Wrong Photography Ethics?

[infared]

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!

 

[Mick]

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.

 

[jimjamesjimmy]

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.

so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok?

that makes no sense to me whatsoever !

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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.

Im not good enough and Im not interested in landscapes or animal photography.

 

[eml58]

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?

Hi Mick, sorry, but your basically wrong.

The attached Photo is the front cover of the February 1982 National Geographic Magazine, it became quite famous due to the fact that the Nat Geo Photographer, Gordon Gahan, moved the Pyramids closer together in Post (Photoshop) to achieve a more "aesthetically" pleasing photo. His other Photos taken during this shoot were all either staged (he paid Camel drivers to ride backwards & forwards in front of the Pyramids to achieve his aims, or they were adjusted in Post for colour, saturation, crop etc.

I personally know 3 Photographers that frequently Provide Photographs & Articles for National Geographic Magazine, all provide both the RAW image & the Final Image to the editors, but Image manipulation is part and parcel of todays Photography, even at Nat Geo, They (Nat Geo) clearly do have more stringent rules regards the Images, but Mick, to think every Image you see in a Nat Geo Magazine in the year 2013 is a RAW Image, when at least since 1982 manipulation has been going on, is a little naive.

And Mick, to blanket statement that no one posting images on CR is in the same Ball Park as anyone that provides Images to National Geographic is simply a Blanket Insult, I dont remember ever seeing anyone on this Forum compare themselves to a Nat Geo Photographer, but I've certainly seen Images on this site that would be a shoe In for a Nat Geo Magazine.

 

[eml58]

For Mick

These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.

Have you ever seen a B&W Image in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated.

Have you ever seen a Stitched Panorama in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that employs stacked focussing in a Nat geo Magazine ?? Manipulated

Have you ever seen an Image that's been cropped etc Saturation levels increased etc

You get the Picture I'm sure.

 

[bycostello]

the problem is actually your original composition... as you say boring sky, so why have so much in the image

 

[Don Haines]

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.

so what your saying is its ok to have my raw settings, picture style/saturation/sharpness etc set in camera, but if i zero out everything and do it in my raw converter then its not ok?

that makes no sense to me whatsoever !

Bang on again.....

If I set up everything before the shot, then the out-of-camera jpg is acceptable.
If I take that RAW file and apply the exact same settings, it is evil.
And strangely enough, If I take that RAW file and make a B/W jpg out of it.... that's OK ?!?!?!?!?!
And all this from the magazine that publishes photos of "Bart the Bear" from Wasatch Rocky Mountain Animals as wildlife? That's like me heading of to the Papanac Zoo and shooting pictures of the wild animals.

As Spock would say.... "Highly illogical"

 

[serendipidy]

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 never heard of Peter Lik until I watched a number of episodes about him on TV ("From the Edge With Peter Lik - The Weather Channel"). I really liked the show and his photography. Of course he did heavy PP but I still liked most of his work. A lot better than any of my photos!

 

[agierke]

if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?

i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen?

art and photography are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?

i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen?

art and photography are not mutually exclusive.

I enjoy this thread, it's a perfectly valid question from Sanj to the forum members and I think the discussion has developed nicely. It's fun to try to define this and also to some extent important. At least that's my view.

 

[eml58]

if i retouch the dust spots out of my image is it no longer a photo?

i am simply stunned at the absurdity of this thread with so many people trying to tell everyone what is and isn't photography. its a pretty pointless exercise. ask yourselves this....who appointed you (in the general sense) the definer of the medium of photography and why should anyone listen?

art and photography are not mutually exclusive.

I enjoy this thread, it's a perfectly valid question from Sanj to the forum members and I think the discussion has developed nicely. It's fun to try to define this and also to some extent important. At least that's my view.

I agree, totally.

And it's a CR Forum thread, you don't "listen" you read.

Plus if the thread & comments/advice contained within don't meet with your particular brand of principals, then just move on to a thread/topic you do enjoy, and feel free to comment.

The Op asked for advise/Comments, with one or two exceptions the majority of Posters have done their best to assist the Op in what he asked and done so in a Positive manner, for you to define all the Posters here as absurd, is absurd.

And yes, at times these Threads drift off topic, but it's the nature of the beast when your dealing with individuals that have different views on how to answer the original query.

 

[sanj]

Hello!
Finally I have some time to comment on what I learnt in this thread.
I have read all thoughts very carefully and repeatedly on my cell while working but did not reply as I find it very difficult to do so on the phone.

I have concluded:
1. The moment we pick up the camera to take a photograph we CERTAINLY manipulate reality by:
Framing: We decide what we capture. This can never be what our eyes see. We select what we photograph. An am so glad we do this or else there would not be a point of view in a photograph.
2. Exposure: We decide what goes black and what goes white. We do not represent things exactly as they were. We create our own drama.
3. F stop: We throw background out of focus to isolate our subjects.
4. Shutter speed: We create subject or camera blur and enhance motion. Or we freeze it. Reality is rarely represented here.
5. External light source: We using lighting to enhance textures, create mood or simply lighten up darkness. M a n i p u l a t i o n!
6. We enhance our photos in post: We add/subtract colors, we re-frame, we blur, we sharpen, we remove sensor dust.
(This list is incomplete and you all know that.)

SO FAR THERE ARE NO CONCERNS ABOUT ANYTHING INCLUDING ETHICS MY MOST.

BUT..

The moment we add something to the frame or remove it (even if it could have been there) MANY find that wrong. In my case the clouds very well could have been there but since I added them I did a bad thing.

To ME, since photography is manipulation of reality in ALL cases, adding the clouds (after reading comments on this thread) is not something wrong as I just made the photo look better.

Thx. Now let me try to address some comments individually....

 

[sanj]

I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.

I tried keeping the trees but found it technically difficult to mask them out. My limitations. And yes, I will not enter it into contests, do not think it is that great even with the added clouds. Thx!

 

[sanj]

Do what you want but imho I appreciate you sharing that you did 'shop' it instead of trying to pull it off as an in camera sky.

Thank you. But I am not sure if someone ever wanted to buy this (doubt that) I may not have the heart to say that the clouds are added as would not want to spoil my first sale ever... lol.

 

[sanj]

I would have kept the trees. Modifying the image to suit you is fine, but don't enter it into any contests. Selling it is ok as well, but I'd disclose the modifications.

+1

Nature image competitions generally allow only cropping and 'global' adjustments (contrast, sharpening, etc.), and nothing 'from the hand of man' (fences, airplane contrails in the sky, etc.).

Yes sir will not. However I feel that photography, by it's very nature, is 'from the hand of man'. Thank you John.

 

[sanj]

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

Cheating? Photography = "painting with light", so IMHO, that's like asking if Picasso cheated because he used 2 different brush types on the same painting. Compose, create, and modify as much as you like. However, if you tell someone it's out of camera that way, that would be a lie. Still not cheating, though. ;-)

Heck, even "out of camera" can even be a lie these days, with cameras having in-camera HDR and other various effects options. Does it really matter whether the computer is in the camera itself or on your desktop?

After giving it lots of thought, I totally totally agree with you.

 

[sanj]

I personally do not mind it. I do mind people who have double standards on it. It is ok for photographer A to remove this and that and "Photoshop" it to death but photographer B cannot do the same just because.

When posting respect the community standards or contest rules.

Yes Dolina entering it into a competition where compositing is not accepted would indeed in unethical!

 

[sanj]

Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

I politely disagree. It certainly is photography, but it may just be misrepresenting things. But that is the fundamental core of photography - no matter what kind.

 

[sanj]

Looks great to me.

Personally I wouldn't photoshop to this extent, mostly because I like to push myself to see what I can get in in camera, but I don't think it goes against photography ethics as long as you don't try to hide the fact it's modified to this degree.

There will be many opinions on this but IMO as long as you feel comfortable with it and can stand behind it with integrity then run with it.

Thank you! Trust me Iholmes I do my very best I push myself VERY hard. But if I can enhance a photo later (I certainly do not want to make compositing a habit) I will not miss a chance.