mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
mothman said:I agree and I don't think I have ever disputed that.
I am talking about the specific action of re composing animals within a frame or adding elements that were not originally there simply to make for a prettier picture.
I love my digital SLR and I happily take digital wildlife shots on a regular basis, process them with a RAW program and alter the settings in photoshop, but stop there.I see no dichotomy in that.
One of the real differences in opinion here, to my mind, is the use of wildlife photography as just a technical and/or scientific process where the value of a pleasing image is not as important as capturing what you see (which I do not believe is possible, if we are being pedantic, as described so well by Nigel earlier). I fully agree that photography for natural history documentation/journalism is important, very important but do you really believe that is why everyone posts images to the gallery here on BF or anywhere else? For many, the beauty of the image is important...creating it is more than just a technical exercise to document a subject.
In the specific case of the Razorbills I used to start this thread - the image is not that inspiring, it doesn't show any particularly interesting behaviour, the atmospheric conditions were awful (lifting mist) and anyone with a camera could recreate and probably better it by standing in a boat by some sea cliffs. However, when I looked at the image, moving the bird a little to the right improved composition...it hasn't changed the viewers perception of what is happening - a Razorbill is still flying in empty sky over other Razorbills on a rock - it has just made it more pleasing to look at. I doubt anyone would have noticed or cared if I hadn't mentioned it. So, where is the harm in that? By doing it am I changing your perception of Razorbill behaviour?
This type of manipulation is technically easy to do, was done regularly prior to the digital age and has little difference to multiple exposures on film. A common use for this technique is 'star swirl' night scenes with a well lit, natural icon in the foreground. This is creating an interesting, pleasing image of a natural wonder - the fact that the star movement would be impossible to capture with sunset/sunrise lighting the main subject is not important - the resulting image is important - it is something I would want to hang on my wall (so does that make it art? rhetoric question).
It was created by a photographer, using photographic equipment...so is it not a photograph? (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...)
It is a photograph of nature, doing natural things...so is it not a nature photograph? (...it is a duck!)
It does not document reality but is no less valuable in my eyes. In fact, more valuable IMO - it is fairly simple to take a picture of star movement or a natural icon in good light...