracting branch right behind the pelican crossing its beak, but if I remove it, should I remove the rock, shell and other items?:

 

[awinphoto]

ahhhhh i love posts like this... to edit or not to edit... i'm just going to post this link and let it be....

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

 

[AvTvM]

Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw

hehe, love that shot! That bobcat licks its lips and looks as if it just has seen a keen photographer ... for lunch. ;D

 

[mackguyver]

Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw

hehe, love that shot! That bobcat licks its lips and looks as if it just has seen a keen photographer ... for lunch. ;D

Thanks! And yes, the other guy didn't make it, but I got to keep his gear