I’ve hung back a while before adding comment on this thread just to see how it develops. One essential point that seems not to have been explored is that photography itself is not representative of the truth of what we see with the naked eye, this is down to the limitations of the photographic equipment to start with.
We can manipulate an image just by the way we compose it to include(or not include) the surroundings, or by choice of shutter speed, slow to show movement blur, fast to freeze the action, manipulations of the image already, digital or film! We can also affect the way the subject appears in relation to its environment by choice of lens and by choice of aperture to increase or decrease depth of field, again the photographer’s creative input is manipulating the end result, DOF is particularly relevant when using longer focal lengths which have shallow depth of field even when stopped down. To explain my point here, take the example of looking at a flock of birds, with the naked eye all of the birds are in focus, but a 500mm, for example, will only focus on the small area of the plane of focus, this area can be increased by using a smaller aperture, but by using digital technology one could focus individually on each bird in the flock and composite the resulting frames into one image that is far more representative of the ‘truth’ of the scene, so what some would call cheating can also be seen as creating a more honest image.
An image can also be manipulated by choice of film, methods of development, the grade of paper used for printing, cropping has been done in the darkroom since the birth of photography, as has colour and contrast adjustments, yes all processes that can be done in Photoshop/PSP whatever. (On the point of cropping I personally think that in this forums galleries it would be good for beginners if it were declared, as there seems to be a few threads relating to how to get closer to birds where newcomers are despondent with their results.) These manipulations are of course not perceived as such as they are essential to presenting the image in a form that we feel is close to what was viewed in the field.
In the controlled circumstances of shooting at a feeding station it is possible to arrange the perch and other elements of the shot in a way that makes for artistic composition, removing unwanted twigs, and items that may cause distracting shadows, highlights etc prior to shutter release is not really any different to cloning them out in post production, so I don’t have a problem with this either. (Whether the bird lands in the right place is another matter)
As for the movement of the Razorbill in the shot that bought this thread about, well I don’t see a problem there at all, undeclared no one would question it, and frankly a nano-second difference in the timing of shutter release would have bought about something similar anyhow.
When it comes down to adding elements shot at different times, as the point re zoo animals placed in natural settings raises I have several different views on this depending on the purpose of the picture, if it is to illustrate some natural behaviour or other difficult to achieve photographically aspect of a creatures lifestyle, then I do not see an issue, yes I would prefer if its declared, but unless its done very expertly it stands out like a sore thumb and will be obvious.
When done to deliberately deceive i.e. false rarity record of some bird photographed abroad and placed in a recognisable place then that’s just not on. In a photo library catalogue that I have there is a picture of a Great White shark attacking a Polar Bear through a hole in the ice, its so crap its funny……….
Having worked in visual effects within the movie industry for 25 years I have been involved with the creation of many complex scenes that involve many separate image elements being put together as one image, the truth is that to do it well it has to be done in a very controlled manner, matching such things as the direction(s) of lighting, the density of shadows and highlights, the effects of atmospherics (haze etc) the correct scale of the various elements, and getting exact match colour correction is very complex, so the chances of finding two or more images in your files that would work together to make one realistic final shot is pretty slim.
Anyone who can go out and shoot images that are intended to be put together and work well is actually facing quite a challenge, and I take my hat off to them if they achieve a worthy result, far from cheating, I know it is considerably more difficult than many would think!
Since the dawn of digital cameras, photography has advanced greatly, previously I felt that wildlife photography was beginning to get a bit stale, the freedom from film cost and the better automation of exposure, focusing etc has meant that photographers have been able to push the limits quite significantly, so my real attitude to this is that digital imaging is a powerfully creative tool, and I do not think that anyone should take to much heed of others opinions in a way that inhibits them from exploring the possibilities that it allows, if we all stuck to rigid rules photography would become very boring, and I for one enjoy seeing others being creative and helping to advance what we do.
