« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 50 posts | 
by TDownunder on Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:57 pm
TDownunder
Forum Contributor
Posts: 74
Joined: 22 Apr 2011
Location: Queensland, Australia.
Audubon Magazine recently posted this link regarding image manipulation.


Audubon Magazine: http://mag.audubon.org/articles/nature/ ... ?page=show


Best regards

Trevor
 

by Dave Courtenay on Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:17 pm
Dave Courtenay
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1707
Joined: 6 Nov 2007
Location: North Carolina
I just voted on this and it seems that my answers matched everybody elses,


Dave
http://www.wildlifeinfocus.com


A Brit-A Broad
 

by Anthony Medici on Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:45 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
They are asking the wrong question on the owl image. They ask if the image should be disqualified. The answer is obvious, they needed to follow the rules and that didn't qualify under their rules. The question they should have asked is "Should the rules be change to allow this type of work to be allowed in the future?"

I, for one, think the rules should be changed to allow that type of work to qualify.
Tony
 

by DChan on Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:26 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Perhaps they should define what "nature photography" mean.

Interestingly that 63% of the people responded seem to have no problem with Ansel Adam's manipulation to get rid of some clouds in the final image, but 44% found Anita Merrigan's pond shot - which she may have simply adjusted the exposure, contrast and color in post and nothing more - not acceptable.
 

by signgrap on Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:37 pm
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
DChan wrote:Perhaps they should define what "nature photography" mean.

Interestingly that 63% of the people responded seem to have no problem with Ansel Adam's manipulation to get rid of some clouds in the final image, but 44% found Anita Merrigan's pond shot - which she may have simply adjusted the exposure, contrast and color in post and nothing more - not acceptable.
The reason is that they didn't show the original negative for Ansel Adams shot. If they had shown it and not said who the photographer was, most people would have said it was too much of a change. Also he worked in B/W and the changes seem much less dramatic when not in color.
Dick Ludwig
 

by Matthew Studebaker on Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:42 pm
User avatar
Matthew Studebaker
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8105
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Member #:00957
I guess I am somewhat at the center of this so I'll put in my two cents. My image 100% SHOULD have been disqualified. In fact, once I realized that the image was a pano merge, I was the first one who suggested the image should be withdrawn. It's totally their prerogative on what rules to lay out for the contest and it is the photographer's responsibility to abide by those rules. It was my mistake to not realize I had edited the shot beyond the allowances of the contest, and I apologized profusely to the people involved in the contest for not realizing it sooner and wasting their time. My only issue, is that the editor said he understood and thought it was a great discussion, but then portrayed the image as purposely deceptive. The error was my own. I wish he had given me the benefit of the doubt but I guess I can see why he might not. But it was my error and the image was correctly taken out.
Matthew Studebaker
website  | flickr blog | facebook
 

by MarcG19 on Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:06 am
User avatar
MarcG19
Forum Contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Ah, the "photography should reflect reality" business again......

If one defines reality as "what the human eye would see" (a definition which is very problematic neurologically or epistemologically), then use of any lens besides a 50mm equivalent in the 35mm format is manipulation.  (and even that's a big assumption, since no one really sees in 50mm).   If one judges Kodachrome as "real", then if I use Velvia am I manipulating?

Matt - great picture.  Too bad about the mistake, and the pillorying is unfortunate.
 

by photoman4343 on Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:35 am
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1947
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
I was intrigued by this topic, and I answered the questions too.  I agree with the comments above. Matthew , thanks for your post too about your image.  

Joe Smith
Joe Smith
 

by Leo Keeler on Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:48 am
User avatar
Leo Keeler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 898
Joined: 8 Feb 2007
Location: Emigrant, Montana
I've entered numerous contests and feel the rules are the rules and it is the photographer's responsibility to understand and adhere them.  However when misunderstandings occur they should be corrected and one mistake should not be used to judge a photographer's ethics.  Repeated failures to comply though are an indication of character

Many photographers work with contest managers to help improve the rules to comply with todays technologies, as well as those accepted in the past.  A good example is the Images For Conservation Pro Tour held in Texas.  The initial rules prohibited any cropping.  However after input from the contestants, the rules were modified to allow up to 10% cropping.  Within the Pro-Tour rules, the manipulations commonly done by Adams to change tone etc. only in selected areas, would be disqualified.  However changes in tone for the entire image is allowed.  The Pro-Tour rules do not allow many manipulations that are commonly accepted and not considered to alter the presentation of nature.  But the rules are tight for a reason - to make the contest tough.

The ethics of manipulation has been discussed for many years and disclosure is becoming an accepted way to present images, especially to magazines and editors, who make the choice of what they want their publication to be known for.  I often bring up the question if a turtle is found walking out of a meadow into the brush, and the photographer moves it back 5 feet in order to have good light before it enters the brush - is that acceptable manipulation and should it be noted in the photograph, or if a photographer uses his body to temporarily move a flower into the frame - is that acceptable and should it be noted? 

What is acceptable and what should be noted will always be changing.  I feel that peer pressure had done a lot to prevent damaging nature, i.e. cutting limbs, moving chicks out of nests, getting to close to nests in order to photograph an attacking parent etc. and I hope everyone continues to encourage "leave no trace" type techniques.
http://www.akwildlife.com
Fellow Member International League of Conservation Photographers, North American Nature Photographers, Past President of Friends of McNeil River
 

by prairiewing on Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:51 pm
prairiewing
Lifetime Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
Location: North Dakota
Member #:00208
MarcG19 wrote:Ah, the "photography should reflect reality" business again......

If one defines reality as "what the human eye would see" (a definition which is very problematic neurologically or epistemologically), then use of any lens besides a 50mm equivalent in the 35mm format is manipulation.  (and even that's a big assumption, since no one really sees in 50mm).   If one judges Kodachrome as "real", then if I use Velvia am I manipulating?

Matt - great picture.  Too bad about the mistake, and the pillorying is unfortunate.
Very well stated.  Just about any discussion about what photography "should" be hits the slippery slopes after a few steps.
Pat Gerlach
 

by Andrew Kandel on Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:11 pm
Andrew Kandel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 881
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Location: Missoula, Montana
I fall into the disclosure camp.   I have my own code of ethics about most of these issues that I try to live by, however they are a personal code and not one I would want to force upon everyone else.   With disclosure I think you allow the viewer to make their own decisions on what is or is not nature photography and what is an acceptable or excessive amount manipulation of a scene.
[url=http://www.andrewkandel.com/]Website[/url] - [url=http://wherebuffaloroam.wordpress.com/]Blog[/url] - [url=https://plus.google.com/112207995176022333771/posts]Google+[/url]
 

by Greg Basco on Sat Feb 01, 2014 2:55 pm
User avatar
Greg Basco
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2432
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Costa Rica
Member #:01519
The simple act of practicing disclosure and adherence to contest rules would clear up lots of issues in my opinion.

Cheers,
Greg Basco
 

by fredcor on Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:49 pm
fredcor
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186
My Post on the website is copied below.

Submitted by Alan L. Correa (not verified) on Sat, 2014/02/01 - 4:24pm.

Natural means:- existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Hence, Nature Photography is not:- any image produced other than meets the above. As it would be unnatural and should be disqualified or disclosed as such. The disclosure must be printed alongside every publication of the image, so as not to mislead any viewer that can read or that is able to understand the subject or presentation.

If we choose to change the meanings of words or descriptions as and when it suits us; then we should not have words.  Dictionaries and the printed word would become useless and should be burnt as they did in the middle ages.
Frederick Lat Correa
 

by Primus on Sun Feb 02, 2014 12:17 pm
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 905
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
MarcG19 wrote:Ah, the "photography should reflect reality" business again......

If one defines reality as "what the human eye would see" (a definition which is very problematic neurologically or epistemologically), then use of any lens besides a 50mm equivalent in the 35mm format is manipulation.  (and even that's a big assumption, since no one really sees in 50mm).   If one judges Kodachrome as "real", then if I use Velvia am I manipulating?

Matt - great picture.  Too bad about the mistake, and the pillorying is unfortunate.
You are correct, the definition of reality itself is problematic. Typically our eyes see only what is bang in the middle of the field as sharp, everything else, even a few degrees off-center is actually blurred. We also see reality in a very distorted way, it is our brain that reconstructs the image. Our color perception varies throughout the visual field and so many are color blind and some only see in monochrome. 

In any case, semantics aside, most people would agree that adding an animal by cloning or copying from another image is not 'reality' and neither is 'morphing' the subject to suit your taste. 

Everything else is a debate on the ethics of what is acceptable and what is not. Even though my answers matched the majority, I believe we all march to our own individual moral code (said this once too often on this forum) and that is going to be different for everybody.

Pradeep
 

by Mike Danzenbaker on Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:52 pm
Mike Danzenbaker
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3678
Joined: 1 Sep 2003
Member #:00559
Anthony Medici wrote:They are asking the wrong question on the owl image. They ask if the image should be disqualified. The answer is obvious, they needed to follow the rules and that didn't qualify under their rules. The question they should have asked is "Should the rules be change to allow this type of work to be allowed in the future?"

I, for one, think the rules should be changed to allow that type of work to qualify.
That question is asked in this much better follow-on article:

http://mag.audubon.org/articles/living/ ... oto-awards

.
"Animal instinct is more amazing than human ingenuity."

Mike
http://www.avesphoto.com
 

by david fletcher on Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:22 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Moderator
Posts: 33226
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
MarcG19 wrote:Ah, the "photography should reflect reality" business again......

If one defines reality as "what the human eye would see" (a definition which is very problematic neurologically or epistemologically), then use of any lens besides a 50mm equivalent in the 35mm format is manipulation.  (and even that's a big assumption, since no one really sees in 50mm).   If one judges Kodachrome as "real", then if I use Velvia am I manipulating?

Matt - great picture.  Too bad about the mistake, and the pillorying is unfortunate.
plus one..
Make your life spectacular!

NSN00525
 

by Glenn NK on Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:05 pm
User avatar
Glenn NK
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1879
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Member #:01120
DChan wrote:Perhaps they should define what "nature photography" mean.

Interestingly that 63% of the people responded seem to have no problem with Ansel Adam's manipulation to get rid of some clouds in the final image, but 44% found Anita Merrigan's pond shot - which she may have simply adjusted the exposure, contrast and color in post and nothing more - not acceptable.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it.  I felt that Adam's image was good, but somewhat dishonest, whereas changing exposure, contrast and colour is wrong.  How many photographers never touch the Saturation or Vibrance sliders? - realizing of course that JPEG images have this done in-camera.  If she had set her camera with more contrast and set the profile to something like landscape and shot JPEG, then it would have been ethical?

How thinly can hairs be split?  Or are we going through a slalom course?

I like Ansel Adams - we have two of his images hanging on our walls, I have one of his books, and I read his articles in Pop Photo in the early sixties.   But it seems that no matter what he did, he's revered and all's well because of it.
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources.
 

by Mark Picard on Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:04 pm
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
That is why I won't enter any of those "contests". In today's world a photographer must manipulate every image to a degree. Either you start off with a set of adjustments in your in camera's jpeg file, or you are converting them to your liking in a RAW converter. I have never seen a decent looking image come straight from the camera in RAW that looked ready to print or view.
 
First of all, we would all be restricted to using a 50mm lens, because that's approximately what our eyes see for proportion. We can only clear focus on about a 6 degree field of view in front of us, after that things on our peripheral are blurry (kinda' what a Lens Baby does). So, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, macro lenses, and tilt/shift lenses all manipulate images to start with. 

How many photographers these days are not using clone stamps, spot healing,  crop tool, content aware, HDR, add canvas, graduated ND filters (actual filters and PP grads like in CS) and all of the other "manipulating" tools available to us? I do quite a lot of stitched panos - is that an unacceptable manipulation? 

It is impossible to draw a line as to what is acceptable and what is not. Hey, even Art Wolfe and Artie Morris have done it!

I "manipulate" EVERY image I display or print! I'm an artist trying to make the picture look as pleasing and as natural as possible without making them look overworked. These current set of rules for these contests are all outdated in the sense that they reflect what it was like in the film days where you brought your film to the drugstore/lab and somebody else processed it with no manipulations and everyone was basically starting off at the same level. Essentially there was no post processing. Well, things have drastically changed, and we'd better get used to the fact that photographers manipulate their images!
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops
 

by MarcG19 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:22 pm
User avatar
MarcG19
Forum Contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Taking the other side......

...many people believe photography reflects reality.   The "truth claim" of photography exists for many people, though discussing that's beyond the range of my meager ability to discuss the philosophy of art.  But, as I mentioned before, AFAIC it's total hokum.   

It means, however, that there's a strong inherent bias in people to think that a photograph is truth.   This, I think, is what's gotten people so upset with photoshopping - the illusion of reality was removed, and photoshopping is easily understood while what's possible in the darkroom is more arcane.   This has important implications, I think, for those who want to sell or otherwise display photography.   It also puts a bit of a distance between the photographer/postprocessor and the viewer, because their perceptions of the photo is different.   

I might think a picture of a snow goose in flight among a flock with a 600mm is not real: the bird is too big, the depth relationships are wrong, the out of focus areas are nothing like the way I look at things with the eyes.  I also know that I have to post-process to get out the best from the picture.  But, the average viewer will just see the in focus bird, and take all sorts of subconscious clues from the out of focus birds, the bokeh around out of focus elements, etc.   (heck, I might even have the same reaction if I'm not really thinking about the picture).   

I would also add that it's part of what makes some more "artsy" or avant-garde cinema so baffling to many people (beyond the fact that those kinds of movies often don't follow the typical expected plot arcs people are generally looking for).  Instead of subtle use of 35mm-300mm (35mm equivalence) shots in "mainstream" movies, the cinematographer is often drawing direct attention to spatial relationships, etc. with other elements in the frames.
 

by MarkoPolo on Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:17 am
User avatar
MarkoPolo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1151
Joined: 1 Aug 2004
Location: Greeley,Colorado, USA
Mark Picard wrote:
I "manipulate" EVERY image I display or print! I'm an artist trying to make the picture look as pleasing and as natural as possible without making them look overworked. These current set of rules for these contests are all outdated in the sense that they reflect what it was like in the film days where you brought your film to the drugstore/lab and somebody else processed it with no manipulations and everyone was basically starting off at the same level. Essentially there was no post processing. Well, things have drastically changed, and we'd better get used to the fact that photographers manipulate their images!
Well said, Mark
Unless you have a time machine to take the viewer to the place and time you took the image, no "image" is reality. Whether it is a painting or "any" type of photograph it is an attempt to create an "impression" of what it like then or what you-the photographer-the artist-want the viewer to feel.  I was recently at a professional meeting (for my real world job) where a photographer was proudly displaying large prints made with a large format view camera and a sign--No photoshop manipulation used.  I thought, "How sad, they really need some work, and who says shooting with Velvia is not photo manipulation."
Mark Brown
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
50 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group