What we see in an image isn’t always what the photographer really captured.
1/1000, f/6.3, ISO 500, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM @ 400mm, not baited, set up or called in
This is one of the two juvenile Swainson’s Hawks I photographed about a month ago near Monida, Montana. I was using my 100-400mm zoom lens so the image quality isn’t quite up to the standards of my 500mm prime but I like the shot because of the nice head turn, the flared tail and the look at the under-wing plumage patterns. I also enjoy the partially extended alula (bastard wing) on each wing (more about the alula here if you’re interested).
But this isn’t everything I saw through my lens…
The hawk was actually taking off from the cross beam of a power pole which I cloned out in the first version of the image. The pole with its attendant metal hardware isn’t particularly attractive and some may wish that it wasn’t there.
But this still isn’t an “honest” image…
The bird was actually only taking off to fly a very short distance to land on the insulator you see to the left. I cloned out that insulator and the wire leading to it in both previous versions of the image.
Photoshop and other editing software makes it relatively easy to remove, add or change elements in an image but is it ethical or honest to do so? Many would unequivocally say no. Some take the position that if you disclose what you’ve done it’s ok. Others say that as long as you don’t alter the bird (subject) anything’s fair, whether it’s disclosed or not. And some are of the opinion that any cloning (other than removing dust spots, etc.) is unethical and dishonest – most nature photography competitions take this position.
I have my own opinion (one that has evolved slightly over time) but I’m curious what my readers think. Which of these versions of the same image do you prefer? And how much manipulation is ethical, if any? And does disclosure of manipulation make a difference in what is ethical and what isn’t?
Please don’t feel any pressure to answer my questions but if you have an opinion and would care to share it I’d certainly be interested and I suspect others would be too.
Ron
For me, the photo begs for context. The legs are outstretched. Why? Without the perch (and I agree it’s not particularly attractive) it’s not clear and I think the picture suffers for it. The wire adds a feeling of a cramped space. Again, not particularly attractive but I think it adds to the story of the picture. I’m definitely in the #3 camp for those reasons.
I always enjoy your ethical dilemmas. It challenges me to think about what is important to me in my own photography. “Not baited, set up or called in” is a wonderful mantra.
My lson and his family were photographed together…everyone looked good, but him in the first shot…he looked drunk as a skunk and halfwitted, but he was the only one who looked good in another…so he used photoshop and exchanged heads…I now have a great shot of the whole family. For me, Photoshop is just another tool…to be used wisely and well for positive outcomes or deliberately dishonest and deceptive…and for the wrong reasons…I do think manipulated images shoild be identified as such…like the ones some guy does with the painfully bright blue skies and screaming colors….I find them agctually uncomfortable to look at…
I think cloning out these unappealing features is fine and leaves one with an esthetically pleasing photo. Of course, if you are entering the photo in a competition or using in a way that req.ires it you must disclose what you have done. Ansel Adams and Edward Curtis had no issue with taking out things in photos to improve their look. It is a part of creating a beautiful image.
I think this is a balanced discussion of some of the issues mentioned in the replies.
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM
I do no have photo shop either…Yet..There are times I agree with you Ron about “distractions” in pictures. ie: We get beautiful Sunsets here in the desert, and all I have to do is stand in my backyard, take a pic or two…My problem? Telephone poles, and wires. We even have a pole in our backyard.
It’s frustrating for me, as all I want to do is take a picture of the sunset, clouds etc. It is the curse of life I suppose, or progress as they call it. I also agree with others that the natural habitat is part of nature, and should be seen as well. At least you are honest, and you just have to pick and chose what is “acceptable” for a good picture. Keep taking the pictures. They put a smile on my face. Even if I do not comment on all of them
Well, I’m probably going to repeat what many have said, but all I can do is tell you and others how I feel. First, I don’t own Photoshop for the very reason you mentioned, you can clone, remove, alter a picture. I don’t have problems with adding or detracting levels of light from a picture or increasing decreasing color that is already in the picture or for that matter sharpening. You basically can’t sharpen and unsharp picture or remove blur, at least with the software I use. I have to admit that I really have a problem with pictures that are touted to be the real thing and are simply staged in one way or another. Unfortunately it makes me suspicious of most pictures I look at, see in an article, etc. However, if the photographer is honest and tells viewers what he/she has done or not done to the picture, that is a different story. For example, if you are trying to get a picture of a Swainson’s Hawk, lets say for a book and needed it for plumage and color characters, and said what you had removed from the picture, then either #1 or #2. For behavior #3. If one is dealing with artistry, then I feel the artist NEEDS to be honest, and if the shot isn’t to his/her liking look for another Swainson’s in a different locale, don’t manipulate a shot or falseify a picture because the artist doesn’t want to make the effort to do the right thing!
I have to say I like #3, because that shows the environment, the habitat, the choice that this hawk is making. I even would like to see it on top of the insulator. But, that is just me! The more man and his trappings gets in the way the more animals will figure out how to use them and they will be part of the picture one takes. If a photographer wants a pure picture without mans influence he/she needs to go to that kind of place or admit to what they are doing to the image they take.
I ponder the ethics or lack of ethics in Photoshop. I don’t much care for altering reality but on the other hand the tool itself amazes me and what one achieves with this tool. Purpose, intent and benefit come into play but I still prefer the real thing. I am suspicious of photographs I see because of the manipulations but expressed honesty prior to viewing allows me to enjoy the photograph that much more. In your photo of the hawk, the 3rd unaltered view is far more interesting to me as it expresses the particular environment the hawk was “dealing with” at that moment.
Lots and lots of fascinating responses.
For me the ethical questions resolve around intent and purpose.
Cutting out clutter to highlight the bird? Not a problem. Adding canvas, for the same reason ditto.
It is when people deliberately falsify to (usually) make themselves appear better and/or more knowledgeable that my hissy fits are invoked.
That said, the birds adapt to, and welcome our man-made structures very readily. And perhaps we should as well…
I always find these discussions interesting, Ron.
Photojournalism aside, there are no rules unless they are explicitly stated in posting or submission guidelines. Ethics are the moving target here. I process images to please myself, if others like it, all the better.
Removing (cropping, cloning) or adding (canvas) elements are individual decisions best left to the individual. They hold the copyright, they get to choose. Those that argue for the unmanipulated,”natural” image accept the parameters of whatever the camera manufacture has deemed to be correct. I don’t buy into that. I did,t buy into it in the film days either.
Finding the combination of adjustments that suite your style and your personal vision of what you saw takes a considerable amount of time to learn and develop (no pun intended). Not to mention all of the hardware and software necessary to develop the skill sets necessary to bring it all together. It wasn’t any different in the darkroom with chemistry. Except that I’m no longer dealing with contact dermatitis, taking an image from capture through to print or post still require manipulation in some form or other.
I like the fact that you disclose your choices of processing, but wouldn’t be critical if you didn’t. Full disclosure is always best, but I assume all images are manipulated.
Photography is an art form, no need to corral it.
A big thank you to everyone who has shared their opinion on this so far. Here’s mine:
I’ll preface by saying that my stance on the issue has been colored by what I call the “Marty Stouffer effect”. Stouffer was the narrator and producer of the wildly popular TV show Wild America on PBS some years ago. The show was known for its “realistic” portrayal of nature but some years later it was revealed that Stauffer used trickery, captive animals, staged setups and animal cruelty to film many of the scenes that he portrayed as “natural” and his methods were not revealed in the credits or anywhere else. He was also found guilty of building an illegal hunting camp on public land and of building a 6 mile trail through protected private land to access that hunting camp. He paid fines in both cases but it was his dishonesty toward the viewers of Wild America that troubled me most. I loved that show and when I found out how it was filmed I felt deceived. It makes me angry to this day.
True, Stouffer’s shenanigans and the act of cloning objects in or out of an image are not the same thing but both can mislead the viewer.
So, here’s where I stand on cloning (just my opinion – it obviously won’t work for everyone):
* It goes without saying that doing whatever I like (including cloning) to my own image for my own use is not an issue.
* But if I display that image publicly (for sale or not) any significant cloning should be disclosed, either by context or by text. If I don’t disclose, many viewers (and potential clients) may be misled. I know of one well known photographer who regularly clones fake backgrounds into his bird images and doesn’t disclose it when displayed publicly unless pressed. I find that to be deliberately dishonest and unethical.
* Whenever I do any significant cloning I always disclose but even then it can be awkward. Sometimes publishers interested in buying an image skipped over my disclosure in my blog and then were surprised when I sent them the unedited file that made the cloning obvious. Some publishers don’t allow cloning.
* I do clone dust spots and the occasional dark spot on the surface of water without disclosing. The most common type of cloning I do is to add canvas to an image for purposes of composition but I disclose it when I do.
* I don’t like cloning and wish I never did it but I’m human and when I get an image that I like a lot other than some distracting element I can occasionally be seduced into getting rid of it and sometimes do.
*IMO, there’s good reason why most highly respected photo competitions forbid cloning.
That’s what works for me (and why).
I see nothing wrong with editing out distractions Sometimes you can do it with camera placement, but you don’t want to stress out animals by getting too close. And I don’t need to know that you did it. The hawk and the habitat you shot it in are the only true things. And whether you simplified the background with the length of you lens, or with Photoshop is also immaterial. I would draw the line in wildlife photography in not passing off pictures of captured animals as wild and in not adding in other animals to the picture. So a true picture of what the animal was doing, and with as much background as helps tell the story of that animal is all we need to see.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting rid of “stuff”. The bird is what we focus on. Keep “shooting”!!
That’s quite a dilemma you pose with your questions. As far as attractiveness of the image goes, the original is the least attractive. The wire really crowds the picture and detracts from the bird. I don’t have a problem with removing an element like the wire that seriously detracts from the quality of an image that is otherwise very good. Disclosure is very important, though. I see the first photo as dishonest, perhaps because the context has been removed. As I see it, one of the biggest problems with posting images in a blog like this is that all of us look for artistry in the images, and the wire in the original image ruins the artistry. I am comfortable with the level of everything in the middle image, as long as you disclose what you did to it. In looking at the images again I realized that the first one is obviously missing something, given the position of the bird’s feet (something I would probably not have caught if not for all the discussions we have here). I think there is a fine line between honesty and artistry, and I prefer to have honesty in the images, with some concessions to artistry. Again, I land on the second one as being the best, for that reason.
I like number 2 as it provides context. But I notice that you did not clone out the shadow of the wire leavinng me to wonder what it is.
I have no ethical problem with any of these images. If it were for publication or a contest that may be different. I probably like the second one best because the first one kind of leaves you wondering why the feet are down.
I am a big fan of Ansel Adams, who was mentioned in a previous comment. I was down in Santa Fe and we dropped by a museum that had 4 or 5 original prints of his famous Moonrise, Hernandez, NM, all right next to each other, that Adams had printed over his long career. I was amazed at how different they all were! Do not think that image manipulation is something that began with digital photography. Photography is an art and the artist is allowed to show his vision of the image. Ethically I am far more concerned with how the photos were taken.
It’s getting so that I don’t even lift my lens to photograph a bird if it is on an unsightly perch. That said, I don’t see anything wrong with being creative or cleaning up in post processing.
I prefer the original, unedited image because of the story it tells. The first image is beautiful – a bird in flight somewhere in the world. However, the unedited image gives me more of the sense of place and circumstance. I agree that the beam and wire detract from the focus on the bird yet they spark me to ponder why the bird was in flight and where it was coming from or going to.
Interesting discussion you started!
First and foremost, it is YOUR photograph – do what you want! The first image is beautiful, more so by far than the next two. I’d use it to hang, in a slide show, for a card, to sell prints, … If alive today, I believe Ansel Adams would be a Photoshop expert!
That said, if you are competing in a photo competition, it is only fair to follow the rules: most nature competitions state no cloning. So big deal; we all have lots of photos that don’t need cloning, and compete those instead.
I like the first for the beauty and the second two for the education. 😀
Good on ya, for sparking the conversation Ron. I am fascinated by the range of opinions. I am also pretty certain there is a full range of implementation of these various opinions in the work we see on the web in general.
I agree with Allison and like all three for different reasons. The first shot is beautiful and highlights the bird. It does bring up questions that are answered in the other two photos: Why are the bird’s feet extended? Is it taking off, or landing or what kind of pose or action is happening? The third photo, while “cluttered” answers the questions about the pose: This bird is actually ‘hopping’ from one side of the crossbeam to another! That’s what the hawk looks like when it just wants to travel a short distance. Seeing the three photos in sequence lets us examine the bird differently and tells us a different story. Thanks for your great shots.
First off, remember the AP photographer who was stripped of his Pulltzer Prize for photojournalism when it was revealed that he had cloned out of his “award” winning photo of the Syrian conflict the camera of a fellow photographer? The AP allows lightening and darkening and that’s all as far a digital manipulation goes. But, let’s go back before digital, to Ansel Adams. I remember reading in a book about his work that he sometimes used tea when developing his prints to elicit a warmer tone.
Keeping the above in mind, Ron and others, I prefer the first image as I am not distracted by the pole or anything else that for me would take away my appreciation of the shot. If Ron had taken the shot in extremely low light conditions and even with a very high ISO still had portrayed a “noisy”, pixelated Hawk wouldn’t we all have preferred a lightening of the subject if it prevented the loss of the bird’s features?
The bottom line for me and my own photographs is if there is a contest or scientific publication with a format with a clear delineation of standards, then by all means I must subscribe to that prerequisite. Other than that, photography for me is a form of artistic expression and I will portray my subject in any way I see fit – like it or not. Thank you Ron for opening up this discussion.
Ron,
First let me say, I enjoy your photography and your blog very much. I like the pictures, the discussions are interesting and informative. As to the question of ethics my opinion is, it depends. To me, my photography is my art. With that said, I make the claim in my artist statement that all my pictures are post processed, some to make as realistic as I can, others to portray my vision of the scene.
If this was a competition, I would have the expectation that everyone follow the rules (typically no alterations). In general use, as long as someone isn’t claiming the photo is all natural, I view it as the artist’s expression and however they process it is fine with me. In fact I enjoy learning from what others do, sometimes it can make for fascinating shots.
I once heard that Ansel Adams had commented that it didn’t matter how you got the image, what mattered was the image (this was in reference to trying digital photography). I agree with that concept and photoshop opens a whole new world of images, just like digital photography did when it entered the market. Many claimed it wasn’t “real photography”.
Only my opinion, but I appreciate the idea that there are so many ways to approach photography now. It gives us variety and creates these discussions, which helps keep it interesting.
Happy shooting…
Interesting info on the alula…didn’t realize it had a function…thought of it as some kind of vestigal “thumb”…interesting, too, how frequently it is left out of diagrams in some of the best bird books…not even mentioned much less identified.
For me, it is fine to remove the clutter as long as you do not retouch the subject. Full disclosure of this is honest and informative. Love seeing all of your images.
As far as Photoshop goes, I would argue that there is nothing inherently ethical or unethical about it. Editing in photoshop is merely manipulation of digital data on a private computer. As far as i can figure, there’s not a single thing wrong with doing that to your heart’s content.
I think that ethics come into play in deciding what, then, to do with that manipulated data. How do you present it, and where, and why? What do you stand to gain (awards, money, prestige, respect, admiration, satisfaction?) from that presentation? Is that presentation in accord with the principles (explicit or implied?) of the place (competition, gallery, critique forum, blog community?) where it is presented? Is the presentation honest or deceptive? And a whole bunch of other questions.
There is certainly a point where the extent of the manipulation transforms the piece from photography into digital art, but I don’t think that there is necessarily anything unethical about doing so–as long as the piece is presented honestly.
I like the subject “clean”, with ugly distractions removed when possible..unless they are a necessary visual part of the dialogue…don’t want the subject monkeyed with, though. For sake of “purity”, you can also show cluttered version, too. I follow your blog for the birds (landscapes, other animals…don’t appreciate the distractions.. Nikole Thayne says it all for me.
I agree with BrianG,too.
Ron,
I like you first version, and I look at it as art, or reference images. I would only have an issue if someone tried to enter such an image into a pure nature PSA type of competition.
Rich Reynolds
Actually, I like all three for different reasons. I like the sole focus in shot #1, which helps me appreciate the alula and exquisite feathers. I like the second shot for the horizontal beam’s textural ‘resonance’ with the bird feathers, and for the context. I like the third for the information. I think your general policy of only sharing photoshopped images along with the original shot is very helpful and edifying. As mentioned once before, I am an unrepentant Photoshop addict, but I use it for illustrations and for fine art. I do not represent them as straight-up photographs.
Thx for the biology lesson. 🙂 All the photo’s are good tho the 3rd one, even if accurate as to what you saw, is a bit cluttered for my taste. The second one does give context to what the bird was doing and the alula in action. Guess it depends on what one is trying to convey. Personally, I’m after “what I see” most of the time.
Thank you for your comments so far. I’m out the door in a couple of minutes to go shooting but I’ll join the discussion when I get home. Besides, it’s my intention to not influence what might be said…
Hi Ron,
For what it’s worth, I can appreciate the edited version as long as the original is shown (or at least referenced). I think there are a couple of issues here; the ethical one you mention, and the idea of how to best show off the animal. From an artistic perspective, I think it’s OK (even expected) to “manipulate” the image, but as a scientist (or documentarian) it’s important to be objective. I work with Photoshop all the time, so I always question images. Since your work is a documentation of wildlife, it matters to me that you don’t retouch the animals, and I appreciate that you have opened up this conversation.
Thanks so much for sharing your beautiful images!
Since you ask, I’m on the side of removing the distractions as you did. Having said that, whatever you are talented enough to do would probably be acceptable to me. After all, that’s digital photography!
Charlotte