Nature Photo manipulation and ethics/responsibilities

I wanted to jump in here on this topic.

Some photographers work (ie Steve Bloom) is neat to look at, but overblown and contrived- especially if it's an attempt to show the real world (which I admit that it isn't always meant to show the real world). I remember when I found out about Art Wolfe's contrived images, and how disappointed I was. I did a workshop with AW way back in 1987 before he got really famous and he told us how important it was to bring back images of nature back as visual emmissaries. He stressed letting the trained eye find the beauty in nature, while we were out in nature. So you can see why I was upset when I had seen what he had done.

When history looks back at the late 20th century or early 21st century, who do think will be remembered, Steve Bloom or Art Wolfe- or someone like Frans Lanting, or David Doubilet -there's no question in my mind. Photographers who push their craft IN THE FIELD and not on the computer are the true pioneers, in my view. Those Fieldcraft photographers are the ones who insert themselves into nature, the learn the habits of the animals, their behaviours, ecology, and through experince become tuned into wild things. This takes a great deal of time, effort, extreme patience and often innovation. A true love of the world, as it is, is what motivates their vision. They get out there and actually get dirty. I know of a lot of people on this forum who seem to be that type; those who crawl along the beach mud on their bellies to get a shot of a shorebird, those who sweat or freeze in blinds, those who sit for hours until the right Redtail flies by.
While I applaud Blooms conservation work, his photographic work, if not unethical, is at least misleading.
Of course as soon as the shutter is pushed we are creating something artificial. But that's no real argument. Despite being artificial, real, unmanipulated photography is as close as we can come to representing the real natural world to those hordes of people out there who don't know the difference between a starling and a sparrow, or a city park and a wilderness. It's to them, the ignorant masses, that we owe the truth.
That being said, let the photoshop artists like Bloom do their thing. They will be the ones who will make the big bucks, of course- isn't that usually the way? But the natural world is pretty incredible the way it is, warts and all, and who are photographers to tell the masses that it is something that it is not!
Scott

Scott,

I understand your point of view, but I think you are forgetting one thing. It is possible for someone to be a fantastic nature photographer (ie. crawling through the mud and letting the beauty of nature present itself) and be a creative artist who uses the computer to create things that were not there. Just because some of their images are altered, doesn't mean all of them are. Art Wolfe is a perfect example of this. He continues to produce stunning work and presents it as a true representation of the natural world (The Living Wild). He also creates art (Migrations, in which he DID indicate that some images were digitally altered, but did not indicate which precise images they were). Just because he does one, doesn't mean he does also do the other.

scottleslie wrote:
When history looks back at the late 20th century or early 21st century, who do think will be remembered, Steve Bloom or Art Wolfe- or someone like Frans Lanting, or David Doubilet -there's no question in my mind. Photographers who push their craft IN THE FIELD and not on the computer are the true pioneers, in my view. Those Fieldcraft photographers are the ones who insert themselves into nature, the learn the habits of the animals, their behaviours, ecology, and through experince become tuned into wild things. This takes a great deal of time, effort, extreme patience and often innovation. A true love of the world, as it is, is what motivates their vision.
Scott

Hey Scott,

I don't think it's fair to denigrate Art's work as a whole because of one book. The man has over 50 photographic books out. I'd say it would be odd if someone of that stature had NOT done some project with the digital tools at hand by now.

Art's last 2 books alone probably stand as some of the finest wildlife AND landscape portfolios on the planet, bar absolutely no one. His knowledge of wildlife is quite comprehensive. I know a guy who guided Art on a river trip through the Talkeetna mountains over 20 years ago .. he's worked for a long time in the field, with many different people, and says he has never crossed paths with anyone who is so able to find wild animals in their natural habitat, whose knowledge of the natural history and life of his subjects is so thorough. If you're looking for
'a great deal of time, effort, extreme patience and often innovation. A true love of the world, as it is, is what motivates their vision', check out 'Edge of the Earth, Corners of the Sky'.

I agree with your sentiments about part of what is so appealing about nature photography (particularly to most nature photographers), but I don't think your comments on Art Wolf's work as a photographer are valid. And as Chris said, doing one doesn't negate the efforts of the other (IMO).

Cheers

Carl

..

a few questions come to mind (just good clean fun)

did ansel adams push his craft in the field or in the darkroom?

are jerry uelesmann's fantastic images ok because they were done conventionally, not digitally?

is photography only capable of mimetic representation?

does delving into the underying form of nature and life produce a lie or a truth?

in a culture whose engine is consumption, is the depiction of nature as pristine the truth or a lie?

any answers come to mind?

..

Frankly, I think the initial comment is totally off base.

Ansel Adams is the only nature photographer that 90% of the public could name -- and he was a master at post-processing his images. Including such "immoral" techniques as erasing unwanted elements, known today as cloning.

I suppose there is a specific sub-discipline of photography where post-capture manipulation is verboten -- I prefer the creative freedom to create the image I want both in the field and in the digital darkroom.

One more point -- I'm not sure there is much room to label folks as "unethical" in a post 9/11 world for following their creative muse in a different way than you choose to do. It really rubs the wrong way.

sdaconsulting wrote:One more point -- I'm not sure there is much room to label folks as "unethical" in a post 9/11 world for following their creative muse in a different way than you choose to do. It really rubs the wrong way.

No different than labelling someone unethical in a post WWII world, or a post Rwanda genocide world!
Scott

I could go for a nice Everything Bagel and some Nova Scotia Lox right about now.

Perhaps for some folks living in Nova Scotia it's no different, although It's different for me since one of my school friends was on flight 11.

You can see his name on this web page along with 3,000 other victims, including 25 Canadians:

http://www.september11victims.com/septe ... s_list.htm


Karlton Fyfe, age 31. My age. He left behind a widow I knew very well (she and I went to the same schools for 10 years) and an unborn child.

So yes, I'm very sorry but it does affect me more than Rwanda. Because it makes it very, very clear to me that there are people out there in the world who want nothing more than to kill me, murder my wife, and slaughter my children. Just because of who I am. To me, that is where the topics of ethics make sense -- how should we get along with others in the world. Not whether or not I agree with someone's taste in artistic expression.

Back to the point at hand, do you honestly think it is unethical for someone to pursue a different artistic vision than you choose to? Or do you just find it distasteful?

Matthew,
First of all, I am sorry for your loss, and for anybody's loss that day. We watched it live with the same horror as decent people everywhere. I was merely making the point that just because some astonishingly cruel and horrible people are capable of killing innocents does not mean that ethics at whatever level aren't valid anymore. I think you'll agree with this. And, if you read my original post you'll see that I did not brand anybody as unethical, only questioned whether or not what one particular photographer did was misleading.

I really didn't post this posting in the first place to get into this kind of argument, and I apologize if I offended you in any way- this was not my intent. However, as limited in scope as my original argument was, I still stand by it. No hard feelings.
Scott

Geo wrote:Problem (AISI ) with digimanipulation is once you have done it once - people tend to look at ALL your work with a biased eye from then on in ... as in ... is/was this real?..... sure, one does´nt negate the other - but it does affect how a body of work is viewed...

I think in this day and age and even in the future, all work will eventually come under suspicion if the viewer doesn't understand how exactly it was made.

I also think the initial post comments were way off base, if not just short of ridiculous. Art took some artistic liberties in an artistic book. The images were pretty spectacular to begin with, and some digital modifications were made to make them a bit more perfect. It would seem to me that someone who spends 10 months or more of the year traveling and photographing has little time to spend manipulating all of his images.
I think your crystal ball for the future of who will be remembered is a bit cloudy.