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.