fbpixel
  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 4 posts | 
by SantaFeJoe on Sun May 13, 2018 10:26 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5802
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Member #:01817
After reading this article, I followed the link to NANPA’s “Truth in captioning statement” here. I was curious what photographers on this site thought of their captioning suggestions. My personal opinion is that they are too complicated to be practically implemented. It still leaves a lot up to the photographers’ personal ethics, as well. We all know how that works. Do you feel that something like this is necessary or desirable?

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Bill Chambers on Mon May 14, 2018 8:31 am
User avatar
Bill Chambers
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3707
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Gulf Breeze, Florida
I would agree that it seems unnecessarily complicated and "picky". I have no problem with "Wild" or "Captive" but, IMHO that pretty much covers it. You don't need all that other stuff. As for post processing, I think there's an entire field left out - "Processed". I always clean up dust spots and errant, unwanted spots, sticks, etc. as part of my ordinary processing. I consider setting black & white points, determining global contrast, color management, and sharpening as just ordinary processing as well, but I do not consider any of that as "manipulation", where I'm adding something to the scene that was not actually there. I think NANPA is a fine organization overall, but they seem to be way too bureaucratic in this area.
When life deals you lemons, make lemonade; when it deals you tomatoes, make Bloody Mary's.
Unattributed

Please visit my web site, Enchanted Light Photography.
Bill Chambers
Gulf Breeze, Florida
 

by whitehead on Mon May 14, 2018 8:24 pm
whitehead
Forum Contributor
Posts: 90
Joined: 23 May 2007
Location: Thailand
This whole issue used to annoy me - then instead of referring to myself as a "wildlife photographer" I started to refer to myself as a "field photographer" - it cured my annoyance. It helps that I also got out of any commercial aspects of photography at the same time.

Personally, I always use the keyword "wild" and name the location (nearly always a national park) in the caption and keywords. I am happy with that.

I don't really see it as an ethical issue now either - its just about me creating an image within the parameters I set myself. others may set themselves different parameters.

I think commercial drivers are a major part of some people doing what others might consider "unethical" - after all in the commercial world the final image is everything, whether you are selling the image or selling a service that you want to associate with the image.
 

by Ed Cordes on Wed May 16, 2018 7:04 pm
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3779
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
This type of discussion arises every now and then and is quite interesting. In my case, I feel that there is a difference between documentary image making and artistic image making. If I am to document an accurate rendition of a scene then nothing beyond dust removal, cropping, sharpening, should be done. Tone adjustment should attempt to reproduce the exact conditions my eye saw. Otherwise I feel free to do most anything other than adding elements which were not present in the original scene. Unwanted object removal, to me is routine. I do not bait animals other than utilizing my standard bird feeders with store bought seeds. HDR, focus stacking and Panoramas are clearly indicated. So, I am not sure if I would be seen as following the guidelines or not. However, I am creating images I like and enjoy showing to others.
Life is beautiful, but remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
4 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group