• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Cheating or digital imaging? (1 Viewer)

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Very eloquent, Mark - and nicely summing up my view of this too.

I can't really see any value in taking the view that any or all pictures of birds must by definition also be considered on their scientific merit, nor does it really make any sense to do so.

The millionth picture of a cute little blue tit in a rose bush is just that, a cute little picture: it contributes nothing to our knowledge of the species, so I feel no need to entertain the notion that there is some underlying scientific value to the picture which would debar me from considering any sort of additional creative fiddling - especially as we've all agreed that there is no such thing as an "unaltered" digital picture anyway...
 
mothman said:
I keep a natural history diary and would not dream of making an unnatural or embellished observation just because it made for a better READ than the truth.
Click to expand...

What worries me it that this images slight distortion is going to change the whole birding communities perception of the Razorbill ;)

My point is what is the Truth ??

No two humans will hear or see the same thing due the differences in their vision and hearing functions.
No two cameras will produce an identical image.
Ten observers of an event will give you ten different versions of a Diary report.
No two rulers will measure the same distance.

The sad fact is we are better at measuring differences than absolute values. Therefore we have to allow for tolerances in what we see, hear and measure.

As Nigel has said the bird could of occupied that position a split second later anyway. So the question really is where do we draw the limit? Moving the bird an inch or so maybe acceptable but transposing into a jungle scene is unacceptable.


PS - I did have an unedited shot of a Nuthatch taken @ 1/30 sec. With it's rapid head movement it appeared to be completely headless. So is this a new species ;)
 
robski said:
So the question really is where do we draw the limit? Moving the bird an inch or so maybe acceptable but transposing into a jungle scene is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I agree with the basis of this but the question depends on the context of the image.

I could paint an image of a Razorbill in a jungle scene, hang it on the wall. People may wonder why I painted a Razorbill in the jungle, think I was on drugs or praise it as a masterpiece.

I could take a photo of a Razorbill and using photoshop, move it into a jungle scene, print it and hang it on the wall. People are likely to shake their heads, tut, assume that I am a cheat, liar and worst of all...accuse me of using photoshop!

So, a Razorbill in a Jungle is not a good Natural History image, would not sit well in a field guide or a scientific paper on Jungles or Razorbills. Why can it not be a masterpeice that can hang on the wall though? Surely that is just as acceptable purpose for photography as a documentation photograph...
 
jurek said:
Then why the picture was not taken a split second later anyway? ;)
Click to expand...

I am not going to rise to that :)

However, it doesn't matter to me if the bird was or wasn't - I was not trying to create an accurate natural history documentation photograph with the manipulated image.
 
Then why the picture was not taken a split second later anyway?
Click to expand...
Cos life doesn't always work like that! And thats the way reactions work!

If you are not taking a picture for documentary/competition/scientific reasons then I don't see a problem with changing an image - its up to the idividual. If it can be achieved in a conventional dark room, then its fair game in the digital one. If you're after an image thats pleasing to the eye then knock yourself out! However I do believe that if manipulation has occurred it should be declared- for no other reason than having looked at an image and being gutted that I can't take one like it, only to find out that its been manipulated. Whats been done to the razorbill doesn't bother me in principal as it makes a pleasing image - its not being entered into a competition or claiming any scientific finding/use. Its a nice image that would look nice on the wall to remind the taker/owner of a good day out with some awesome birds.

Personally, I don't manipulate images as a matter of course - thats my choice. I went through a phase of doing it and I started to get lazy i.e. not seeing obvious distractions in the view finder and then cloning them out later. Personally I would prefer, where possible, take a few more seconds to look for distracting elements that can be realistically (or ethically) removed, than spend more time than I have too in front of the computer.
 
mw_aurora said:
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...
Click to expand...
The whole star thing is not a problem for me but if you were to move the stars about post capture ("because Piladies looks so messy where it is ,and Ursa major never looked right over there and who the hell put Polaris in the north I recon it should be due west")!!....now here we have a problem!
 
Last edited:
mw_aurora said:
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.

.
Click to expand...
My choice(and it is a personal one)Is to try to capture just a piece of what is in front of me whether it can be SEEN by me or is HIDDEN (as in high speed or time lapse or long exposure)

By stating that this is my choice I am IN NO WAY condemning anyone who makes the purely aesthetic choice and have already apologised a few posts back for any misunderstanding caused.

In my opinion,and remember it is just an opinion,the best photographers(of which I am definately NOT one) manage both aesthetics and document.
 
I must admit however I am surprised at how few of the photographers out there seem to agree with my view.

Oh well I will continue to plough my lonely furrow :-C
 
If you buy a map you expect it to be fit for it's purpose. i.e somebody has not moved all the towns around. ;)

However, on the otherhand if an editor of a birding Mag has mirrored a photo to give a better page layout would you know or complain ? I suspect only the photographer would notice.


Quote:
Then why the picture was not taken a split second later anyway?


I think Mark was too busy accurately recording the shooting info at the time
;) Oh I forget it's digital you don't have to anymore.
 
Last edited:
robski said:
If you buy a map you expect it to be fit for it's purpose. i.e somebody has not moved all the towns around. ;)
Click to expand...

I personally, but this could just be me, don't tend to go to galleries to look at maps or hang them on my wall... ;)
 
robski said:
If you buy a map you expect it to be fit for it's purpose. i.e somebody has not moved all the towns around.
Click to expand...

With tongue very firmly in cheek :-

The road that is outside my home is approx 5 metres wide and is black tarmac, on the OS map it is yellow and at 2mm wide at 1:50000 scale is represented as being 100mtres wide!! so even that is not an honest representation ;)
 
You make think me strange ;) But after a bad experience I now take a snap of a street plan when in a foreign city.

A few years ago I was working abroad and I managed to get a tourist map from the Hotel. The idea was to wonder into the city after work to take some photos. Lunchtime I took the map out of my pocket to study a route and some places of interest. Anyway in the evening I set off without a care in the world. Wondered much farther than I expected. It was now getting dark and had clouded over. I had no idea if I was going north,east,south or west. Never fear I have the trusty map in pocket. OMG it's on the desk at work !!

I could not pronounce the name of the Hotel or the street it was in. Very few people spoke English - It was all going a bit pair shaped. After a bit of wondering around I found a street that looked familiar and traced my way back to the hotel.

Nothing to do with the thread but maybe put a smile on somebodies face.
 
robski said:
You make think me strange ;) But after a bad experience I now take a snap of a street plan when in a foreign city.

A few years ago I was working abroad and I managed to get a tourist map from the Hotel. The idea was to wonder into the city after work to take some photos. Lunchtime I took the map out of my pocket to study a route and some places of interest. Anyway in the evening I set off without a care in the world. Wondered much farther than I expected. It was now getting dark and had clouded over. I had no idea if I was going north,east,south or west. Never fear I have the trusty map in pocket. OMG it's on the desk at work !!

I could not pronounce the name of the Hotel or the street it was in. Very few people spoke English - It was all going a bit pair shaped. After a bit of wondering around I found a street that looked familiar and traced my way back to the hotel.

Nothing to do with the thread but maybe put a smile on somebodies face.
Click to expand...

Let me guess...you were in Los Angeles? ;)
 
I'm pretty much with Colin too!

Back in the dark ages they used to say: "The camera never lies". This was only said because quite patently, even from the early days - it did! (Do you believe in Faries?)

It seems to me the issue is simply a dichotomy between 'record shots' and 'images'. We often expect the former to be rather ropey and the latter to be good to look at; there is no reason why the record shot should not also be good to look at but a manipulated image is not a record of what happened,but no worse, FOR ITS PURPOSE, for all that.

As long as the photographer and viewer are clear about the intention of the photo then each type is equally valid.

I suspect, having seen John Robinson's slides 'live' that his images here are little, if at all, manipulated. For me they are record shots AND some of the very best images. That's because he is a very effective naturalist and photographer.

When I begin to get round to posting images I suspect they will be manipulated - because I'm not very good as a photographer or as a naturalist!

Roger
 
Right, there was one thing that I didn't make clear on this thread, and kept meaning to add. I have read and heard several beginners in bird photography who think that their lack of understanding in Photoshop is stopping them from creating good images.

There is no substitute for getting the image right in camera - I mean nailing critical point of focus, DOF, exposure, subject position and size in the frame, overall composition and setting. No amount of digital manipulation can replace this - there is little that can be done to fix an unsharp, over-exposed, poorly composed shot. These things still need to be got right in camera.
 
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...

;)
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

M
35mm film vs digital
Replies
14
Views
842
Ignatius
Ignatius
A
Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 blackouts
Replies
9
Views
804
tenex
tenex
Aladdin
Indian Ocean - 360 km W of Australia
Replies
2
Views
439
Aladdin
Aladdin
binomania
What should I do with my 300 video reviews? Request for advice
Replies
7
Views
700
tenex
tenex
B
Owl or Mammal ?
Replies
13
Views
771
Buckster
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top