Wrong Photography Ethics?

[sdsr]

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable. Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

On the off-chance your comments aren't tongue-in-cheek, what's the (relevant) difference between adding a flying bird and subtracting a flying bird? (They're both additions anyway.) And why is it obvious that the ethics of all of this are defined by what can be done in a wet darkroom?

 

[woollybear]

Most of us are not forensic photographers who shoot crime scenes and dead bodies ... photography for me is a passionate hobby and an art form ... I'm no good at drawing or painting or sculpting ... the closest I can hope to get to any decent art form is making images and manipulating them the way I like ... I am happy to manipulate and change images so they are pleasing and/or compelling to look at ... even if it mans adding a lighting bolt or removing an ugly wire or add an extra cheetah or make a fat person look a little slimmer (in fact I routinely use liquify tool to make people, with a big paunch, look a little slimmer) and as a photographer it gives me great joy to see people feel good about themselves when they look at the images I've manipulated ... I don't give a damn if the so called "purists" think it is unethical ... I thank God everyday that photography is my hobby and that it gives me a chance to look for beauty in the world around me and if I can't see it, I'll just manipulate that scene in photoshop, and I don't need to worry about being unethical coz I am not a forensic photographer shooting crime scenes and dead bodies.

Couldn't agree more...only thing I would add to crime scenes and dead bodies is news.

 

[awinphoto]

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable. Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

So I can take a nice portrait shot and delete the everything but the eyes, it's okay? Or do I have to run that by the edit police to determine what is deletable and what isn't?

BTW, by deleting ANYTHING you are adding as well--you are adding space or order or isolation, etc. Like the construction crane behind the building example--that's not reflecting reality, it's portraying an enhanced reality that is meets the photographer's tastes.

Even just enhancing contrast is a change to reality, yet so many of you are saying "deviations from reality that meet my arbitrary criteria are okay, but everything else is taboo." That's a bit egotistical, don't ya think? ???

Good lord... photography is an art form... altered or non altered, it's an art form... In the film days did you not think they spliced film? overlapped film? Added density filters, dodge, burn, enhance, multiple exposure... I would hate to hear someone say ansel adams work wasn't photography because of all the manipulation he did in the darkroom... It is what it is... No one is going to look at a print ANY LESS if it was heavily manipulated vs OOC. Then you have photographers like Sal Cincotta and Dave Cross shoot some pictures just for post production if needed. I doubt any of their clients who are spending thousands for his services think his work isn't art/photography.

 

[Mick]

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?

 

[Hobby Shooter]

i was recently on safari and two american tourists were treating the locals like part of the trip. elephants.lions...african children. i found it very uncomfortable. would you drive around your home town taking photos of young girls? or the guy who works in the local shop? i find the whole photography tourist thing very odd sometimes, and god knows what they think of us.

That is a side track, but a very good one. It's not only about photography but ethics in general. I live in a very poor country and it's really painful to see sometimes the way tourists treat the locals here. They will sometimes actually feed poor street children while taking pictures of them. It's repulsive. There is a big difference in taking pictures of locals and exploit locals.

 

[Don Haines]

i was recently on safari and two american tourists were treating the locals like part of the trip. elephants.lions...african children. i found it very uncomfortable. would you drive around your home town taking photos of young girls? or the guy who works in the local shop? i find the whole photography tourist thing very odd sometimes, and god knows what they think of us.

Interesting insight.... Treat the locals with respect, talk to them, and both have a far better experience.... and who knows what will come of it.... including photographic oportunities that only the locals know about....

 

[jdramirez]

I'm ok with it. It's your image... and sometimes bumping saturation and contrast make for a better image. You didn't remarkably change the context of the image, putting a tornado in the background or a jet plane about to crash...

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Hobbyshooter: Nothing like this being MY thread. It is for all of us to learn and express.
Regards!

Thanks Sanj

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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]

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.

 

[Krob78]

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!

This is a pretty stupid topic.

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!

 

[Don Haines]

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.

 

[Krob78]

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...

 

[Don Haines]

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......

 

[Krob78]

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...

 

[expatinasia]

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.

 

[AprilForever]

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...

 

[mb66energy]

Just my 2 ct.

[list type=decimal]
[*]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"[/list].
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.

 

[pharp]

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.]

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