Sooner or later every serious nature photographer must confront the question – How much image alteration during processing is ethically “too much”?
I’ve said before that the clone tool is a temptress – just because it can be done, should it? Most of us have no ethical issues with cloning out dust spots but what about other tiny imperfections like small but distracting pieces of debris? Dark spots on water surfaces? Out of focus insects flying around your subjects? Ugly perches used by birds taking off? Power lines in the background? And if cloning elements out is ok, what about cloning them in? The list is endless, as is the continuum from minor to major elements.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 500, Canon 7D, Canon EF500mm f/4L IS II USM, perch removed, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed this beautiful rufous Red-tailed Hawk yesterday morning as it took off from its perch in Utah’s west desert. I love the striking color of the bird and the dynamic take-off posture. But what you see is not what I saw at the time.
The hawk had been perched on an ugly weather station near a small reservoir. Cropping cannot solve the problem of the perch and leave a pleasing composition. Only cloning will do that and I couldn’t resist seeing how it would look without all that shiny metal in the image so I got rid of the damned thing.
At the moment I’m in the process of negotiating the use of another image by a state agency. That image had the top of a power pole and a wire cloned out of the background, which I disclosed (as I always do), but the agency wanted the image anyway. Is disclosure enough and if so where does one draw the line in nature photography? (a rhetorical question). I’ve struggled with that question ever since I began to photograph birds and I suspect I’ll continue to do so.
A slippery slope…
Ron
You can always take away,but never add……that simple for me
You can take away, but never add…..its that simple for me
I think that the examples in the links you include below fall under my definition of ethically extremely questionable. One image appears on Nat. Geo’s “Your Shot” site and one appears on their contest site. Both sites have very clear guidelines for submission and it appears as if those guidelines have not been followed–at least in one case, possibly both. If the purpose of one’s work is to create fine art or illustration, then I believe everything is acceptable so long as an artist is not misrepresenting their process or their work. If the image is for yourself or family and friends–edit away. If the image is for submission to a contest, follow the rules. If the image is for a client, follow the design/illustration brief. If the image is for your blog, disclose.
I follow your blog for the exquisite images of birds, beautiful lighting and compositions of your images, your self-critique, and the incredible wealth of knowledge that you so generously share with us. On the rare occasion that you clone or add background, I never take issue. This is because you ALWAYS tell us that’s what you did. I not only appreciate that, I appreciate those carefully edited images as I can focus on what you have determined to be the most important without the distraction of elements you deemed to distracting to leave in.
Sharon, Apparently National Geographic has now called him on it and told him that unless he can prove the “legitimacy of the work” that he entered in the contest they are disqualifying him from the competition. He has publicly declined the opportunity to prove that legitimacy.
Thank you so much for what you said in your last paragraph. I can’t tell you how much that means to me.
Too many arbitrary rules, Ron. What’s honest about a 3-dimensional bird on a flat-screen display? How much motion blur is honest? What’s natural about the field of view of a 500mm lens? Nope. When your bird moved, the weather vane disappeared. That’s how human vision works. Ask your psych prof or your camouflage instructor. Cameras don’t do “honest.” If we agree that they can, we better settle on which lens and shutter speed are honest. Your fan club will dissipate in a flash when you start posting little black dots in far-away trees. As for me?? I’ll call your pictures honest as long as they show me what you saw in your brain at the moment you tripped the shutter release. THAT’S what keeps me coming back. I can buy a camera like yours on eBay. But to get a glimpse of why Ron Dudley drove all over Montana and back — I have to call up your website. Thanks, dude, for furnishing the gas. PS: The hawk is stunning. Howard
An very interesting perspective, Howard. Thank you.
I really like Howard Hardt’s comments here.
A picture is honest if there is no deceit in it. If you alter a background, for some good reason, and tell us what you did and why, you are being honest – and so is the picture.
Cleaning house can produce satisfying results and in this case it certainly did!
Charlotte
Such a dilemma. I lean towards preferring that things aren’t cloned out – if the subject of the photo can adapt to whatever it is, so can I.
And would certainly prefer that nothing was added. That form of manipulation seems to be more dishonest, less ethical…
Such an individual decision, and the place and way the image was to be used would also come into play.
“if the subject of the photo can adapt to whatever it is, so can I.”
Once again you have an interesting (and sensible) take on things, Elephant’s Child. That approach may not work for everyone in evaluating a photo but I like the way you put that!
I guess I’m in the minority, for I feel that it is important to show what was there when you took the image. If there are a lot of distracting elements that you do not want in the picture, than move to a spot without those distracting elements. Oh, but I might not get a picture of the bird then, yeah, so? Than if a picture of a specific bird is so important than leave the distracting elements in the picture or change the angle.
I don’t have trouble with cropping, as a matter of fact, I feel that helps the photographer place emphasis on what he/she wants the viewer to see, or how he/she will focus attention on the picture. Either way, cropping is something I do and definitely agree with. Plus, although I have photoshop elements I don’t use it, and other then a preliminary course in it, have never played with it so that I wouldn’t be tempted to manipulate my pictures.
Manipulation, other than playing with exposure, sharpness, concentration of color, etc.,all of which could be done before hand with your camera or later on your computer, anything different than what you saw when you took the image gives a sense of mistrust that I dislike. I have seen pictures where you know there were introduced items that shouldn’t be there. It has gotten to the point now that one hardly ever knows what the photographer has done to the picture or whether he/she really saw the image he/she portrays in the manner that is portrayed. I want to be able to look someone in the eye when they see my pictures and know that I did nothing to the image that wasn’t an honest representation of what I saw!
Just my 2 cents.
Dick, My instincts are the same as yours – they’re virtually identical. There’s so much misleading and/or downright dishonest “photography” going on out there and what has been done to those types of images is seldom disclosed. It makes me sick.
Here’s an example – two versions of the same image: I’ve seen this guy post this same Osprey image with several different backgrounds without disclosure. Who knows what the real one is. Compare the backgrounds in these two links if you’re interested…
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/3694568/
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-contest/2014/entries/gallery/nature-week-3/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20140929photo-ngpcctainfb&utm_campaign=Content/&sf4885089=1#/8
It just goes to show that some people will do ANYTHING to gain recognition, fame, money, etc., sacrificing ethical and honest behavior. Plus, I really don’t like his photograph.
I much appreciate your images and your blog!
And I appreciate your long-term, thoughtful and honest contributions to my blog, Dick. A lot…
I have checked out both links, out of curiosity, and in my opinion the photo doesn’t do the bird justice at all. That’s on top of the dishonesty of changing the backgrounds. One of the reasons I love reading your blog every day is that your photos capture the best of the birds, showing their beauty. The Osprey in these photos has nothing attractive about it (to me). Seeing photos like these makes me appreciate your honesty even more. I really appreciate that I can trust what I see on your blog.
Thank you very much, Susan. You might want to read my reply to Sharon Constant’s comment above.
LOL!
You can find yet a third fabricated copy of this image on Pixoto:
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photography/animals/birds/bringing-home-breakfast-6072437697413120
Along with dozens of other obvious (and poorly!) photoshopped images.
I confronted him about it about a month ago, and told him he should at least disclose when he fakes an image. His response was less than polite…
Very difficult issue, and this image is a perfect illustration of the problem. Everything about the bird is spectacular, but in the original image the perch tends to distract from the beauty of the bird. I can see that beauty better after having looked at the cloned image. The one visual issue I have with the cloned image is that it doesn’t make much sense to me without the perch, since it is clear that the bird has just taken off. I don’t envy you having to make decisions like that.
Susan, I strongly agree with you that the take-off posture of the bird almost screams for a perch down there. Thank you.
I love reading your blog, Ron. The images are, without fail, beautiful, and I always learn something from it. This is an interesting and difficult question, and the spectrum of what is acceptable can be very broad. In the case of out versus in, I think that removing distracting elements is far less tricky than adding something in that wasn’t there. Removing distractions allows the viewer to focus on the main subject, and allows the photographer to communicate what s/he saw in the field and they way s/he pictured it in his or her mind’s eye. If you’re trying to show an animal in its natural setting, I think taking out man-made elements is, in general, okay. Adding items in is, too me, going to far. In this case, the photographer is putting in something that simply wasn’t there–as if to say, “well, here’s what I wished I’d seen.” It calls into question the authenticity of the photo and the veracity of the photographer. Now, if you’re creating a collage or a composition from a group of photos you’ve taken, or if you’re creating a side-by-side comparison image, this is less troublesome–provided you disclose it. I have a good friend who put together a composite of four different falcon species he’d seen in one winter in this area, to show relative size differences, and also to remind us how unique that particular season was. I once used Photoshop to replace the eyes of an owl when red-eye reduction simply couldn’t handle it. I used the same bird’s eyes from a different photo, so I wasn’t being dishonest. Under the circumstances, it was the only way I could present the owl as I’d seen it–and as I would’ve captured it had I not needed the flash. I still didn’t feel quite right about it, though.
Grapple, grapple.
Thanks for posting!
“Grapple, grapple” is absolutely right, Devin. Thanks very much for your thoughtful insights on this discussion.
Oh, and by the way, I failed to mention how stunning this image is–even with the distracting elements!
Not necessary, especially in this context, Devin but I do appreciate that you took the time to come back and say so.
Most photographers I now – myself included – have come to terms with what is acceptable or not for them. My rule is if it is manmade or artificial to the photograph then it can be cloned but it shouldn’t alter the main theme of the photo. So, since the bird was unaltered in any way, the cloning simply removed any distraction. Beautiful photo by the way.
Angela, Isn’t it interesting how so many of us come up with different twists on what is acceptable to us personally and what is not?
A natural backgrounds never offends me. I don’t think cloning out metal pieces was a bad thing. You didn’t touch the image of the bird. That’s the reason you took the shot. The bird became the star of that photo and our eyes weren’t distracted by ‘Young’s’ equipment!!
Ha, I was so put off by all that metal that I hadn’t even looked at it carefully enough to notice the “Young” name on it, Ellen. At first I wondered what you were talking about!
I don’t find anything distasteful or ethically inappropriate about what you’ve done here – the removal of purely anthropogenic objects. If you had removed something more “natural” such as a branch with a leaf that was distracting, or a patch of unattractive dead lichen, I would find that less satisfactory. There are plenty of logical flaws with my natural vs. artificial stance, so I wouldn’t begin to judge someone else’s decision. Removing a natural object isn’t any less ethical. I just happen to find nature’s clutter neutral, perhaps even appealing, while man’s clutter is jarring and diminishing of the subject. Regardless of what you do, if you’re open about it and struggle with the decisions, you’re doing it right!
Thanks, Kirby. I especially appreciated your last sentence!
Good Morning Ron!
I’m weird. I am able to enjoy both of those images equally. The magnificence of the hawk obscures anything else in the frame – for me. I haven’t tried (yet) to become proficient in cloning out large distractions but I will do spot removal so I obviously have no problem with “altering” a photo. If there’s an ethical line which shouldn’t be crossed, it’s probably one drawn by each individual photographer or viewer. Someone once asked if Ansel Adams would have used all of today’s technology to “enhance” his work. I think he certainly would have considered it, as his philosophy was to show all of us what he saw within his mind. Something you continue to do consistently well.
And good morning to you too, Wally. No, you’re not weird but you’re different from me in that I simply cannot enjoy the image with that ugly weather station in it.
Living in the East where the density of vegetation with its inherent leaves, branches, etc., means that many an image has unwanted clutter. However, unless it is really egregious AND easily removed, I leave most everything as it is “in its natural state.” I’m all for pleasing compositions, but often we do not have a choice in where we can situate ourselves in relation to our subjects and a good image with a less than desirable twig or leaf (or tree scrawlings as you have illustrated) is better than no image at all. That being said, your example is one where I would have done exactly as you did.
Cheers,
Ted
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this, Ted.
Hi Ron,
Of course, my background is illustration and art rather than journalism. I assume the state agency wants the image for the bird. If you have not altered the image of the bird, and if they are not using the cloned photograph to ‘prove’ that there are no power poles or wires, or that birds never get near them, I think that your having informed them of the cloning shows you are going forward in an ethical manner. If concerns remain, you could provide them with a before and after version for their reference. Hope people’s weighing in is useful to you!
Alison, The agency knew that image was cloned from the beginning. They’ll only be using the bird, without the background. The hawk itself was not altered in any way. And in this case I actually sent them the RAW file (something I’m usually extremely hesitant to do) so there was no question what was and wasn’t in the original image. Thank you.