« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 4 posts | 
by SantaFeJoe on Sun May 13, 2018 10:26 pm
User avatar
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6143
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?

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: 3725
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Milton, 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.

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

by whitehead on Mon May 14, 2018 8:24 pm
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: 3945
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.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
4 posts | 

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group