Nature Photography: Objectivity, Manipulation, and Ethics

Nature Photography: Objectivity, Manipulation, and Ethics

From stitching together images to baiting wildlife subjects, what's acceptable when it comes to nature photography?

By The Editors
Published: 01/30/2014
Magazine Category

Comments

I really believe if you are

I really believe if you are using the photos for Audubon or other Nature magazines, the pictures should be unaltered, it is suppose to be natural and real life pics that are educational. I dont photo shop yet my pics are sometimes discarded because they are natural and are not given wild bold colors and lines.

Only minor alterations

Only minor alterations (light, contrast, ect) should be allowed. The photo should be as it was when taken with the camera with little editing. When you add other animals, switch backgrounds, or make other major alterations, it is no longer a photograph. It then becomes digital artistry. It's kinda like when you took a test as a child. If you answered the questions from your knowledge, it was a good answer. If you used a cheat sheet, it was no longer your answer but one created by cheating. Only photos that are as seen thru the viewfinder are true photos.

my sentiments exactly!

my sentiments exactly!

Only minor alterations

Only minor alterations (light, contrast, ect) should be allowed. The photo should be as it was when taken with the camera with little editing. When you add other animals, switch backgrounds, or make other major alterations, it is no longer a photograph. It then becomes digital artistry. It's kinda like when you took a test as a child. If you answered the questions from your knowledge, it was a good answer. If you used a cheat sheet, it was no longer your answer but one created by cheating. Only photos that are as seen thru the viewfinder are true photos.

Only minor alterations

Only minor alterations (light, contrast, ect) should be allowed. The photo should be as it was when taken with the camera with little editing. When you add other animals, switch backgrounds, or make other major alterations, it is no longer a photograph. It then becomes digital artistry. It's kinda like when you took a test as a child. If you answered the questions from your knowledge, it was a good answer. If you used a cheat sheet, it was no longer your answer but one created by cheating. Only photos that are as seen thru the viewfinder are true photos.

Only minor alterations

Only minor alterations (light, contrast, ect) should be allowed. The photo should be as it was when taken with the camera with little editing. When you add other animals, switch backgrounds, or make other major alterations, it is no longer a photograph. It then becomes digital artistry. It's kinda like when you took a test as a child. If you answered the questions from your knowledge, it was a good answer. If you used a cheat sheet, it was no longer your answer but one created by cheating. Only photos that are as seen thru the viewfinder are true photos.

Only minor alterations

Only minor alterations (light, contrast, ect) should be allowed. The photo should be as it was when taken with the camera with little editing. When you add other animals, switch backgrounds, or make other major alterations, it is no longer a photograph. It then becomes digital artistry. It's kinda like when you took a test as a child. If you answered the questions from your knowledge, it was a good answer. If you used a cheat sheet, it was no longer your answer but one created by cheating. Only photos that are as seen thru the viewfinder are true photos.

Thank you for inspiring some

Thank you for inspiring some introspection on the nature of photography. I am puzzled, however, by the use of the term "ethical", which is quite different from asking whether or not a certain photographic technique ought to be allowed or disallowed from a competition. Ethics are cultural expectations that pertain to certain acts, and I don't see how Ansel Adams' taking of a landscape could be unethical no matter how it is modified. Nor could I possibly interpret Paula McCartney's artistic creation as unethical as an artistic work, if no animals are harmed in the process. Nor is it unethical to submit to such a photo to a competition. It would be unethical to lie about the photographic process in order to submit it to a contest for which it violates the rules -- but it is the lie that is unethical, not the taking of the photo.

Audubon's published article

Audubon's published article on game farms for those who have not read it.

http://www.audubonmagazine.org/articles/nature/phony-wildlife-photograph...

Obviously lots of "photographers" here, who want to take the easy road do not read the magazine.

Dean has some good points on

Dean has some good points on baiting and I agree with him. It's important for people not to be fooled by such tactics when viewing photos.

As far as editing is concerned, where do we draw lines between what is to much editing? Sometimes even when I have the best camera settings in the field the photograph can be tweaked to near perfection in post processing. It's hard not to attempt to perfect a photograph for me.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.