Photography Ethics question. Again.

[martti]

Just wondering....where in the world can we still find herds of wild horses?
Mongolia?
Not talking about feral horses (offspring of domesticated horses) but wild.

 

[Marsu42]

Just wondering....where in the world can we still find herds of wild horses?
Mongolia?

The only remaining genetically "wild horses" are the Przewalski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse) as the European Tarpan is extinct. But since a century attempts have been made to back-breed the Tarpan, as they've mated with other horses back then. Alas, it's mostly the exterior that bears resemblance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konik

But horses of this Konik group can be found in central Europe, they're set up on lands not good enough for intensive agriculture and the idea is to prevent the open spaces to become bushland. As there's minimal care (national laws apply, of course), they're outside all the time and have to look for feed for themselves they're as "wild" as it gets outside Mongolia.

And lacking the existence of real "wild" I call this type of feral "wild" for illustrative purposes, to me "feral" sounds like riding horses simply bolted from stables like the American Mustang, but the Konik group is deliberately meant to get as "Tarpan" as possible.

As I said, I have only retouched 3 wildlife photos, and most of my photos are left with what some photographers might consider unclean or distracting elements like these

Oh my, you're certainly tougher than me - my mental mouse pointer hovers over Lightroom's healing brush icon esp. looking at the green grass at the bottom of the snake shot :->

 

[mackguyver]

As I said, I have only retouched 3 wildlife photos, and most of my photos are left with what some photographers might consider unclean or distracting elements like these

Oh my, you're certainly tougher than me - my mental mouse pointer hovers over Lightroom's healing brush icon esp. looking at the green grass at the bottom of the snake shot :->

I know, I wish I'd gotten a better shot of the snake, and I could knock out the leaves, but I'm okay with them and fear the shot would look too clean without them. I try very hard to get it right in the camera and move around all I can to get the shot. I found it very frustrating when I first started as I wouldn't notice them in the viewfinder, but would be upset when I got home to see leaves and things obscuring the eyes or other things. With time, a lot of practice, and even more patience, I've gotten better, but the wilderness is just that - wild.

I am often tempted to remove small details like the ripples at the top of this photo:

Or the feather on this beak, but I think these "flaws" give the photos realism:

 

[Marsu42]

I am often tempted to remove small details like the ripples at the top of this photo:
Or the feather on this beak, but I think these "flaws" give the photos realism:

Imho these are better left untouched, the ripples give depth and perspective, and the feather feels natural. Esp. the bird looks really nice this way, but w/o the feather you might wonder if it's a stuffed museum piece :->

My problems are mostly with far in between, but tall grass - the natural enemy of the wildlife photog. Esp. when lying on the ground there's always something in the way except in spring - most of the time I have carefully tear out these out first as you cannot heal fur/feather texture in post-processing.

The biggest problem is when using fill flash as these leaves near the flash catch a lot of light and you only see it in image review because of the shutter blackout - a lot of my shots get ruined this way.

 

[RLPhoto]

Wasn't there a Nat-Geo Awarded photograph disqualified for cloning a single plastic bag out of the photo?

If its pure reportage, sure I'd imagine you wouldn't tamper what was in the photograph but processing it, is ethical. Also if your submitting to a contest, I wouldn't clone.

Otherwise, If I couldn't get it out of the frame, Hello J-tool.

 

[sanj]

Mackguyver nice photos and I appreciate your restrain!

 

[sanj]

By coincidence, have just watched this video, which provides some interesting thoughts and examples on the ethics of post production: -

http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/photography-truth-vs-beauty/

Very nice video!

 

[sanj]

.... Sometimes, editors will crop, manipulate minor corrections, but generally it's always assumed that the image in any journal or newspaper, magazine is direct from the camera, a recording of history. Journalists have been fired for changing an image -- one in particular in the news last year - cropped (or cut) a piece of his assistant's camera out of the corner of an image shot in Afghanistan during a conflict -- and he was immediately fired.

I have difficulty being sympathetic with this amount of political correctness re. photography "rules"

The subject matter of the image presumably was NOT the assistant's camera (or existence).

The assistant's camera could contribute nothing to the intended visual communication other than distraction.

Had the photographer used a slightly longer lens, or "zoomed" by lens or foot a bit closer, the assistant's camera would not have shown.

Instead he zoomed by cropping (one possibility mentioned, or by cutting) and simply offered less (not DIFFERENT!) content than he might have included by using an even wider lens, etc.)

So, patently extraneous material was excluded from the image with nothing "changed" regarding the intended subject.

The result, still an accurate recording of history, less all the other surrounding "history" that might have been/could have been/ thank heavens was not (confusingly) shown.

Who cares?

Fired? Nose-in-the-air hall monitor mentality, ..."It's against the rule!"

Sheese! :

Question authority.

Yes I agree: ALL photographs are a representation. ALL.

 

[sanj]

I do not care about input, i care about output, the "final images" we present to our viewers.
I like sanj's lion pics, i like mcguyvers bobcat image. While i recognize and respect the immense difference in effort to capture such images in the wild vs. people like myself clicking aeay in a zoo ... At the end it is an image that i judhe on its own merits. To me it dors not matter whether Picasso or fa Vinci labored many hours, weeks or months over a given painting (image) and whether they used narrow or wide brushes or whether they just finished it withon half an hour on the quick or whether they used brushes or rollers or spatulas ... Or whether they smoked some grass or drank some wine in their creative process, or if they created it in their studio or out in the landscape.

As viewer all i consider is the final image. I don't care how much effort it took to create it. Or whether it was in the wild or in a zoo, staged or ubstagrd, captured "as seen" or modified post capture. It is the image, that counts. The lion crouching. The lipsmacking bobcat. Dont care whether the photographer got the shot after half an hour or after 2 painful weeks in a camouflage tent.

Agree!! Some stunt people I know talk about how they hung an actor from a building for hours to get a shot. For me the end result matters even it it was chroma or real or was done quick or slow does not matter...

 

[sanj]

"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

True True True!

 

[dolina]

The very act of framing distorts "reality".

 

[sanj]

The very act of framing distorts "reality".

Yes.

 

[Marsu42]

By coincidence, have just watched this video, which provides some interesting thoughts and examples on the ethics of post production: http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/photography-truth-vs-beauty/

Interesting one, a worthwhile watch!

After this, I'd say there's a distinction between changes on the set that could have been easily done instead of cloning (like removing garbage from the ground or removing some grass leaves) and what couldn't (like removing telegraph poles).

And of course layering (i.e. changing the composure) compositing multiple images is another ballpark like simply cloning a part of the very same picture to heal background or foreground distractions in the out of focus areas.

 

[Orangutan]

The very act of framing distorts "reality".

No one disputes this fact, and it doesn't affect the main argument at all. Take for example http://petapixel.com/2011/10/04/an-eye-opening-look-at-how-many-conflict-photos-are-staged

The primary question is whether the distortion is within bounds of expectation of the customer/client.

• If you are your own customer/client then your expectations are met
• If your customers/clients see your work as photojournalism then it should meet the expectation of journalism as "the first rough draft of history" (quote attributed to Philip L. Graham)
• If your customers/clients see your work as naturalism, then it needs to meet fidelity to that ideal
• If your customers/clients see your work as "art," then we find ourselves in the grey area, and need to think a little deeper.

Consider literary satire. Good satire is almost unlimited: you can make any kind of improbable or even false statement in a completely factual tone throughout the work. We also know that it's sometimes difficulty to distinguish good satire from bad thinking, e.g. Poe's Law, so every work of satire needs to have some "wink" or clue to the readers that it's not to be taken seriously. The same is true for artistic photography: you can edit your work in any way you want, but you must leave some reasonable clue to your customers/clients that it's manipulated. You need not tell them exactly how it's manipulated, they can ask if they're curious.

I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?

 

[Marsu42]

I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?

In photojournalism, it tells me that the public's view is already so distorted that the bearer of bad news is killed instantly. No one wants to hear that with the psychology of media selection and framing manipulation of individual photos doesn't make a difference at all in the big picture (pun intended).

In "art", it tells me that you can tell it and still fetch a price of $4+ Million even if the manipulation affects the very essence of the picture like in this case:

 

[mackguyver]

I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.

 

[Orangutan]

I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?

In photojournalism, it tells me that the public's view is already so distorted that the bearer of bad news is killed instantly. No one wants to hear that with the psychology of media selection and framing manipulation of individual photos doesn't make a difference at all in the big picture (pun intended).

Journalism has its problems, especially here in the U.S.

In "art", it tells me that you can tell it and still fetch a price of $4+ Million even if the manipulation affects the very essence of the picture like in this case:

I know very little about this photo or its maker, but my understanding was that the price was high largely because it was manipulated to represent what the landscape would have been without development in that area. It was supposed to be some kind of social commentary, I think. Also, the photographer was already quite famous. But I'm too lazy to investigate, and my memory is probably faulty.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Orangutan.
I think it would be reasonable to say that most if not all memories are defective, I remember being right far more often than I am! ;D

Cheers, Graham.

Also, the photographer was already quite famous. But I'm too lazy to investigate, and my memory is probably faulty.

 

[Marsu42]

Journalism has its problems, especially here in the U.S.

To be fair, in the western countries media have at least to try to hide any bias, while in Russia the whole thing is owned by the president's buddies and if you disagree you'll see the gulag or coffin from inside. They certainly don't care about plastic bags removed from pictures :-\

The problem over here (I'm in Germany) is that like the video above says, photogs are an easy target when it comes to placing blame, while the influence of big media enterprises is seldom reported on except in social media.

I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.

No, I didn't see it in large. Is there a hi-res one available somewhere that shows the edits, or a version w/o the edits that shows the actual "as taken" image? If you've seen it, you can save me some google'ing

 

[mackguyver]

I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.

No, I didn't see it in large. Is there a hi-res one available somewhere that shows the edits, or a version w/o the edits that shows the actual "as taken" image? If you've seen it, you can save me some google'ing

I've seen it, but don't remember where. It might have been on petapixel.com, but I'm not sure.