Image manipulation, ethics and all.

Sure you can do it. You can also use image manipulation to simulate a warming filter, or to turn Kodachrome into pseudo-Velvia by boosting color saturation. Given the resources (very high scanning resolution, lots and lots of RAM, high speed processor and lots of time and patience) you can do almost anything you want to. For 35mm it's practical, though I doubt that many large format users would go that route (imagine the file sizes for 8x10!).

Ethical? In the end, who really cares. If you like the results, it's fine. It's certainly the hard way to do it though, compared to a grad ND filter! Since you are not really altering the scene by adding or subtracting elements, and you are in fact simply compensating for the limitations of the film (just as the filter would), I can see no grounds for serious ethical objections - unless you take the stand that any digital manipulation at all is unethical.

I'll second Bob, with the addition that the analogy is to burning in the sky in the darkroom while making a print. That's been acceptable forever. I don't see any reason why "burning in" via photoshop should be looked at any differently. This kind of post-manipulation, or the use of a ND graduated filter, compensates for the limitations of the media. One can argue that the result, then, in closer to "real".

To my mind, this is vastly different than, say, adding extra zebras to a shot to give the impression that a running herd made a frame-filling, attractive pattern (Art Wolfe, cover shot, "Migrations"). In this case, the scene never existed. The manipulation in this case is not to overcome the media's inability to properly capture the scene, but rather the lack of the scene in the first place. Ethical or not? Depends on how it's represented. When I first saw the Art Wolfe "Migrations" photos, in some photo magazine, it wasn't noted that they were montages. I was pretty bummed when I found out, because it took away a lot of the "gee, he's GOOD" feeling I got from first seeing photos of unbelievably aesthetic groupings of animals. If I'd known upfront they were constructions, I would've liked them better.

A lot of wildlife painters tend to put cutsey, humanoid faces on their animals and I'm sure many people unfamiliar with nature believe animals really look like that. But, it's wildlife art, not represented as being as close to real as possible (some wildlife artists do strive for absolute accuracy, of course). So, it's OK as long as we understand that.

Are the schematic illustrations in Peterson's field guides to the birds unethical? They're intentionally wrong, and yet they're there to help you indentify birds! (the innaccuracy involves suppressing minor detail and emphasizing important features, which makes perfect sense for a field guide).

This is far more than anyone wants to hear, I'm sure :)

As far as I know, most noted landscape painters were no paragons of "ethics." Abstraction in painting allowed for photography to develop as its very own art form. Art doesn't progress unless someone breaks the "rules."

For that matter, portraitists such as John Singleton Copley often plopped subjects' heads on formulaic bodies. In Copley's case, he often painted a dress from one that he used for portraits versus some article of clothing from the subject's own wardrobe. He charged more for full-length portraits (feet and shoes showing) than a bust, or waist-high portrait. Whether or not he was right in doing so, his paintings hang in the best art museums in America.

Ansel Adams spent a hell of a lot of time dodging and burning in the darkroom to get just the right effect. As long as the artist is satisfied with his/her final result, the subject of ethics (concerning image manipulation) shouldn't be a controlling factor.

The basic act of photography itself, the capturing of light rays, is image manipulation defined. Focal lengths, depth of field, filtration, composition, flash usage, etc. all are chosen by the photographer in recording a particular scene at a particular time.

As one of the previous posters said, it is not what you do, it is how present it that determines the ethics of manipulation. The ethics here have to do with marketing your product - should retouched or digitally altered images compete with reproductions of real scenes or actions in publication without an explanatory caption? That means, should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share? Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have a right or duty to warn readers of manipulated images?

Frank asked: "That means, should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share? Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have a right or duty to warn readers of manipulated images? "

Let's suppose we are talking fine dining instead of photography. Should a restaurant inform its patrons that it used imitation crab meat made from bottom fish instead of real crab in it's Crab Soufle' (sp?)??? Should they tell the patron that the turkey dinner is chopped,pressed turkey instead of freshly roasted turkey? And, for you vegitarians, should they state that the black berry cobler uses frozen berries instead of fresh berries? I think the answer is yes.

When you buy an antique piece of furniture, how would you feel if you found out afterwards that it was a reproduction? Who cares how "artistic" the reproduction is? A reproduction is a FAKE, especially if you bought it thinking it was real. I suppose that one could admire the "artistry" of fakery, but would you rather, say, have a real Picasso or a fake?

In my opinion, and other will differ, image manipulation such as Art Wolfe's _Migrations_ and staged wildlife photography, such as Marty Stauffer's wildlife films, has discredited and devalued ALL nature photography in the public's eye. It may not be right, but that is the way things work. The public is not discriminating enough to look at the photo credits (if they are there) and say, "Hmmm, that is Arthur Morris and he does real photography" or, "Hmmm, that is Art Wolfe and he is an 'artist' so his work could could have been altered."

Nope, the public now thinks all nature photography is fake. And for good reason; these days almost all glossy canine or fox photos are staged in addition to many mammal shots. There is even some fakery in song bird photography (captive birds, etc.).

Instead of putting the time in, spending years in the field stalking wild animals, many nature photographers have opted for the quick profits and devalued the whole field. Thanks Art and Marty.

It may be too late, but legit nature photographers should insist on disclosure on the part of photographers. Art Wolfe is probably ruined; I will never have respect for him again, and I doubt the public will. I am sure that there are many in denial about this, but the fact remains that he will never enjoy the success he did before the public realized he was a nature faker.

It might still be possible for legit photographers to create a niche for themselves. Would you rather buy a calendar of birds photographed in the zoo or wild birds? Photos of wild animals in natural settings that have not been manipulated should sell better if they are marked as such. You might say it does not matter to you if the photos have been altered or staged, but it sure does to the public and NPR.

The discussion seems have veered away from my intended question (no surprise).

I don't think anyone disagrees that passing off heavily edited or retouched images as "real" somewhat less than noble.

My question was more along the lines of: if I digitally compose two photos of the same scene in order to more realistically portray the scene, is like using a filter, or is this like grafting Opra's head onto Kim Bassinger's legs?

I was also curious as to exactly how practical such a thing would be using today's technology, and if the result would be comparable (in quality, and in time, and energy required) to taking the same photo with a filter).

I thought about things a bit more... and to veer off topic even more...it also seems to me that we are walking a pretty thin line when talking about

"wild setting" vs. "man made setting" "real" vs. "manipulated" or "fake"

and so on. I have a hard time with people who try to convince me that there is much difference between the "natural world" and the "man made world". Is not man part of nature?

Also, no photograph is an objective portrayal "reality"... fancy post processing should be marked off as such, but I don't think we should delude ourselves into believing that we are recording the "real world"... what goes onto the film is a particular interpretation of the world at a particular time. Not more, not less.

> "wild setting" vs. "man made setting" > "real" vs. "manipulated" or "fake" > > and so on. I have a hard time with people who try to convince me that there is much difference between the "natural world" and the "man made world". Is not man part of nature? >

To me, there is a huge, huge difference between an river otter in, say, Baxter State Park, ME, and one in a zoo or a game farm. Which one would you rather see in a calendar? There is even more difference between a zebra on an African grassland and one that is digitally created.

Image processing and manipulation comes in a variety of styles. Certainly one can morph a couple of images, composite various elements together, restore damaged images, remove wires, smooth, sharpen, blur, colorize, brighten, etc.

Your average Hollywood blockbuster probably has over $50 million budgeted for special effects, a large part of which is computer graphics. The reason to do this with computers is that they are more efficient (especially when dealing with millions of images) than traditional manual image manipulation.

Second unit shoots a bunch of explosions, crashes, wrecks, demolitions, etc. just so the attractive stars (hair carefully styled, wardrobe painstakingly selected, of course) can be dropped into place at a later time.

Tom Hanks shakes President Kennedy's hand in a movie (image restoration, image aging, compositing). Dinosaurs walk in a field (computer animation, compositing). A pair of sportscasters sit at a desk with the playing field directly behind them (blue screen compositing, character generation, graphics).

Some people digitally manipulate images and do it very, very well because their jobs depend on it. Remember, the greatest counterfeiter in history, by definition, will never be caught.

>

Your average Hollywood blockbuster probably has over $50 million budgeted for special effects, a large part of which is computer graphics. The reason to do this with computers is that they are more efficient (especially when dealing with millions of images) than traditional manual image manipulation. Ah, but that is Sci-Fi. When the public views "Nature Photography" they are expecting something "natural". That is why Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe, if not ruined, may have a tough time.

"Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe,"

Can somebody please give us the details of what these people did and how it was discovered? Just the facts please, we can make our own judgements. Thanks.

To be fair, I don't think Art Wolfe ever tried to pass off his "digital creations" as actual, real representations of nature as he found it. However, the prevailing opinion seems to be that he should probably have pointed this out much more strongly than he did, plus keep a more watchful eye on how the images were presented outside his book (like on the cover of OP for example!). Certainly a casual observer could be forgiven for assuming they were "real" images. Most people would do so unless a explicit note told them otherwise.

Frederick,

I'm aware that this is a nature photography forum and that "nature" is pretty much the subject matter. I just used Hollywood sci-fi to illustrate that the hardware and software to manipulate images exists. Even my woeful Photoshop skills would probably let me drop a polar bear into a Death Valley landscape or selectively change contrast for different parts of an image.

I probably could spend a few hours editing several images, compositing them together, and retouching the final image, but I don't. I admit that I lack the motivation to do so.

To Anthony:

Check out the "Flash on animals" thread here for more on Marty Stouffer's problems. Art Wolfe digitally manipulated some images in his "Migrations" book, including the "cloning" of a Zebra into an image to make a better pattern. The book was really about patterns and multiple animal images. I believe there may have been a short disclaimer in the book about some images being manipulated. Outdoor Photographer ran a cover shot from the book - but they "forgot"(?) to include any disclaimer that it was a digitally constructed image. At least that's how I remember things went. I could be wrong. OP are strong on digital imaging, in fact I think they have a new magazine on the subject.

Here is a positive aspect of the modern age of digital manipulation.

We all know that most members of the human species love to look at pictures of animals doing unnatural, seemingly human things. Circus people have made their living for years by getting dogs and bears to ride bicycles, or getting seals to blow horns, etc. Advertisers love to use animals to hawk their products.

One of the advantages of dignital manipulation is that animals will actually be treated more kindly, since their primary purpose will be to model for the digital image, which will subsequently be manipulated into the silly poses that humans so desparately crave. The animals will no longer have to actually be trained to perform the absurd activities that are needed to entertain the masses, and this should be a heck of a lot easier on the animals.

We shouldn't mention Marty Stouffer and Art Wolfe in the same breath. Marty fakes damned near everything, as far as I can tell.

Art's book "Migrations" was a very early example of manipulated photography. The book did have a disclaimer. He didn't tell you WHICH images were "straight" and which had animals cloned digitally, but he did tell you that images in the book were digitally altered (you were free to assume ALL of them were, though this isn't true).

So far, OK. Discussion around that book has perhaps led to a consensus that the individual photos should've been labelled, but I don't think the nature photography community at large considered the book a big sin. New turf, inadequate (but not absent) labelling, minor controversy, all to be expected with emerging technology.

As Bob mentioned, OP ran the zebra photo, cropped vertical, as a cover shot, which is where I first saw it. No mention that it was manipulated at all.

However, photographers have no control over how their work is presented when sold to a magazine. I imagine that Art told them it was manipulated, and they decided not to mention it. Of course, if Art didn't tell them, he committed a very large sin, but I don't think this is true.

So, the ire in this case should be directed to OP.

When the "Migrations" book was turned into a calendar, the images which were manipulated were individually marked, and the calendar explained that various animals were "cloned" to match the photographers impression of pattern. At this point, to me, viewing the calendar became a game to find the duplicates, which I quite enjoyed. It's really obvious once you know, there was no effort to hide the fact. The clones are from animals within the scene, so you get repeats like in wallpaper. He could've made it impossible to tell by cloning animals from other photographs, but didn't, so this can't be labelled as an effort to fool people.

IMO, that is.

there are a great many things that a photographer can do to "distort" an image made on film.

- use a slow shutter speed to make a motion blur - use a filter - use a flash - have less than infinite depth of field - have the focus a little (ot a lot, i suppose) soft - make multiple exposeures on the same frame - under or over expose - use a focal length that doesn't give 1:1 subject to film ratio

all of these things make the picture different from the way it would have looked if you had been there looking with only your eyes. the idea that all of these methods are considered "real" photography while digital manipulation is considered "fake" is beyond me.

The problem I have with digital manipulation is that a person doesn't even have to be a photographer to make an image. You can buy CD-Roms with thousands of images and do whatever you want with them---and call them your own.

As far as manipulated images in photo mags or books, I think it's reasonable to inform the readers that the shots are altered with a computer.

Burning and dodging in a darkroom takes much more skill and patience then tweaking a shot on a computer. True,it alters the original scene either way, but IMO the darkroom is more acceptable--if there can be such a thing.

It will be interesting to watch how prevelant this becomes in the future, and how soon regular photography becomes confined to a few purists who nobody really listens to.

Jim, I beg to differ.

Computer-generated images can be just as difficult to synthesize as traditional photographics images. If you've ever tried Side Effects Software's PRISMS package, you'll agree that a good knowledge of calculus and physics is a nice knowledge base to work from. Darkroom work is difficult, but no more so than correctly handling oil paint, preparing traditional French cuisine, or playing the piano.

A decent 3D animator from a reputable art school can make $60-80K in his/her first job. Whether or not this imagery is quality work is debatable, but there are relatively few skilled animators compared with the number of job openings.

It is interesting to note all the rationalizations of the photographers that would have us believe that digital manipulation of nature photos is OK [I suspect that all these people have already invested in the hardware / software]. We are free to rationalize all we want, but the general public is not going to put up with it. They want nature photography to be natural, adn that menas no digital manipulation. Period. As Sue Hubell says, "I am an analog person in a digital world." And so is most of the public; the last thing they want in a beautiful, natural scene are computer-generated ersatz images. Photographers that disguise digitally altered images as natural ones will be ruined when they are discovered. Even photographers who admit digital alteration will get in trouble, witness Art Wolfe. What I cannot understand is how we got in such a mess. If I was a pro taking unaltered, unstaged shots to make a living, I would be furious with the New Nature Fakers.

1. I have no vested interest in digital imaging. I don't even know how to use Photoshop for anything more than simple scans.

2. The claim that "nature photographs must be 'natural'" seems to me to based on the flawed notion that photographs objectively record "reality" (the implication being that digital images are somehow "fake"), when in fact this has never and will never be the case.

In the public's eye, Ansel Adam's photos were some of the most "natural" ever... and yet they were in fact heavily manipulated using filtering and darkroom techniques. Does this make Adams a charlatan?

Find me a "natural" photo, and I'll be more willing to agree with your point of view.

3. So, this gets back to my original question, what is the difference betweem using an ND grad filter, and using Photoshop to get *exactly* the same effect?

> 2. The claim that "nature photographs must be 'natural'" seems to me >to based on the flawed notion that photographs objectively record >"reality" (the implication being that digital images are somehow "fake"), >when in fact this has never and will never be the case. I am not saying it is right, but the public thinks there is a big difference. To them anything done in the darkroom or with filters is OK. Hey, how natural is Black and White film? But still this is considered OK by the public. Whether you like it or not, the public will always consider digital manipulation of nature photos taboo. Just ask Art Wolfe; I am sure he had some good rationalizations also. Another problem I have is that digital manipulation is too tempting; first the "photographer" might enhance the contrast, maybe that is OK, then the "photographer" might add a catchlight to a birds's eye, maybe that is not so good, then the photographer will be tempted to change the background, well..., and then he/she starts adding Zebras...

Remember that analog photos can be doctored also; but these photos don't do well as "nature" photos.

Frederick Thurber has a much higher view of the "public" than some of us. I don't want to rain on his parade, but my perception is that the public doesn't even know the difference between film and digital. You capture images using a camera with either one. The public wants to be entertained. Recall the Roman Empire's focus at the end on bread & circuses. I think that Western Civilization has finally "climbed" back to this level. The percentage of people who actually care about how an image was captured or created is quite small. Most have their mind on something else.

I agree with Glen (at least on this issue!). The public don't care. Actually, most of the time they don't know, but if they did, most of them still wouldn't care. They want pretty pictures and don't care a whole lot how they were created (short of actually harming the animals, and sometimes not even then). Sure, a small minority of the public object, but so what. Business doen't take much notice of small minorities. The better wildlife publications won't take highly manipulated images (if they know about them), but that's not a huge market.

As for "real" nature photographers (i.e. those who spend large amounts of time and effort - and money - getting real shots under totally natural conditions), you bet they are pissed off at the acceptance of digitally manipulated images. There's not a lot they can do though. In fact if they want to keep on making a living, they may have to do it themselves. Photography ain't what is once was. Ask working stock photographers about royalty free images on CD!

A few days ago my Dilbert calendar had a cartoon in which Dilber told Dogber that they were going camping on the weekend.

Dilbert: Hey Dogbert, you want to go camping this weekend? Dogbert: Why don't we just sleep in the garage, eat bugs and not take showers? Dilbert: That is completely different from camping, for reasons which will come to me. Dogbert: Because we might not get lost??

I think that image manipulation puts us in the same quandry as Dilbert. We instinctivley know that the real thing is better than an artificial setup but we can't quite put the reaons into words.

Dogbert hints at it when he asks if they might get lost. We seek authenticity. Real life is authentic and we know it because we often get lost. Another way to say it is that real life involves risk. We risk failure, but we are sometimes rewarded for that risk by great successes. If all we have are digital images produced in labs by people with zillions of megabytes of digitized images then there is no risk and we will never uncover the unknown surpises that make life and photography so interesting. How many artists painted landscapes similar to Yellowstone's geyser basins before Yellowstone was discovered by explorers? Our authentic work will always be worthwhile because it represents our experiences and the risks we took.

My friends think my grebe photos are great! They think I should sell them. (They are not that good, trust me.) Why? Because they are authentic. They represent a real experience on the part of me, the grebe and the viewer.

If Starbucks can educate people on what a good cup of coffee should taste like, and then get them to pay $2.50 for a non-refillable cup, then photographers should be able to educate people to the differences between real nature photos and made up stuff.

As usual let me state that "made up stuff" refers to images whose subject(s) have been signficiantly altered, added or deleted. I am not talking about color correction, contrast changes or even removing a lone telephone wire from the back of a magnificent cathedral.

Sorry for rambling.

I have argued earlier that people want and seek authenticity in their lives. Thus manipulated images should be identified as such since authentic images will be of much more value. I offer the following information taken from today's (7/8/97, pg B1) Wall Street Journal as further proof that authentic nature photographs will be highly desired in the end.

In Southern California a shopping mall is opening by the name of American Wildernes (AW for short). The mall will feature five "biomes" recreating California deserts, forests, mountains, valleys and seashores. Visitors will walk on gnarled pathways, past ersatz redwoods and inhale forest scents from hidden canisters. The desert biome will feature a fake Joshua tree plus real tortoises and Gila monsters. Visitors can also take in a motion simulator theater, interactive exhibits and lectures by "rangers". Student visits and even overnight campouts will be permitted. A special ventilation system will ensure that restaurant smells don't get blown over to the animals and animal smells don't get blown into the restaurant. By now you get the picture (pun intended). An artificial environment designed to exploit the wildnerness so people will spend more time and money in a shopping mall.

Folks, now, more than ever, genuine nature photographers are needed.

Hey, that Mall sounds like a geat place for nature photography! Live tortoises and Gila monsters are pretty hard to find in the real desert...

I don't think coffee is a good analogy for photography though. You can taste the difference between good and bad coffee (I presume - I'm no gourmet) but you can't tell the difference between a real (i.e. wild) and a fake (i.e. captive or manipulated) image. There may be no way to tell which is which using your own senses. You have to be told - and you never know if you are being told the truth. If some one serves you Sanka instead of fresh brewed coffee, you know. If you don't know, if you can't taste the differnce, then you don't much care (unless, I suppose, you are one of Philip's d**kless yuppies?).

Actually Anthony, I think the article you cite provides further evidence of the desire on the part of the public to escape reality and live with in an unnatural fantasy situation. A fake wilderness for the purpose of sellling products is exactly parallel to fake nature images, also used to sell product (or win prizes, or get into magazines, or whatever).

The fact that the mall owner recognizes that nature can be exploited for commercial purposes isn't a new idea. On the bright side, maybe this mall will attract folks who are superficially interested in nature, and leave the real wilderness less congested for the folks who actually care about it. The mall sounds pretty much like a highly commercialized zoo.

"People want and seek authenticity in their lives". I guess you have never seen the bank account of a plastic surgeon who does breast enhancement. In talking photo manipulation & reality, lets start with the basics. 1. Lenses-we choose them to give life to our inner vision and how we see the world. Some expand, some compress and some alter what is actually there. 2. Camera bodies & film format-some for extreme sharpness, others for their ability to manipulate the scene and help in personal interpretation of what we believe it is that we are seeing. 3.FILM-remember the days before 'Disneychrome'(Velvia)? How about Kodachrome? The very way a film interprets what it records with its color palette, sharpness and range can be more manipulative than most may want to admit. 4. Presentation-how much do you really reveal about the taking of the photo & how much does the photo itself reveal about how it was shot? As to Marty Stauffer? Has anyone out there EVER seen a cougar attack a bighorn sheep and been in position to watch the stalk through snow, over the ridge where the animal pounced and the sheep took off running with a cougar on its back, over the ridge, down the other side and up the canyon? You can't be in more than one location and the chance of seeing this in the wild, with good light & cameras properly placed for even part of it is nearly impossible. Stauffer records what happens & uses set-ups to do it. Nothing wrong with that. The real problem(MY PERSONAL VIEW-feel free to disagree if you like & send hate mail along with your $10.00 bill to...)as I see it is with the "Disneyworld" view of nature as 'our friend'. Bambi is cute. The little bear cub is cuddly. Animals are out friends & should be held, cuddled, petted, etc., etc. That is why we see jackasses in the parks having their three year old walk up to a fawn to pet her while momma takes a picture of it. Then when the mother deer comes up & crushes the head of the kid in reaction-Momma sues the park service. Stauffer sets up the situations & uses captive animals-SO WHAT? He does his best to convey reality. Others set up a beaver lodge with a window in it & photograph it all through the winter. That isn't 'natural either', but it is done. Nature films & photos are intrusive by the fact that they even exist. Do no harm. We try to live with that and every one of us who shoots nature images has screwed up, big or small, in some way at one time or another. We learn & don't repeat it. But, we all lie about nature in our equipment, recording & presentation even when no lie is intended. We do the best we can & just try to get along & get good & accurate results. There is a difference in our mental abilities & the cameras ability to record a scene. Accuracy is often a myth in a photograph because film cannot record the scene as our mind tells us we saw it. That is both a positive and a negative. Much of it is our point of view. One good example of point of view? Try bulldozing, dynamiting & altering some magnificent cliff faces & see where it gets you. Then go to Mt. Rushmore & realize that is exactly what Gutzom Borglum did & it is now a national shrine. Ethics is often a question we debate & seldom arrive at a definitive answer because there is not one.

this subject is forever going to be treated like bipartisan politics. in the end, years from now, when nature and the environment have all gone to hell in in a handbag at the hands of development and pure greed, all that we may be seeing are manipulated images since all that was real will be gone. i for one do not have time or inclination to sit on my tail at my computer for long periods. would rather be out improving my skills as a photographer so i can look at good,REAL nature images years from now. guess i,m a real relic , huh? well i love it!!! jeff hallett

I think the judgements about Art Wolfe's work in 'Migrations' were a bit harsh. It is not like he created the entire pattern from a computer. Those congregations of animals actually took place, and there were some images where a duplicate may have filled in some dead space to make the image more complete. Art was very clear in the preface of the book on his stance on the alterations, he was communicating through artwork, not natural history or documentary. To say that Wolfe is washed up as a nature photographer is a bit over the edge. The guy doesn't choose to travel 9-10 months out of the year gathering images when instead he could be sitting in front of a computer.

I use, rather than generate, nature photography, all the time. If my goal is to view a real part of nature, then it would be nice to have documentation that "this elephant was photographed at the North Carolina Zoo" so I don't think that the natural habitat of any elephant includes large numbers of loblolly pine trees. If my goal is to make a collage which includes an elephant and a forest of torn paper scraps, I don't how the photographer got the image. I just hope that people keep taking many good photos, or I'll only have one elephant to choose from. Addendum: for a lecture on the physiology of lactation, I am looking for good images of infant feeding in humans and other mammals. Anyone have some to share?

The real problem with Art Wolfe is that after "Migrations" we found out that quite a number of his earlier, not-disclaimed, images were likewise manipulated. If it had been just Migrations he would have gotten off pretty clean....

Grover Larkins

This is all getting to sound a bit Zen. It reminds me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where the act of observation alone changes and influences what is being observed so we can never know if what we are observing is real. It would seem irrelevant whether it is on silver halide or charged particles.

I have to take issue with a statement that was made by Sean Hester:

"Burning and dodging in a darkroom takes much more skill and patience then tweaking a shot on a computer."

I hate to differ with you, but as someone that does this for a living (I work in color pre-press), it's about the same amount of skill and patience...if not more.

For instance, matching skin tones with one photo with another. Now this may sound very easy, but it's not, epecially when you're looking at everything in a color-controlled light both. Also, trying to match a trans in color, even though you're working in CMYK (that has a much lower color gamet) to get everything to "pop" out is a little rough sometimes.

Cloning out things that the client doesn't want in the shot can be VERY hard sometimes...that is when you're trying to make it look natural. Cloning out a line or dust is easy. But try removing something that is covering something else, AND it casts a shadow. You basically have to recreate the object in the background that the object you're removing covers...then have to get rid of the shadow that the object was creating also. Very tough.

Here's another beauty. A client will have a shot of a model in a black sweater. "But wait! We're not making black sweaters anymore, can you change this to a light pink sweater? Here's a cloth swatch to match it to." Easy you may say, just take up the midtones and use "color" in Photoshop. The only things is, since it was a black sweater, there is almost no shape at all in it. If you were to bring up the midtones, you'd have a flat tint for the sweater.

Mainly all this boils down to poor planning from the client. I'm not complaining mind you...I'm paid very well for what I do. :)

But try sitting in front of a monitor for two days looking at the same sweater trying to get it right because every proof the client is saying "hmm....nope, not quite right....can you make it "happier"..." (you'd be amazed how many times clients have told me this...I almost wish Adobe would put a "happier" function in Photoshop 5.)

Computers and digital manipulation of images are a fact of life and just wishing it would go away will not help. A computer and software are merely tools no different than lenses, filters, enlargers and dodging tools. Making the image fit the artists eye and soul is the important part. I do wonder about the manipulation of some images though. Just recently there was a TV documentary about the fashion industry. Part of the presentation was a photo cover shoot for the a magazine and how it was brought to the final presentation. It involved one of the current crop of "supermodels" After a traditional shoot with a Hassy the chromes were scanned and then digitally altered for final publication. What kind of alteration? Thinning her thighs, smoothing her skin, taking out cellulite, etc. I think we all know the possibilities. Now, what concerns me is that there are hords of young women in our American (and others I'm sure) culture that use these "covergirls" to set up goals for their own looks. This has led to severe health problems with bolemia and anorexia as well as emotional problems. All trying to match what is not real or even possibly attainable. In the wild we may get a distorted image of nature, but what about the human damage such images can bring when it is not made known that even the most noted supermodels require extensive digital manipulation to look that "good". I know that this is not exactly nature but relevant to the technology and ethics of digital manipulation.

Jerry

Re: Gerald's comments about bulemia and anorexia (with apologies for the tangential relationship to photography):

My wife is a psychologist who has treated people (males too!) with eating disorders. Contrary to popular belief, none of the severe eating disorders are caused solely by unrealistic expectations of how one should look, so manipulated photos of models are not detrimental in the way one might think (although they can be detrimental in other ways... see my comments in the next paragraph). In fact, most eating disorders are caused by deeper psychological problems. Anorexia is typically a control issue (eating is not something even the most controlling parents can make a teenager do) or an attention issue (which involves way too much to describe here) or even a form of obsessive/compulsive disorder. Bulemia (the classic binge/purge type) is typically an outer manifestation of any of a number of deeper psychological problem(s) -- and is often seen in addictive personality types.

The type of photographic manipulation you describe can indeed give someone unrealistic expectations of how they should look. This can be detrimental to a someone's self-image, contributing to low self-esteem. And of course low self-esteem in addition to other psychological problems can lead to eating disorders, but they can also lead to a number of other problems having nothing to do with eating disorders. In any case, all this is just a very superficial discussion... you'd have to talk to my wife about the important details and that would be way outside the scope of a photography forum.

Attempting to bring this all to some kind of coherent summary (and to bring the original topic back somewhat): I feel that digital photographic manipulation is no different than older, traditional means of photographic manipulation. I'm sure other methods were used in the past to make models look different (airbrushing, perhaps). If you've ever used a red 25 filter to enhance cloud/sky contrast in black and white or a polarizer for the same effect in color photography then you're guilty of manipulation. Hell, even film choice could be considered manipulation... how is it that anyblack & white photo could be considered an accurate representation of reality? How could anyone consider Velvia's enhanced coloration an accurate representation of reality?

I just re-read most of this discussion and noticed that no one seems to have addressed the REAL problem with manipulation: that is, what is going on in front of the camera, if anything!

All the talk about manipulations of film, comparing them to digital manipulations, is a red herring. The extent of manipulations possible with digital images is far greater and more seamless in the medium than is possible on film, especially transparency film, please note. What a skilled darkroom technician can do with B&W has no bearing on what can be done to transparencies and that is what we should be talking about, because that is where the big market for nature photos is. And this is all about markets - who gets in and who gets paid how much.

If an image has never been digitized, the questions we need to be concerned about are not the choice of film, dark room techniques, lens choices, etc. None of these really determine if something actually took place in front of the camera. Was that animal in a zoo? Was it trained? Was it captive? Was it attracted to bait (like the birds in my backyard)? Was it distracted by being hounded by the photographer? Was it accustomed to the presence of people and going about its' business normally?

When dealing with a digital image the questions broaden to such things as: Has the author ever really seen a wild cheetah or did he/she just snatch someone else's image and paste-up this (purported) photo? Is the behavior shown representative of a wild cheetah or does the author claim to be showing something never before seen? If the latter, where is the documentation, since the image (being so easily manipulated) cannot be taken to be authentic on its own?

These questions all have a major bearing on the value ($$$) of any particular image and the market it can be sold to. A REAL, documented, image of something new could be worth a lot and a fakery composed from verbal descriptions could take money away from a legitimate, in-the-field, photograph of the same action. A reconstruction of events is not worth as much as real-time photos of the events and should not be competing for the same market.

NANPA is supposed to be trying to deal with this issue by using a proposed requirement for captioning of images, but I suspect that they are backing off for fear of alienating some segment of its members. There are serious difficulties, not the least of which is that it all will eventually have to become a matter of trust or sanctions - is my "original, made-in-camera", 35mm transparency authentic? Or did I manage to get such a perfect digital manipulation, at such high resolution, that no one can tell? If the latter and I am found out, what can be done about it? NANPA won't want to be judge and jury of a dues-paying member.

I would like to suggest that some terminology be adopted as standard. A "photograph" is an image made on chemically-activated, light sensitive materials (film) by the use of a camera and lens, period. Anything that is made by any other means, even if starting from a photograph, has to be called something else. Perhaps digitally composed images could be called "computographs" or something, but not photographs. We already have a nomenclature for images made on photo materials without a camera - "photograms", "radiography", etc., so this is appropriate and in keeping with current practice. It would be a lot more handy than "computer-manipulated photograph" or "digitally-altered photograph" or "digitally-composed photograph".

Since a lot of the publishing business is using digital images, there could be a simple, bold caption that says something like "All images in this publication are unaltered. They were digitally composed by the publisher from original photographs by the credited photographers". That is, if the publisher were interested in maintaining a chain of authenticity and accepting some responsibility for failures of it.

Regards,

Frank

I copied this quote from Bob Atkin's site.

"Only with effort can the camera be forced to lie: basically it is an honest medium: so the photographer is much more likely to approach nature in a spirtit of inquiry, of communion, instead of with the saucy swagger of self-dubbed "artists"

Edward Weston

I knew there was a reason I liked Weston.

I am a student of Mass Communications and just happened to find your forum. I am writing a research paper on the ethics of digital manipulation. I hear a lot of people say that this or that SHOULD happen. As photographers are we ready for the government to step in and say "ALL DIGITALLY MANIPULATED PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE LABLED." That is what they do in Norway. They use a special symbol that is slapped on each one. A filter changes the 'original' picture, where do we draw the line? (Sorry if I wandered to far from the original question)

Let's say you use image manipulation to add 60 elephants to a scrawny herd of 6 in order to make an image that says the species is not endangered. Let's say you use photoshop to reforest some denuded Brazilian mountains to show we're not cutting too many trees, or to lure investors into your overseas timbering operations. (You could do that in Indonesia and Siberia right now also.) The greatest danger in image manipulation of nature photography is not the aesthetic purpose but the political/commercial one. Making a pretty picture is one thing. Making a pretty picture to make people think the world is healthy when it's not is another.

Is image manipulation using a product such as Photo Shop photography?? I don't believe it is. I believe that when one goes beyond cropping, adjustments of color, contrast, and fixing minor problems like scratches and dust marks one is no longer engaging in photography. Significant image manipulation can certainly be considered an art. I have seen some very creative and interesting visual artwork using digital tools, but I don't think it is photography any more than drawing on a traditional silver print would be considered photography.

You can easily build some labels and classifications:<BR></BR> - Genuine photographic product<BR> - Digitally treated for dust, scratches, cropping...<BR> - Digitally enhanced and modified on purpose and with<BR> respect to the "ethics in nature photography" thinking<BR> (Darkroom job is done digitally, equivalent as dogging<BR> and burning, using a split filter performed by computing...).<BR> - Subject digitally altered, the picture looks true but tells<BR> something wrong about the subject<BR> - Digital art: cut and paste, colors enhanced or modified...<BR></BR> My concern is then: where do you draw the lines between these sections ?<BR><BR> And who is going to enforce this ? Sure we need one more law ?<BR></BR> Even if a picture is not digitally altered, the way the photographer took this picture is already the best opportunity for him to tell HIS story about the subject (look for the example given by Galen Rowell in one of his books when he reports that during a shooting in the Alps he took two pictures 5 minutes appart, the first one with the mountains only in the frame, what a lovely place! the other one looking down, a miserable building, half destroyed lying on the snowy slope, what an ugly place !)<BR> My 2 cents, Vincent.

all photography is manipulation of the natural scene. the only reality in a photograph is what the photographer choses to put into the frame. by framing the image we have done the first manipulation to a natural scene, what is the difference what is added or subtracted after this. this debate has raged for decades and will continue to rage, which is good, it should be dicussed, debated and even fought over. my only suggestion as a way to ensure that the production of un-digitally modified, hand crafted, silver and platinum prints be recognized for what it is, would be to be sure to always, i mean always mention that the print has been produced in that manner. instead of trying so hard to control the digital medium, what fred picker refered to as C.R.A.P., Computer Re-Arranged Photograph, we need to shout our craft at the top of our lungs, and make sure that people know what it is that they are seeing. tell them that it takes more than going to the one hour photo to get superior results that mean something. the bottom line is that the public is about as cynical about what they see in photographs as they are what they here on the news any more. we as photographers need to inform and educate them on what it is that they are looking at when they see our images, be they either digital or conventional. both sides have a lot to gain from enlightening the public, i just hope that we can do it without having to rely on some outside force to dictate the content of our images and how we present them.

Wow, this is a long thread. I can't believe that I have something intelligent (?) to say about ethics.

A lot has been said about ethics of who does what and how they do it.

There are a lot of great reasons to become a photographer. I want to learn how to take good photos and learn how to recognize them.

How about this rule for ethics in manipulating images: If you can do it with a filter, or in a darkroom, then doing it digitally is OK.

Thus, changing contrast, color balance, and so forth would be OK.

Adding zebras to a photo in a report to the Game Commission is out.

Adding zebras to a photo in an artistic document about patterns should be OK (but I'd still want to know it would be a cold day in hell before that pack of zebras passed me with my camera!).

Its all in the context. Are you taking photos to show others what is real, or how you view the world? Are you making art or recording history?

I don't have the desire to build a darkroom in my basement. I'd rather use the computer I built to achieve the same effect.

Technology has consumerized more than photography. I'm also a ham radio operator. However, I'd rather pick up a soldering iron and build something instead of picking up the microphone or code key and talking to someone. Technology has brought this hobby to the point where 9 year olds can get a license and a super station in his/her bedroom. All it takes is money, and a quick guide to the new fangled radio.

My original radio is a Heathkit. All of the parts take up about 10 feet of desk space and weigh 100 pounds. The radio I use most is a about the size of a Gideon bible from a hotel. Comparing it to my Heathkit is like comparing a Pentium Pro to a 4 function desk calculator.

Do I think anything less of the contacts I've made with the new radio? Of course not. The computer inside the radio helped make some of them, but they still count. But, if the computer inside the radio used its imagination and made up people for me to talk to, then there's something wrong.

It's the same thing with photography. Some people prefer to buy radios instead of build them. Some people would rather burn the sky in a darkroom, I'd rather use the computer I already have. Please don't think of me as unethical.

Happy New Year, Dave Mueller

Hi Pete,

I've done exactly what you ask. The specifics: From the western porch of ETH in Zuerich, looking out over a rainy, misty townscape. I had an EOS 1N + 28-70/2.8L, and RZ (Kodak 25 print) and Velvia.

The goal: avoid the syndrome common to about 95% of non-mediterranian euro-pictures - a completely featureless white sky.

I suspected that I needed the transparency film to show any detail in the low clouds. I've never gotten realistic results punching up sky contrast in Photoshop, so I wanted the detail I could see in the clouds to end up on the media. Velvia's contrasty enough for that.

The Catch-22 is that exposing for the sky would turn the ground into murk, with slide film. And, I couldn't use an ND, because that would turn the 5-6 church towers black, erasing the main interest of the scene.

Expecting to make a photoshop composition, I metered the sky and a generic section of city. Composed and shot both exposures.

The sky in the city shot was white. The ground in the sky shot was nearly black, with a few grumbles of detail.

I had pretty good luck merging the shots using a "soft light" layering but I settled for a "normal" layering with a hand-drawn transparency mask.

As far as the ethics go: I portrayed exactly what a person will see in Zuerich maybe 8 months a year: heavy overcast with detail, and the city itself with detail.

I feel more manipulative with some other images. I got another shot of Zuerich from a "secret" location (you'd have to live there to know where the Panorama Bar is) at sunset a few days after the summer solstice (lighting the north sides of buildings gold) when the sky was clear enough to see the alps (1 in 50 chance) and yet had big cloud formations for interest (1 in 30 chance). There's no other place in town with the viewpoint to see this 1 or 2 times a year view. And it lasted 20 minutes (western clouds blocked the sun). In fact, I feel nearly guilty for taking a simple-metered, non-filtered slide of a scene that simply doesn't exist (for practical purposes).

Put that in your ethics pipe and smoke it!

As for disclaimers: only other photographers who failed to get the same picture would benefit from knowing that the first was a really complex, digitally edited multiple exposure. On the other hand, most all viewers should realize that the simple shot represented something you may not see in a lifetime in Switzerland. And I wouldn't bother with mentioning the digital composition unless I was also mentioning the film, lens, tripod, camera, time and date, GPS coordinates, etc.

People believe their eyes, so it is too easy to lie to people with pictures. I could show you several shots of logged valleys or strip mines and make you get a lump in your throat, or convince you that nature is so vibrant it doesn't need any protection. If instead your goal is to report the facts, I don't need to know how touched up or processed the picture is. If you are being sloppy or slanting facts, even "straightforward" shots should be captioned as unrepresentative.

It seems to me that arguments about what digital techniques are acceptable (answers seem to range from none to all) miss the point. Manipulated imagery goes back well over 100 years, and darkroom techniques for an extremely wide range of image manipulations are available. The real issue is whether the technique is being used to deceive, either purposefully or unintentionally. The photographer who frames a scene to show only the bear in the woods, and not the dumpster that the bear has just feasted from, has already committed deception by removing critically important context. Adding another bear digitally might offend some people more, but would be no more significant as an alteration of reality.

Bill

Bill Tyler? As of Usenet? If so welcome (well welcome anyway!).

The difference between not showing "reality" and digitally altering an image is the same as the difference between keeping quiet and outright lying. Neither gives "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but there is still an enormous difference!

Hi Bob.

Yes, I'm the same Bill Tyler.

I just don't see the sharp dividing line between some manipulations and others, and why digital manipulations are worse than analog ones. Over 100 years ago, Henry Peach Robinson was making multiple-negative prints that purported to be single scenes. Was he less a liar because he used 'non-digital' techniques? More recently, someone like Jerry Uelsmann has used a traditional darkroom to produce surreal images that are as seamless as any digital fakery. Uelsmann isn't trying to deceive, but his techniques could certainly be used deceptively. The crucial point is NOT the particular technology, but the intent to deceive.

Bill

Two drivers are speeding in a school zone while small children walk to school. One exceeds the speed limit by 5 mph, the other by 35 mph. Is there a difference? If you were a parent of one of the children and the local policeman could only stop and arrest one of these drivers who would you advise him to arrest?

There is a difference in degree when it comes to manipulating and altering images and it does make a difference. Why don't some of the professional/enthusiast organizations like NANPA set some standards and speak out? Their silence convicts them. In my opinion, of course.

With the school zone speeders Stan, the guy going 35mph will be out of the dangerous area sooner than the one going only 5 miles over the limit. Maybe the one in the zone longer has a longer time to find and hit the kids. There are a lot of interpretations in this and the digital manipulation questions. Traditional darkroom workers have nearly always manipulated images. From simple dodging and burning to Eugene Smith doing darkroom "additions" to his extreme use of ferrocyanide bleach to change the emphasis of a photo to Uelsmann and company to create the mental images on paper to tabloid UFO stuff. Black & White is a lie in itself as the world is not seen that way, it is entirely a creation of science and vision. Color lies in that few ever see a "Cartoon Color" world as rendered in Velvia. A printer who has a touch of color blindness sees a different world than you or I, just as I interpret a different world than someone else due to a hearing loss. "Reality" is subjective. Photography is subjective. Digital manipulation is just another tool to be used and is not inherently bad or good. It is only a tool. When I use it I label the images as such but I sure do not believe everyone else will do so. that is just another reality.

Stan - I can assure you that eventually NANPA will address the issues surrounding digital manipulation if they haven't already started (which I believe they have). They have already published an essay in rebuttle to the McKibben article that appeared in DoubleTake on wildlife photography ethics. (Another interesting read for those following the press attention it has received)

However I wouldn't get your hopes up for some quick "standards" to be published. From the complex discussion's across the internet, I would imagine this to be a massive, but necessary, undertaking by NANPA.

Mark

There doesn't seem much of a dilema to me. There are two clear areas, art and documentary. In art, anything goes. You can paint, draw, photograph, digitally manipulate until your fingers drop off, its all OK. No problems. No debate. Art includes the world of advertising and business. If it pays, it works, who cares what it is. Nobody in their right mind expects avertising to be truthful and nobody expects art to reflect reality.

In documetary recording, such as we expect from publications like Audubon etc., adding objects to a scene (or removing them) is wrong. They shouldn't be publishing such altered images, but if they do, a notification is mandatory. The NWF magazines already publish a lot of artwork (paintings/drawings), so they have a precedent by which they can justify the publication of digital art, as long as it's marked as such.

I think that citing things like using Velvia or filters as being comparable in manipulation to adding a lion to a herd of zebras is a specious argument (and those making the argument know it!). If you can't see the difference, you're fooling yourself.

I would think (and hope) that any responsible, ethical nature photographer would (and would want to) label any digitally altered image which might be taken for a "documentary" image as manipulated. Ditto for responsible publications. I don't expect the National Enquirer to do it, but National Geographic should (I hope they learned their lesson from the pyramids affair).

Surely nobody takes seriously the idea that somebody driving 35mph in a school zone might be safer since they get out of the zone quicker. The use of such an argument to defend devious digital methods show how desparate some folks are to justify them. Now, I seriosly doubt if the writer is devious and I agree overall with his comments. But I still maintain that arguing that use of a filter is the equivalent of adding or deleting an object is just as silly as arguing that a fellow going 35mph over the speed limit is not endangering children any more than a fellow going 5 mph over the limit. They are not the same thing.

A while back someone quoted Weston as saying something to the effect that cameras are honest and record what they "see". This presupposes that the camera and the eye are similiar and that the purpose of photography is to record what is "seen". That's really a key issue what do you "see". In the case of Ansel Adams he "saw" the image well before the camera recorded it. He saw it in his minds eye and made it reality via a camera. Many examples in this thread follow this premise, making a photograph match what a person sees. I don't think anyone has discussed how you can regulate how people "see".

Suppose I "previsualize" a photograph of a butterfly feeding from a flower. My mind says this will really look cool and imagines the color contrast, line etc etc (the elements that make up effective photos). I than execute this vision by photographing this butterfly and separately this flower. I than use some sort of "manipulation" to make this a reality (a photograph). The kicker in this example could be that this species of butterfly would never feed on this type of flower. Not exactly a "valid" image anymore is it ... but it certainly is what the photographer saw. I'm sure the Ansel Adams fans (I'm a great admirer too) will have trouble with this example because he never stooped to such techniques. But remember Ansel spent a life time in developing an approach to developing and printing (the Zone system) to make his vision a dream. What makes the zone system acceptable but not Photoshop techniques?

Another example. I recently had the pleasure of photographing a total solar eclipse. None of the photos while technically correct actually depicts what I really saw that day. That is because the dynamic range of film (I used Ektachrome 200) can adequately deal with this phenomonon. In fact I've come to realize that most of the standard eclipse photos you see on calendars and postcards are "fake" i.e. shot at long exposures to emphasize the what are called streamers but in reality your eye never sees these but film can record the "build up of light".

In fact I've heard seen is that the "best" (what looks like what the human eye sees) eclipse photos are actually composites of several eclipse photos taken at different exposures and layer on top of each other (digitally) which is simulating what your eye is able to do when actually view an eclipse i.e. instantaneously adjust its ability to see different levels of detail depending on brightness.

What does this all mean? I dunno just that this is a very complex issue that will not be resolved by committees, labels, rules and regulation, because it would require legislating intent, and how defining the term "see".

I have insyinctively drawn a line at a ND filter. It's the most manipulative technique I would use. So, in this mental duel, I'll join the "dinosaur" party. (Reminds me of James Thurber's fable "A Man and a Dinosaur", a conflict between something Great Fancy New against something Pathetic Old, ending with: And the Man said: "In a few eons, you'll extinct". And the Dinosaur said: "I'll rather extinct than be like you." - I'm just teasing you modernists, no offence meant.)

I want sugar in my coffee, no chemical sweetener, thank you. I want real night sky with stars, no fancy ceiling pattern, thank you. I want people smile or frown, but not wear a "say cheese" mask.

If you find the Cokin website, you'll see what I mean. Fancy ... but a foul taste, just like a chemical sweetener.

I observe that social demand for genuine quality, and nostalgia, too, has recently returned to the market. (In Europe, that is.) Rationally, I wish this trend continued, simply because altering reality can be lethal. Manipulation as such can be lethal, and it often smells of a rat. (Or, even worse, of plastic.) Emotionally, I wish this trend continued, too.

Also, I observe that people can tell a fake. There is something, perhaps very very slightly, wrong. The shadow is slightly too dark. Slightly out of place. Slightly bizarre. And people can be educated, when they are interested.

Pete, unlike most posters here, I wil try to answer the question. Yes, I have done this in a digital photography class. The results were excellent, and I used the photographs for the class portfolio.

As for ethics, that is up to you. If you are careful not to mislead anyone in any way, then I fail to see how this could be a problem. BTW I do not really like or use digital manipulation myself, but my interest is fine art rather than commercial.

I liked someone's earlier analogy about antique furniture. I happen to love Shaker furniture, and I am slowly furnishing my apartment with replicas. The fact that my desk is not a handmade original loses it some of the "cool factor," but it is still a beautiful desk. I even have a pseudo-Shaker futon-frame. Like a digitally created herd of zebras, it replicates something that never existed (Shakers did not have futons). In a museum of Shaker design, it would be an obcenity. At home, it is just furniture. In the end, you make the call.

Pete and others,

Sorry if this appears twice! It glitched on me!

I am probably as qualified, at least technically, to answer this and any other question you all may want to throw at me. Why? I work as a digital imaging technician for a living! I know a lot of this has delved into ethics, but for now I would like to clarify a few things that I hope will help out on the technical side.

First, anyone who believes they will not have anything to do with digital imaging in photography had better not plan on having any photos published. Why? With rare exception all photos prepared for publication (pre-press) are scanned and then "manipulated" for final output. What this means is you sell a photo. The buyer gives the photo to someone who scans it (not simple $2/1mb scans like on CD ROM's, usually 40mb and up) creating a file which is then adjusted (manipulated, altered, enhanced, choose your term) for press to how the art director (or similar title) sees fit. Usually, especially in nature photography, the alteration is minimal. But unless you are quite powerful, or you do your own scanning and pre-press, you will have little or no say in what occurs.

This is not a new item. It has been going on before Adobe Photoshop came into being. Before that, Scitex, Barco and other systems/programs did similar work preparing photos for print. Just in the last few years with the advent and power of computers and such programs as Photoshop has this overtaken copy work and similar old fashion printing. Mostly due to cost.

As far as what can be done. Let's not kid ourselves on the other side of things. I love it when people say, "nothing can be done in the computer that can't be done (better...) in the darkroom." This is absurd. The computer and many of the current programs of today are amazingly powerful with the ability to create seamless results. Once you have worked on a powerful system with large files you will immediatly see what I say. Pete's problem is an easy one to fix. Art Wolfe's Zebras would not even be that hard. Nor would cloning those shoes onto OJ, though who knows what really was done there.

One last thing for now, so I don't babble on and on here! Whether we like it or not, digital imaging is here to stay. It is very healthy that we discuss the ethics of it, because I can guarantee you, as one who went from printing and processing for a few years to a guaranteed career in computer work, nothing anyone says will diminish the growth of this field. As such, for my two cents worth. I don't really care what you do to your photos in the computer, because I know most photos that are printed go through the computer anyway, just be immdiatly upfront about what you did when anyone asks. For me that holds ethical principle.

Bob's mentioning that no one expects advertising to be honest in the photography needs some comment. Advertising and truth in advertising laws put more stringent requirements on how many things are presented with photography than most Nature Photogs might like to live with. Products can be made to look great, but start misrepresenting them on film and find out how quickly you get the Feds and State authorities here in the USA on your case including filing of criminal charges. Misrepresent a Zebra or Owl or Seal and few pay attention. Our industry is still one of trust on many levels. I hope it remains that way as if the Governments start trying to regulate it, Nature Photography will be in for trouble. We do have the photogs who aren't to be trusted but many good editors and photogs out there recognize their trickery and they seem to lose business. Art & documentation aren't mutually exclusive and each has its place. But to misrepresent one as the other is dishonest. What is acceptable now may not be in the future as standards change even in Photojournalism.

First off I wonder if anyone will see my response at all, given that it is so late in coming to the conversation!

Yes, this technique is possible in the digital world (I know others already answered the question, but I felt an obligation) Unlike someone said before, many of the digital techniques can be done with traditional methods, they are just more time consuming and difficult to do (where do you think the names of all those tools and effects in PhotoShop came from in the first place?)

I too have made a living as a digital manipulator, but also am a black and white photography artist who focuses on natural scenery. I feel that the true point of conjecture has been completely missed, I feel that it is not the comparison of digital to traditional methods of manipulation that creates the conflict, rather it is the idea that you photograph the found object, as opposed to placing objects together in the natural scene to create an image. Why else would we have a problem with digital manipulation in some areas, i.e. nature, as opposed to other areas such as the movies? Many have brought up the name of Ansel Adams, he was dead set against Edward Weston setting up some of his nature photos, and I agree, they are some of his weakest images (one such image is the picture of a shell on the rocks, off hand I cannot recall the specific name of said image) We, as photographers of the natural scene, take from nature to create a combination of what we saw and felt and the time of exposure. To rearrange the scenery, seems to me to destroy our very purpose when we venture into nature.

I have no problem with digital photography or manipulation as long as it is defined as such, and everyone that I know that would be termed as the "general public" are concerned about the same thing, lets not go into denial about what the public cares about or insult the general populations intelligence. Digital Photography/manipulation (and lets make it clear that you can be a digital manipulator without being a photographer, and you sure can be either or both without being an artist) should be considered a separate medium from traditional photography, and believe me people want to know what the medium of the artwork is when they are viewing it. I, as an artist certainly do, and what is so wrong with that?

My only other problem with this situation is that the digital alternative can and will tend to make some people sloppy in their photographic technique, preferring to "fix it" later rather than do it right the first time, and some will argue that it doesn't matter as long as it is corrected before the piece is finished, but believe me, this sloppiness begins to show.

The digital photographic world has come a long way, but is still very deficient in some areas, such as black and white, 256 shades of gray just doesn't cover it, and dodging and burning in PhotoShop just doesn't work like it does in the darkroom, but I am sure that one day these things will come around.

To sum it up, I use both traditional and digital techniques on a daily basis, there is room for both and each has its drawbacks and advantages. If I create digital art, then it is described as such, and if I use traditional photography, then it too is labeled accordingly, why should anyone have a problem with that? Can't we all just get along? :)

Well, this thread is old, and has gone off in a many directions, but I have just recently gotten involved on line, so here are a few of my thoughts (and a few facts). Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting are--arguably the two "best," most widely published nature photographers alive today in spite of the absolute fact that a significant fraction of the animals that they photograph are not free and wild. Art shoots lots of animals in zoos and game farms. Franz often shoots close-ups of animals that are confined in enclosures. My understanding is that Art feels that it is not necessary to label zoo shots or set-ups as such. I am not sure what Franz's policy is. The fact remains, however, that hundreds, even thousand of their images of captive animals are published WITHOUT any indication that the animals were not free and wild when they were photographed. It is my strong belief that photographs of captive animals should be labeled as such, and, when used editorially, that this information should be included in the caption. I hope that all the contributor's to this thread who "trashed" Marty Stouffer realize that Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting are pretty much in the same boat. And those who think that Art's carrer will suffer at all because of the to-do about "Migrations" are very sadly mistaken. By the way, my ff

Okay, here's my two cents worth. (1) It seems to me that digital manipulation is a slippery slope -- once we get started on that path, we just keep on sliding downward. First, we "enhance" the color, then we remove offending debris (limbs, wires, etc) and, lastly we clone. Where does it stop? Or is the entire photo a collection of "cut & paste?" (2)What about the "thrill of the hunt?" Using different lenses, filters and other techniques BEFORE taking the shot is (to me) part of the challenge. If you can't do anything wrong that can't be corrected on the computer, where is the challenge?? How will we improve our photographic skills if we know we can always "erase" the errors?? That is the main probelm with digital manipulation -- it destroys the challenge of the photographer in the field.

>... That is the main probelm with digital manipulation -- it >destroys the challenge of the photographer in the field.

Take this argument to its logical conclusion, and we would all be making exposures on large glass plates.

There is nothing wrong with technology, only in the way it is used. I happen to agree with the guidelies expressed by FoundView. Your mileage may vary.

[FWIW, I don't own a digital camera, Photoshop program, scanner, or any other darkroom equipment. Playing with this stuff doesn't interest *me*. I prefer to get outside and take pictures.]

<>

From what I have seen in digital manipulated images - the starting image has to be pretty good to start with. Therefore I don't think the challenge is completely removed by the computer. As the technology stands today, if you start out with a poorly exposed, unsharp, badly composed, and poorly lit subject - you will only do slightly better than that by "fixing" it on a computer. Ie... Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Also, I welcome Arthur Morris to this forum. I look forward to your contribution to many of the discussions here. And by the way... fantastic new book!

Mark

In response to Art, I think the comments about Marty Stouffer were more in relation to alleged unethical (and maybe illegal) practices, rather then his use of captive animals. For a reference see the Outside Magazine, July 1996 story.

Among the allegations are: "To gain easier access to an elk migration path, Stouffer illegally gouged a trail through protected land belonging to the Center. In a sequence showing a deer under attack by mountain lions, for example, Stouffer allegedly set two tame cats loose on a tame mule deer, a bit of stagecraft that resulted in the deer being chased off a cliff." I don't think Art Wolfe or Franz Lanting have ever been accused of such practices!

As for digital manipulation making things easy, well I'm all for making things easy. The problem lies in its ability to deceive the viewer, not in its ability to make life easier for the photographer. I look forward to the day when I can scan in an image, tweak it for color and contrast in the computer and make a large, high quality digital print from it right on my desktop, equal in quality and cost to a conventional print.

I think digitally created nature images are a problem.

What digitally created nature images will do is diminish the visual and emotional impact of "true" nature photographs. I can think of a number of memorable wildlife photographs that I've seen in previous years that would not have the same impact today. Thomas Mangleson's image of a leaping salmon poised before the open jaws of an Alaskan Brown Bear is one that comes immediately to mind. If I were to see this image for the first time today, I would probably dismiss it as a digitally created composition.

The impact of images of "real events" will be lessened by the spectacular digital creations that will flood the market.

This diminishing of real nature images will occur regardless of whether or not images are labeled as digital creations- and that's assuming all photographers are honest and that all editors will care.

Galen Rowell's image, "Rainbow over Potala Palace" is another example. In explaining why one of his favorite images did not sell as well as expected as an art poster, he said it was because many viewers dismissed it as a fake. Although the faked image in this case would not have to be a digital creation, it illustrates the point. As manipulation of photographs becomes easier, more unique real images will be considered digital creations.

For me, part of the joy of photography is the challenge involved. If photography were easy, I would not enjoy it as much. Because photography is difficult, truly exceptional images stand out. The ease and extent to which a computer can manipulate and alter images is disturbing. Unfortunately digital manipulation is here to stay and only time will reveal its effects.

A decade ago, when I saw a spectacular natural history image, my reaction was always, "Wow, that is beautiful." Today, my first reaction is either "Is that a straight shot or was it done on a computer?" or--as I have learned, unfortunately of some of the clearly unethical lengths that some nature photographers will go to to secure an image, "Is that a setup?" No matter your feelings on digital manipulation or your ethical stance, the above situation saddens me. It is my very strong belief that all digital manipulations that involve adding or subtracting components from an image, and all wildlife photographs of creatures that were not wild, free, and unrestrained must be honestly labeled by photographer and accurately captioned when published editorially. As this, at present, seems highly unlikely at best, it would seem that the rather sad situation that exists today in nature photogrpahy will continue. Best and great picture making. Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

Some of the "new" answers here are re-hashing old ground.

Photographs are credible because photographers are credible. Someone no less than Galen Rowell said this. The extent to which digitally processed photographs will remain credible at all depends more on the people using the medium than the medium itself. I don't think digital processes are fundamentally any different than other photographic tools.

In particular, it is naive to think that it is "easy" to create digital composites or striking digital images that are of high quality. Photoshop and tools like it are arguably some of the most complex pieces of software on the planet. They is not easy to use, they do not generate good results easily, they will not reduce nature photography to a "simple" act of going out and compositing together multiple mundane graphic images.

In order to make a good nature image, I think the digital artist would still face most of the challenges that the traditional still photographer does (find good light, good sense of composition, good sense of graphic design, the decisive moment). In addition, digital processing is not cheap, and not all that easy. I guess I've said this before.

Some things are worth saying again though! Two things are probably worth mentioning. First is the FoundView organization who are at least trying to set some guidleines on the labeling of images with regard to digital manipulation. Second is the fact that software and computers are increasing in power and capabilities so fast that even if you accept that image manipulation is currently quite difficult, in a few years it will be 10 times easier (and cheaper). I'd also challenge the view that it's difficult, at least for some things. Removing telephone poles and wires is usually trivial. Adding elements can be trickier, but removing elements is pretty easy, even now. Even if it isn't today, there will come a time when it will be easier to create the shot on a PC than it is to go out and get it in the "real world".

No matter how fast or powerful computers get, the point is that they are still just image manipulation tools. In order for the result to be compelling, the user of the tool will always have to have a unique spirit and vision and intuitive connection to the image. You can't get these things from a tool. I would claim that anyone who can't take a good photo will also not be able to use a PC to paste stock photos together into anything that is compelling.

The power of images like Galen Rowell's rainbow shot come partly from the fact that he went to extraordinary lengths to get the image. But, he had to have the vision and the presence of mind to put the image together in his head before going out and finding it. And, when he did find it, he didn't just stand there and snap the photo. He also had to have the craft and the design knowledge needed to find the most powerful composition. All of these things are in the photographer, not his tools.

So, while you are correct in saying that manipulation tools will let people do certain kinds of things more easily, I don't think its true that it will fundamentally change the fact that making artistically compelling images requires pratice, craft and talent.

OHTO, I would have to agree than scanning and computer tech. will probably make it much cheaper and easier in the future to do rudimentary retouching and other surface manipulations, and that there are ethical questions to be wrestled with because of this. I think this is on a totally different level than the claim that digital processes will make it 'trivial' to create great images. If this were the case, then the pro. graphic designers would surely be out of business, and I doubt that will happen.

I am surprised at the wide acceptance of "digital techniques" as just another photographic tool. I consider digital manipulation a form of painting that has nothing to do with photography. I don't buy the lame argument that "photographic lenses and filters all manipulate reality" which is usually used to defend digital manipulation. There is a logical continuum here. A camera shows what was actually there. A painting (digital or otherwise) shows arbitrary objects that the artist desires to see there. Between these two extremes things get stickier (e.g., I don't believe in filter use, but neither it nor lens focal length alter a scene at all, they only affect the way a scene is recorded), but let's be clear that digital additions to an image are NOT photography. Hopefully others have said as much, but here's another in agreement. I predict digital painting, currently interfering in the world of photography, will eventually seperate itself and go the way of drum machines from the 80s: be relegated to limited use in favor of real musicians and instruments. My two cents.

I think some people overestimate the difficulty of digital editing. It's literally a 1-10 minute job to remove contrails from an image, or to take out power lines. I have several images of animals with flies on their nose. It takes less then 60 seconds to remove the fly on a 24MB scan files. It's a trivial process. Ditto for the removal of branches in the wrong place, stalks of grass in front of an animal's face etc.

Now sure, I had to work for the original images, which are good but slightly flawed. Minimal effort on the PC can replace hours of effort in the field trying to find the animal without the fly, or waiting for the contrails to disappear.

So is it OK for me to do the minor "touch up" work and not tell anyone. Nobody will ever know I did it. If it's OK to do that, what isn't it OK to do?

Steve brought up a good analogy with music. Similar debates occurred with the increased use of electronic keyboards.... and the making of "fake" music. There were many traditional musicians who thought this was fooling the listening audience...or in itself wasn't real music at all. It has some similarities to this digital fakery debate.

Mark

I don't think the music analogy holds up. There never was and never can be any depiction of reality in music, whereas there is in photography. I guess the closest analogy would be between two CDs, one of bird songs recorded in the field, one of bird songs digitally created in the audio lab. Which would you buy, and would you feel cheated if the digitally created CD was sold with no label that it was a "digital creation"?

Ours is a craft and art that has been the playground of the image thief since day 1. Digital makes it easier for those with limited vision to steal the creative ideas and works of others. Digital as a tool is just fine but I go with Bob on this, Label the darn things and do it in very big letters. As others have pointed out many are looking at excellent natural images and automatically classing them in the catagory of FAKES, thanks in no small part to National Geographic and their Great Pyramid fiasco and the OJ Simpson cover shot farce. Take this months RANGEFINDER cover as a good example-digital fakery. For those who don't have the talent, work ethic or drive to get the images the computer will become an everyday tool. With a history of image theft already open many will use the computer scanner to take from others images and create their "own" photos. Theft is theft but this type of stealing will be thought of by many as harmless, just as the slimball artist Koons was defended by some major art magazines for stealing Art Rodgers "string of puppies" image and having it made into a woodcarving. Luckily many rallied behind Art Rodgers and Koons had to eat S*** in court and pay out for his dishonesty. But, how dishonest is the "photographer" who steals from others images and manipulates them. From the smarmy jerks who out & out copy others styles to the photofreaks who walk the parks & monuments with books of real photographers in hand and, book in hand, try lenses on the camera to duplicate the views in print. The computer is only one more tool in the hands of the creative and one more means of theft for those who won't develop their own creativity. FoundView has a good idea whether we all agree with it or not. I don't know if the symbol will really mean anything or even catch on, but the idea is good. But either way, computer manipulation is here to stay and as we go on what is now thought dishonest will, in time, become accepted by a certain segment of our craft. But as always there will be those few who will still do it with style, grace and talent and pursue images honestly.

I didin't raise the music analogy as a complete analogy, only as an analogy for the way in which society will deal with digital photo manipulation. There are lots of ways to establish the credentials of a photographer and the integrity of a photograph. Does the pro in question travel to all the places they claim their work was taken? How long did it take them to produce the images (i.e. is there routinely lag time with certain shooters while they manipulate their work before turning it over to editors)? Sure, there'll be a few fakes get through, but eventually procedures will be put in place that control this just fine. You can't manipulate images with your mental thought power (thank goodness!), so it all comes down to good old fashioned work, and how someone hides the extra cheating work they are doing. Market forces will drive the trend. Witness how people are again paying high prices for vinyl music recordings because they are rare and now seen to have more "visceral resonance" than cheap digital crap, ah, I mean, CDs. Real photos will (perhaps already do, as some pointed out) have more value in the long run.

In reading the mass of words generated by a question on ethics, it seems obvious that the photographer must be honest about the origins of a specific picture or group of pictures. This will allow the purists to concentrate on "unaltered" images and the changelings to seek out more "perfect" images. A famous nature photographer spends years living among wild animals until they become tame around him/her. A production company photographs wild animals almonst entirely in simulated or replicated habitat studio settings. Someone else takes a single image and makes 101 dogs out of it. Then there are the electronically generated dinosaurs and giant apes that never existed at all.

Artisticly, it doesn't matter how the image is created. Sociologically, it matters whether we are able to know what is real and what is imagined. Ethically, it matters if someone deliberately tries to mislead or lies about the origins of a picture.

Harry, of course it matters. It always will. All of those folks who say that authenticity does not matter need to take a good course in marketing and ethics. How may of us (including the digital imaging crowd) would be happy if we found out that we had just paid for a natural pearl and recieved a cultured pearl in its place. Afterall they are both pearls, right? Sure!!!!

Hm, may be I am depressed but - got this creepy feeling that ethics is becoming a funny old thing, and will disappear adventurely (cca when today's kids have grown up)... And, as everything else, will be replaced by marketing values. Perhaps the genuinness of a picture will become recognized as a value by snobs, thus marketable and admirable. (Any analogy with mom's apple pie and junk food is purely incidental.)

Unless you are trying to persuade or document, I don't see that "authenticity" if it exists has any value at all. After all, art is art, whether you use paint, sculpture, photography, or some combination. We all use the medium to distort reality to match an artistic vision. What difference does it make how it is achieved?

Ok, if you're taking pictures for the Audubon society as part of an effort to determine if the Siberian tiger is endangered, then authenticity is important and there should be rules about what is ok. If you're taking pictures as evidence of a crime in a court proceeding, ditto. But unless you have a good reason for needing authenticity, why worry about it. It seems to be mostly an illusion anyway given the subtle ways photographers influence their creations.

Indeed, rather than demanding labels on photographs when they are "manipulated" whatever that means, why not ask for them on photographs which proport to document reality -- why not ask those photographers for their rules? Why not assume that a photograph you're looking at is art unless you see some caption indicating otherwise. At that point, whether you believe the caption would depend on what you know about the person who took the picture and/or wrote the caption. Isn't that as it should be?

Lets look at a real world example: Art Wolfe is currently a spokesman for Canon. he is shilling the accuracy of the smart metering system of the EOS-3 in double page ads in photo magazines everywhere.

Sorry Pete but I needed to correct myself: the following sentence,

Wait a minute Ellis! In the Canon ad AW clearly states that he is now getting shots he could not get before he switched gear. Obvously, that proves that it is the camera that takes the picture, not the photographer.

The answer to this whole debate is quite simple(to me!). If you are ashamed to state what you have done, i.e. digitally manipulated an original,used captives, etc.. then what you have done is wrong! It seems that all the excuses are being made by those who alter without being forthright about it. Nuff said.

Can I begin by saying although I did not manage to read through all of the responses, I read enough to decide to add my two sense for what is worth. A lot has been stated about that which is "real" verses that which is "un-real". I would like to question then the use of Fuji Velvia. Maybe I am diffrent from most but I am almost sure that my pictures come back with a deeper blue sky then I remember seing...not to mention all of the other colors more vibrant then I have aver seen anywhere. I have no answers and probably more questions but in our quest for purity in our work lets not loose the fact that a photographer is a artist and the final print or slide his art.

Hey gang . . . first timer. If the site is good enough for Morris and Graf, I must be in the right place.

Ahhhh, the the computer manipulation debate. This one will be with us for a while. While holding my nose I start to participate in the digital world of photography. ... and I mean holding it tight! I suspect we nature photographers have such a hard time with this because our own personal history and heritage of nature photographers gone by. Ingrained in us is the respectful observance and sharing of what God has created naturally. This is quite different from our cousins of the portrait world who have now graduated to the studio groomed world of "Glamour Shots". Surely those Sports Illustrated bikini touting models pout that lip an stare in your eyes...in the natural "real" world. The point is nature photographers are a breed that has a deep appreciation for that which exists in the nature/natural state. I expect that we will continue to have progressively more problems with this slippery slope area of digital manipulation. By definition of the word NATUR-AL, we SHOULD have a problem. If our goal is commercial, we will have to bend to compete. But to the non-commercial purist who I believe there are many, you don't have to bend. Take heart and be proud of the moment you captured....no matter the imperfection. Indeed, God did not create us perfect. At least not me ... in case you were wondering.

So to the point...my opinion...digital manipulation is here to stay. Holding my nose I will explore it. But my answer to the debate is in agreement with JEFF LOFFERT, NOVEMBER 14, 1999. If you manipulate, just say so. Tell your audience what you have done. Jeff is right: If you are ashamed to state what you have done, then what you have done is wrong. Yes it does seem that the excuses and compromises are being made by those who alter without being forthright about it. If your manipulation is art, stand up and sign your masterpiece.

Whew!!!! Mark LaGrange, March 20, 2000

With photography we limit what gets seen by introducing borders to what lays before our eyes. This very act is, in itself, manipulation. Never mind how filters, computers, film, etc. render the view before your eyes and whether that should be 'labled' or 'signed'. Who considers what might lay beyond the borders of an image? Painting? Not giving consideration for what lays beyond those introduced borders can create misconceptions about the very thing inside the borders. Context. Accept the fact that what you are viewing is not 'truth' and everything will be fine. Take the images as you would any other rendering and don't worry too much about how 'REAL' it is.

Geez Alan! It is exactly the fact that what nature photography records has its basis in reality of the natural world that attracts me to it. To accept unreality, as you suggest, would be depressing. I refuse!

So...everyone has obviously pointed out things that don't apply to the question... missing the point people :)

I am an artist with photography as my medium. I believe I have all the artistic rights, short of fraud, due any artist; the Bill of Rights ensures me of my right to freedom of expression and use of my full knowledge, skills, and tools without having to defensively write disclaimers concerning my authenticity.

In one of my previous lives I worked on high-end stereo speaker systems. The goal was to reproduce the actual sound that was initially recorded in your own living room. For various reasons, this is technically impossible. So we had to make a series of trade-offs to present a convincing illusion of reality.

I think there is a strong correlation to photography. The instant you trip the shutter, you have manipulated reality - you have squished a 3-D scene onto a 2-D page. Losing an entire dimension I think would count as image manipulation!

The question is then, how far down this road do you feel you can go. It's a moral issue really - are you telling the truth, or are you fibbing?

No one would begruge you the 3-D to 2-D manipulation - its implicit in the medium and is clear to all concerned. But if, as in the famous National Geographic cover, you move the pyramids closer together to better fit into the size of the cover, then you are mis-representing reality, I think. (www.willwoodard.com)

I think that the energy of a manipulated image is different, and so the effect of the picture will be different.

I think that a lot of the power of still photography comes from its ability to record "reality."

That power can become diluted when you manipulate an image too much.

And I think the power of an image is affected more by what goes on before you trip the shutter than by what happens after.

Okay - do you use a darkroom? That's manipulation. Digital manipulation (through programs like Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo-Paint) are manipulation too.

What's the problem?

Hey look, 5 years after the fact, the technique has been automatted

http://www.fredmiranda.com/DRI/index.html

I like this technique. I don't have the automated software referenced above though. I really think that the only tricky thing is aligning the two images using two layers in photoshop. I don't know enough about the automated software to know if it automates that part of the process. Having the computer do the alignemt would seem to require a little AI. I did this by eye in photoshop 6.0 and as an example I can offer http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=885434

(1) One would have to read their comments on the subject.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes.

Digital manipulation may be art, but it is not photography. Show your skill and attempt to put as close to the final print on film at the time of exposure.

The newbie smells dogma; and not thinking from head, rather - The Knights Who Go: knee.

Respectfully -Newbie Kahonease

If an image is altered at all then it has been manipulated. The only difference in digital and film is the amount of chemicals used. PhotoShop, Corel, and all the rest are nothing more than a digital darkroom. The question of ethics only comes up if the photographer represents the work as "untouched". If any of us could manage to capture the perfect photograph every time then we would all be running around with instamatics. I for one am thankful for the "digital darkroom" and will continue using it in virtually every shot I plan on showing.

These comments are facinating to me - i'm grateful for forums such as this, but I disagree with many of you. SO many of you use negative terminology when describing photo compositing, photo manipulation, and photo montage. Why such fear of this developing form of imagery? It is no less valuable, nor less intriguing than a so called documentary image or so called photojournalism. I have a great many years experience in both "pure" photography and photo manipulation and I have to say it is MUCH harder for me to do photo manipulation well than to do documentary photography well. Photo documentation is based in timing, connections with the place and subject matter, as well as simply having the balls to put ones self into situations - one is expected to record what is there. Photo manipulation also can involve all of those things, and some. Photojournalim is about sparking emotion in a viewer that is matched up narratively with text. Documentary is about showing a story in order so that people can read a conclusion from it. Photo manipulation is about visualizing an idea - a concept. That idea can then be matched with text or stand on its own. Coming up with that concept from scratch is a HUGE challenge and that is why i grew into that form as my personal favorite to use photography for. My subject is not given to me, i must make it. In my work I on photo compositing and what some may call manipulations. I still work in editorial and some documentary on occasion, but I prefer conceptual. I love all the forms of photography and respect each equally and dont ALWAYS manipulate an image, but i have such a respect for the transition and growth in imagery today that i cannot say a photo compositor is "less than". Whether we like it or not, the audience has changed. Photojournalism and documentary were never as "real" as people try to preach. Black and white? Hello! How REAL is that? Dodging, burning, grain, darkroom compositing, multiple exposures - the list goes on. If you were ever proficient in the darkroom then you know everything you do in Photoshop you can do in a "traditional" darkroom. Photoshop is based on a tradition darkroom and simply faster - but the techinques are not easy. Even a hack can print a B&W image, as even a hack can use a filter in Photoshop. There is ALOT more to creating images than knowing the basics. You know when 35mm hit the market, photojournalists and documentary photogs were using 4x5's and they were posing everything to some degree.... Whats that all about? In the beginning of 35mm they freaked out - HATED it - said is was less real, less technical, - "LESS THAN". As a community we must embrace and see that digital is the future and the present... analog is novelty. Analog is an artistic choice, just as is color. I still love it, still shoot it at times, still respect it - but I'm telling you not an established newspaper in the world is using it, nor are most contemporary photogs, the best art schools, nor the most creative magazines, and the commercial home user wont be for much longer either. So we may as well appreciate hard work where its placed and stop clinging to the past definitions of what is real. What is real? Is an idea not real? An idea is equal to a moment in time. Yes - they are two differenet things. Two different things that deserve support.

"Why such fear of this developing form of imagery?"

There is no fear of a developing form of imagery. There is a real disgust at those who manipulate by changing what is there, not the normal burning/dodging/exposure/lens selection... and then passing it off as what really happened.

It is dishonest. National Geo moving a pyramid. News photogs putting two images together to make a more powerful image. Making photos you WISH you had taken rather than what you DID take and failing to label them as such is the lie. Same as passing off zoo & game farm photos as being in the wild. Lying is what it is and it just ain't Kosher.