• 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)

mjmw

mjmw

formally known as mw_aurora
This is a continuation of a thread I stupidly started in the gallery instead of here - wasn't thinking straight!

Gallery Picture

I have also attached the picture here and this is the description:

Bored this afternoon having failed to get any pleasing shots in today's snow (at last!). So I dug out a shot I have been meaning to work up and manipulate. Now I know that not everybody will see this as 'ethical' but I personally do not see a problem - this is a single photo, processed from RAW, then standard PP in photoshop...however, I also moved the flying Razorbill a little to the right to improve composition and cloned out an OOF bird from bottom right. This was only a few minutes work...so what do you think? If declared, does it really matter?
 

Attachments

  • 1DN_1708.jpg
    1DN_1708.jpg
    197.1 KB · Views: 289
Continuing from the last comment by Tim...

Cropping, Levels/curves/shadows & highlights, hue & saturation, colour balance, sharpening, noise reduction, cloning dust spots etc are all standard adjustments IMO.

Cloning small distractions, dodge and burn, selective enhancements, blending exposures etc. are positively encouraged when you read critique forums (the same techniques I often use preparing my images).

Moving elements in the frame, adding elements from other images etc is where it all gets hazy...I have recently seen an image that was a silhouette of a hummingbird and bee against a setting sun. It turns out that the setting sun was a photograph physically placed behind the hummingird feeder as a backdrop and 2 flashes were used to create the lighting...what would you call that?
 
Cropping, Levels/curves/shadows & highlights, hue & saturation, colour balance, sharpening, noise reduction, cloning dust spots etc are all standard adjustments IMO.

Cloning small distractions, dodge and burn, selective enhancements, blending exposures etc. are positively encouraged when you read critique forums (the same techniques I often use preparing my images).

Mark doing any of the above I have no problems with it is just the same as you would do in a darkroom.

Adding Elements is a whole different ball game. If its done to deceive then no I don't like it but if a person gives the details on what has been added and why I can accept that, as long as its done honestly.

I have cloned things out on numerous occasions if it detracts from the picture, I used to do it in the darkroom so don't see any difference in doing it digitally.

Christine
 
Well if it's just a straw poll of the three of us, I don't think there's any disagreement about what is acceptable.

I wouldn't liketo inhibit people who want to play more with images because I think it's all 'creative stuff' and can give good ideas. However, I'd support having a separate gallery for images that have gone as far as the bee/hummingbird one mentioned by Mark.
 
johnrobinson said:
It was often done in the heyday of bird photography. Large prints of backgrounds were printed on matte paper and used in the field. Especially for flight shots. I don't think that is much different from putting Niger seed in Teasels for example, or arranging perches around feeders..
Its where it ends with putting stuff into the picture later that it becomes - as I said a can of wigglies.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this John - I don't have a problem with using the photo of the sunset etc. I have just realised that it didn't come across like that from my post - my answer to the question was "Bloody good idea, wish I had thought of it!".
The next step to this, as in a recent National Geo', is to take a small portable studio in your jeep, net the subject (hummers again) and release into the small studio, which contains a suitable flower...thus images are captured on large format film!
 
johnrobinson said:
Mark
There were a couple of famous bird photographers some time back that did just that!
(Avon and Tilford)
Their pictures were just clinically perfect ID shots often used in Cage bird mags but they had no "feeling". Hosking did a lot of his flight stuff in portable set ups too. They followed the ringers around.Now a days with all the gear available its not needed so much as birds can be done at great distances.

I feel folks even on this forum (imo)get too concerned with photographic rules and " supposed to do's". As I keep saying - get out there and take pictures! I never hardly alter my camera settings from one day to the next.
Cheers
John
Click to expand...

I meant that the photos of hummingbirds were being made and used recently for documenting species - so I guess feeling was not really important.

With regard to the 'rules', I agree but think that there is nothing wrong with discussing them, especially when it is dark ;)
 
Interesting thread. I guess I never thought about any aspect of photography being "unethical" unless you're talking photojournalism, where no image should be altered in any way whatsoever.

Otherwise, I've always assumed that any manipulation to any degree was simply a part of the making of the final product, and the photographer should feel free to use whatever creative license is desired to achieve that image.

Contests, of course, can and should set their own rules for what can and cannot be done to images. But I don't see why a photographer should be thought less of for exercising just another aspect of his/her creativity in using all the tools available in the digital or chemical darkroom.

I just don't see any moral difference between "taking" and "making" a picture. ;)
 
Mark,
I think the only really questionable thing you did was moving the flying bird, and even that is only slightly questionable. Could you post the original so we can see exactly what you did? I'm thinking that if this manipulation is making you feel guilty, maybe the original isn't as bad as you think.
 
Mark,

What you've done doesn't bother me at all, you've just cloned something out and moved one, what's wrong with that? Nothing in my opinion.

For what its worth, I've a picture book by a well respected, internationally known wildlife photographer, in the book are two separate and different photographs of a polar bear in a snow blizzard. But, if you look carefully you can see the the snow flakes are exactly the same in each image, it obviously didn't bother that pro.

As far as I'm concerned you're not telling a lie, photographers have been doing that type of thing since the darkroom was invented.

Regards
Dave
 
RAH said:
Mark,
I think the only really questionable thing you did was moving the flying bird, and even that is only slightly questionable. Could you post the original so we can see exactly what you did? I'm thinking that if this manipulation is making you feel guilty, maybe the original isn't as bad as you think.
Click to expand...

I am not feeling guilty in the slightest and have no problem with the changes I made and I have clear views on what I feel I should mention when posting to the galleries here. I know the original image was OK but felt that moving the bird increased the impact - it still isn't that great an image, but thought it would be good for starting a discussion...

I was and still am genuinely interested in the opinions of other people on what they think is 'cheating' etc. especially as many contributors here are birders rather than pro-photographers.
 
As an "all round" pro?-photographer I thought I could add a little to the debate.

Photographic Images, love em!
Digital Images, love em!
Manipulated Images, Love em!

As long as I am made aware of what I am looking at.

I have no problems with an author producing a manipulated image using elements from several, just dont try and pass it off as a Natural History image because its not "natural"

All it come down to is, if your happy doing it and happy with the results then go for it, as the OP has said most of the members of this forum will be birders as opposed to pro-photographers...whatever one of those is. I recently viewed a superb exhibition of a well know wildlife photographer, I was admiring one particular image when another visitor pointed out to me that the image was one of an animal in a sanctuary and not in the wild!
 
I just came upon this discussion and could not believe the comments. From now on, I will have to question every photo I see exhibited here and elsewhere. Is that what the photographer saw originally or did he or she move something so that it is a work of fiction? I do think we all accept a little sharpening up, a little touchup of the color and so on. But once we add a bird or place it in a way that changes the original situation we are creating a deception. That is my belief. No this isn't news photography. But once one displays a photo to viewers it becomes news photography. That's my feeling.

Of course, the solution is to give a brief explanation of exactly what was done when one displays the photo here or elsewhere. But I do think that one doesn't do this because one realizes that one may not get the complete approval that one is looking for.
 
IMHO, this is digital art based on a photograph, not "plain" photography.
My personal rule is simple - what can be done in the darkroom is legitimate also in digital. All the rest is digital art.
There's room for both - but one has to state if his picture is digital art or photograpy.
I know that it is often used, and sometimes it is very difficult to tell if it's a genuine photograph. I guess because of my age, I think that a modified picture should belong to an art forum, not a photography forum.
 
AlanM said:
But once we add a bird or place it in a way that changes the original situation we are creating a deception.
Click to expand...
I agree in general, but it can get pretty tricky to judge sometimes. For example, I had a pretty nice picture of a turtle sunning itself on a log. The only problem with the picture was that a reed in the background came down on a slant and went directy behind the turtle's head in a very distracting manner. So, I used cloning and removed the part of it that went directy behind his head (I made it look like it broke off). After doing so, you wouldn't even notice the reed because it was just an incidental thing in the background.

So, is that type of alteration OK, even for those who frown on such things? This type of change would not be possible in the dark room, so it fails that test, but I do think it is an acceptable alteration. I didn't move or alter the primary subject (turtle), but just did some cleanup, although in this case it required a lot of effort.

Earlier I mentioned that Mark might feel "guilty" about the changes he made. That's the wrong word, I guess. All I meant was that it seemed to me that if you have a picture that is close to perfect without "questionable" alterations, it might be better to leave it alone than have to think about whether other people might question it.
 
RAH said:
Earlier I mentioned that Mark might feel "guilty" about the changes he made. That's the wrong word, I guess. All I meant was that it seemed to me that if you have a picture that is close to perfect without "questionable" alterations, it might be better to leave it alone than have to think about whether other people might question it.
Click to expand...

I was trying to promote the discusion rather than thinking/worrying whether it should be posted...I am comfortable with doing the same again and stating what I had done, if I ever wanted to post a similar thing again ;)
 
Manipulating images is not the problem, its the minority who do it with the intention of decieving others.

As one of the previously so called "pro photographers" and one who has had a lot of contact and experience with other "pros", seen an awful lot of images, and an awful lot of judges at work I think I'm In a good position to make a few comments about what is generally considered right and wrong.

I wont rattle on about other subject matter but will stay with the topic of "Natural History" which is the category that most wildlife shots would fall into.

Acceptable:
cropping, adjusting colour balance, contrast, sharpening, removing blemishes (dust specks or stuck pixels) removing red-eye, toning down highlights, cloning out stray bits of grass/branches etc. Basically, anything that doesn't start moving or removing main elements of the image around the frame

Unacceptable;
Anything that doesn't fall into the above category, once you do the image is no longer classed a "Natural History" in a camera club you would be expected to present the image as "Pictorial"

The problem ovbiously is when users will not adhere to the above guidlines and "try it on", and there will always be those.

As for stray elements in a Natural History image, blades of grass, branches etc etc, photographic judges are often heard to comment that there was nothing that could be done about it as it was there, that was the creatures enviroment, others will comment that it could easilly have been removed.

Maybe on this forum we should have a specific gallery for "Pictorial" images and let members decide if the want to be honest or not.
 
I recently turned some very crappy digital images into good ones by nothing else but cropping, shadows & highlights, hue & saturation, colour balance and sharpening.

A bit more would improve things further - I could clone out grasses in foreground or turn crappy pink rosefinch into beautiful bright red bird. But this would be cheating, I feel.

I feel it was acceptable for documentary photos, but not for art or competition photos.

Simply - good photo is of value only because it is difficult to get perfect conditions. Otherwise I could easily copy and paste zoo birds into nature settings, or even paste a dinosaur or two.
 
jurek said:
Otherwise I could easily copy and paste zoo birds into nature settings, or even paste a dinosaur or two.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's adding something to an image, Jurek.

I think most of us agree that this is beyond what is acceptable to us, and very different to removing unwelcome or unnecessary elements that are already in the original picture.
 
Last edited:
What about the scientific value of wildlife shots-they show natural behaviour but once you start manipulating the animals within a frame you negate that value.

For instance your Razorbill is now in a different place and the response of the other pair to him is now inaccurate.
 
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
859
Ignatius
Ignatius
A
Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 blackouts
Replies
9
Views
821
tenex
tenex
Aladdin
Indian Ocean - 360 km W of Australia
Replies
2
Views
469
Aladdin
Aladdin
Georgebirds
Waders and wildfowl which have me puzzled (UK)
Replies
7
Views
369
Georgebirds
Georgebirds
P
Update: Greetings from The Philippines
Replies
6
Views
196
Fritz73
Fritz73

Users who are viewing this thread

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