mothman
Well-known member
The difference between these two scenarios is the fact that the creature moves ITSELF within the frame in an outside studio in the first,and the IMAGE CREATOR moves it within the frame in the second thus making the creature do something that it did not do.Keith Reeder said:Personally I little or no moral or ethical difference between the kind of manipulation Mark has done here and "staged" shots - birds being photographed in what amounts to an outside studio with carefuly placed branches for the birds to perch on; foliage carefully selected for its colour and placed in the scene even though it might not actually be growing there; unwanted clutter cleared from the area; maybe a pond being created especially to bring the bird into the picture and serve as a prop...
It's all "manipulation", and in a sense I see Mark's picture here as more "pure" than set-up pictures which might bear little semblance to what the scene looked like before the photographer got there.
I like both approaches: they're equally valid and legitimate if done "honestly".
But they're both an intervention by the photographer resulting in the alteration of an arbitrary starting point in order to get the shot.
Discuss...
In the first example you can't make an animal do anything outside the realms of natural behavior, it will simply not cooperate.
In the second example you can make an animal do exactly what you want (natural or not)
