Nature Photography and the 'Digital Debate'

[geoff-d]

Hi all

The 'Digital Debate' I refer to is, of course, to what extent we nature photographers should use the powerful post-capture technology available to us (computers and Photoshop etc) to improve (or 'rescue') our photos i.e. more than just adjusting brightness/contrast/colour/saturation but actually moving/removing/adding things to an image.

It's something I'm unsure about myself and am interested in opinions on what, to some, is a very touchy subject. Where should the line be drawn?

To get an idea of what the general consensus might be - and to stimulate discussion - I've posted up a few of my images that I've 'digitally improved' to various extents and with details of what I did and reasoning behind it, see here:

http://www.geoffdore.com/gd/showcases/digital-debate/digital-debate-index.htm

Happy to discuss on list or off.

Geoff

geoffdore.com

 

[Deleted member 34935]

brightness/contrast/colour/saturation

Is fine

but actually moving/removing/adding things to an image.

When you enter any half decent competition they ask to see the original un-doctored files, so if you do edit your going to get caught. I for one like pure photography so no layering of any of that crap!

Same with press photography you can't really edit anything that gets printed in a new paper, so I follow that rule of thinking.

Cropping, contrast and sharpening are fine. Everything else is a no.

 

[gary43]

Hi Geoff

Have just noticed this thread and fascinating it is too !

FWIW, I shoot most things that move like musicians and wedding parties as well as wildlife.

To me, the acceptable amount of image enhancement that should be carried out is very much dependant upon the end purpose of the photo.

If shooting a wedding it is critical that the bride and her mother look superb and I am happy to go to pretty much any lengths to achieve this.

Similarly, if I am creating an "artistic" image of a wildline-nature scene, something for the living room wall, then I am also fairly happy to use PS. How many photo comps are won by HDR landscapes ? these undergo a LOT of PP work. Also, how often do lighting conditions dictate under exposure and the photographer HAS to boost the exposure, adjust levels, maybe apply NR etc...? So digital enhancement, as such, is not a bad thing and enables us to do things that would previously have been v.v.difficult.


However, for wildlife images, I personally think the critical thing is that the composition should be maintained with cropping-only acceptable. I tend not to fiddle around with backgrounds, remove twigs etc.. So the merging of images to display what has not happened, say to illustrate some behaviour, is unacceptable.

I appreciate that everone will, rightly, have their own views on this matter and I doubt you can get all nature-wildlife photograpers to agree on this because poerle have differernt purposes for their wildlife-nature images.

Just my 2p.

 

[gary43]

Sorry Geoff if I've killed-off this debate.

I, like you would be very interested in the opinion of others.

Hopefully, more to come !

 

[markyboy.1967]

Ok here are my views.I will happily and glady remove unwanted twigs etc to aide composition from my images. At the end of the day its my right to do what i want to my images and no-one can tell me otherwise.

If i post an image and im asked if anything was done i will quite readily tell people as i dont do it to hide or deceive anyone--i do it to make the image look better in my eyes ( and thats the important bit here ).Sometimes removing a twig etc can make the image worse and i respect peoples opinions and accept critisism where its due.

So what about dust specs/artifacts on your image through a dirty sensor--would all those who say not to remove items--would you leave these in as at the end of the day your still removing items to aid the picture.

 

[geoff-d]

When you enter any half decent competition they ask to see the original un-doctored files, so if you do edit your going to get caught.

Hi James - thanks for response

Re photo competitions - naturally the rules should be followed! In 2009 the prestigious international 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' competition winning image - a 'wild' wolf jumping over a picturesque wood gate - was subsequently deduced to be of a captive animal but was not declared as such by the photographer, which led to disqualification and a lot of embarassment for the competition organisers who still have to rely to a great extent on photographers' honesty.

With digital manipulation where even experienced practitioners of these techniques are unable to 'spot the joins' then honesty becomes even more vital.

I for one like pure photography so no layering of any of that crap!

I guess by 'pure' photography you mean 'straight' photography? What about filters? - say, graduated filters? Useful for controlling the range of brightness that straight photography is unable to handle. I forgot my ND grad filters one day but got the shot I wanted using equivalent filter in Photoshop...

Same with press photography you can't really edit anything that gets printed in a new paper, so I follow that rule of thinking.

Press photography quite different as greater aspect of recording history. :nono:

Cropping, contrast and sharpening are fine. Everything else is a no.

Again, filters? Saturation? Colour adjustments?

Excuse the pun but photography is not that black-and-white !!

Just adding food for thought!

Cheers

Geoff

 

[geoff-d]

However, for wildlife images, I personally think the critical thing is that the composition should be maintained with cropping-only acceptable.

Hi Gary - thanks for your considered response - you've slightly contradicted yourself there regarding composition and cropping - some single images may work well by cropping to both horizontal and vertical, giving two entirely different-looking images compositionally. I guess you mean the actual elements in the image and their positions relative to each other should not be changed? apart from by cropping?

I tend not to fiddle around with backgrounds, remove twigs etc.. So the merging of images to display what has not happened, say to illustrate some behaviour, is unacceptable.

Quite agree, but what about merging of images to display what *has* happened but which the camera just happened to not capture in a single frame?

Please take a look at the images in my nature photography and 'digital debate' showcase:

http://www.geoffdore.com/gd/showcases/digital-debate/digital-debate-index.htm

which show a few images in order of increasing post-capture work. A couple show montages of two consecutive images barely seconds apart, with the resultant image still 'true' to the event.

I appreciate that everone will, rightly, have their own views on this matter and I doubt you can get all nature-wildlife photograpers to agree on this because poerle have differernt purposes for their wildlife-nature images.

Well said. It's maybe not so important that they agree on using such techniques as agreeing to be upfront about it so that the viewer can make a more informed judgement on the merits of the image.

I tend not to fiddle around with backgrounds, remove twigs etc..

By the way, just came across this thread which might interest you!

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=288883&highlight=blashford

Cheers

Geoff

 

[geoff-d]

Ok here are my views.I will happily and glady remove unwanted twigs etc to aide composition from my images. At the end of the day its my right to do what i want to my images and no-one can tell me otherwise.

Hi Mark - absolutely!

If i post an image and im asked if anything was done i will quite readily tell people as i dont do it to hide or deceive anyone--

Fair enough Should you not declare it anyway? for those who don't ask?

So what about dust specs/artifacts on your image through a dirty sensor--would all those who say not to remove items--would you leave these in as at the end of the day your still removing items to aid the picture.

Ah, now you're just being silly! :nono:

Cheers

Geoff

 

[u8myufo]

It's something I'm unsure about myself

Hi again Geoff, the Mods really need to combine these two threads into one if possible as it might get too confusing to follow Anyway as you quoted above, surely if you are unsure about anything in life you do not make a decision until such time that you are :shrug: At the end of the day if you are one who manipulates your images to any degree other than basic pp, then how far you take it is only limited to your imagination. So, perhaps your mind is actualy made up

 

[geoff-d]

Hi again Geoff, the Mods really need to combine these two threads into one if possible as it might get too confusing to follow

Hi again Rich - may be my fault because I set it going in two different sub-forums (well, I'm still new here )

At the end of the day if you are one who manipulates your images to any degree other than basic pp, then how far you take it is only limited to your imagination. So, perhaps your mind is actualy made up

Perhaps part of me is hoping that, because 'everyone' is doing it, it will justify doing it myself....

Geoff

 

[gary43]

Hi Gary - thanks for your considered response - you've slightly contradicted yourself there regarding composition and cropping - some single images may work well by cropping to both horizontal and vertical, giving two entirely different-looking images compositionally. I guess you mean the actual elements in the image and their positions relative to each other should not be changed? apart from by cropping?



Quite agree, but what about merging of images to display what *has* happened but which the camera just happened to not capture in a single frame?

Please take a look at the images in my nature photography and 'digital debate' showcase:

http://www.geoffdore.com/gd/showcases/digital-debate/digital-debate-index.htm

which show a few images in order of increasing post-capture work. A couple show montages of two consecutive images barely seconds apart, with the resultant image still 'true' to the event.



Well said. It's maybe not so important that they agree on using such techniques as agreeing to be upfront about it so that the viewer can make a more informed judgement on the merits of the image.



By the way, just came across this thread which might interest you!

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=288883&highlight=blashford

Cheers

Geoff

Hi Geoff

Thanks for your resonse above.

Regarding point 1 above, sorry I was not clear; you are correct about the apparent contradiction. What I meant by "composition" in the first sentence refers to the elements rather than where they sit within the image. Thanks for letting me clarify.

As for the "what has happened" question. Personally, I think merging images is not acceptable, this relies upon the integrity of the photographer to recreate a scene which may not have naturally ocurred; essentially an image can be staged. This opens another debate. Your "wolf jumping over a fence" example indicates that, in some instances, photographers can stage shots for their purposes. OK this is an extreme example and is a slightly different scenario but it also demonstrates a lack of integrity on the part of the particular photographer. I am in no way saying that any other photographer would have done this before I get flamed.

This also leads onto whether wildlife should be lured onto feeders etc.. to alter their "natural" routine to get a good image ?

That too, I suspect is for another thread.

Wishing you all the best.

Gary

 

[u8myufo]

Hi Geoff

Thanks for your resonse above.

Regarding point 1 above, sorry I was not clear; you are correct about the apparent contradiction. What I meant by "composition" in the first sentence refers to the elements rather than where they sit within the image. Thanks for letting me clarify.

As for the "what has happened" question. Personally, I think merging images is not acceptable, this relies upon the integrity of the photographer to recreate a scene which may not have naturally ocurred; essentially an image can be staged. This opens another debate. Your "wolf jumping over a fence" example indicates that, in some instances, photographers can stage shots for their purposes. OK this is an extreme example and is a slightly different scenario but it also demonstrates a lack of integrity on the part of the particular photographer. I am in no way saying that any other photographer would have done this before I get flamed.

This also leads onto whether wildlife should be lured onto feeders etc.. to alter their "natural" routine to get a good image ?

That too, I suspect is for another thread.

Wishing you all the best.

Gary

Some valid points again Gary, tbh you could class a feeder as a lure, but people have been feeding birds in their gardens from way before they got interested and decided to photograph them. An added perch does make for a more pleasing photograph, and like CT I have no problems in using one. In saying that though they can easily look as good in a natural setting. Manipulation happens with all genre of photography really, and as already mentioned what the finished product needs to be used for plays an important role and determines to what lengths it should be used. I for one will certainly not be scrutinising every shot I see posted up and try and work out if it was for real or not, lifes too short

 

[gary43]

Some valid points again Gary, tbh you could class a feeder as a lure, but people have been feeding birds in their gardens from way before they got interested and decided to photograph them. An added perch does make for a more pleasing photograph, and like CT I have no problems in using one. In saying that though they can easily look as good in a natural setting. Manipulation happens with all genre of photography really, and as already mentioned what the finished product needs to be used for plays an important role and determines to what lengths it should be used. I for one will certainly not be scrutinising every shot I see posted up and try and work out if it was for real or not, lifes too short

Hi Rich

Thanks for the input; similarly I agree that life is too short to scrutinise everything in detail. By way of an example, there is one high-profile image that I noticed a while back on the front of the RSPB "Birds" magazine showing a dipper next to a fast flowing stream which I could not work out. The water shows such movement, maybe indicating an extended shutter speed and the bird is absolutely crisp and sharp in the image, indicating a fast shutter.

I'm sure this is just a brilliant capture by the photographer of a static bird and very, very fast flowing water but it does look unreal. Congrats to the photographer for getting such a fantastic capture.

Regards

 

[Ann]

Interesting topic - I just thought about this the other day...

Personally, I like to keep things as natural looking as possible. I do however see the artistic side of it as well and like to optimise my results. Normally though, I try and keep it to the "optimising" (where needed).

I try and orientate myself on "As much as needed, as little as possible." The less work I have to do on the computer, the better I have done my job when taking the photo.
Brightness/contrast/colour/saturation are things that I do often change a bit in order to obtain the best results possible.
Other than that, I am not a fan of editing images too much - you can't take a photo of something that is not there, and trying to change that is not really what nature & wildlife photography is about for me.
Removing unwanted twigs, fences or similar can sometimes be acceptable if it really is needed, but other than that, my opinion on the topic really is to keep the editing to a minimum.

 

[scottcampbell]

Hi Geoff
...
Wishing you all the best.

Gary

This is a forum, not a business mail service.

 

[geoff-d]

This is a forum, not a business mail service.

??? what the fudge is that supposed to mean??

Geoff

 

[scottcampbell]

??? what the fudge is that supposed to mean??

Geoff

Dear Geoff,

I am writing in response to the above post.

I meant that you should not write in this style, like a business letter.

Kind Regards,

Scott.

 

[geoff-d]

Dear Geoff,

I am writing in response to the above post.

I meant that you should not write in this style, like a business letter.

Kind Regards,

Scott.

Dear Scott

Many thanks for clarifying

Your sincerely

Geoff

 

[geoff-d]

Landscapes are usually cheaper to shoot, equipment wise, and you'll get more keepers from your efforts. Shoot at the golden hours of dawn or dusk, again on a tripod. Keep your horizon level.

Wrong thread reply?

Geoff

 

[gary43]

This is a forum, not a business mail service.

Hi Scott

Just read the comment above. I write a lot of stuff (academic papers, the odd book contribution) not really much on forums. I guess everyone has their own style ?

Innit ! (if that is what people DO write on forums ?)

 

[Viking]

I do enjoy a bit of photoshopping. Dodging and burning for example. But they were used in the film darkroom.

It's also good the way that camera menus can be used to produce a reasonable jpeg. Or should we all shoot in RAW and simply do a bit of cropping, etc?

What about those photographers how are not very mobile and have good set ups in their gardens.

It's a no win issue, views are certainly polarised.

John

 

[James Foad]

Hi All,
I am planning on entering one of my images for the wildlife photographer and Bird Photographer of the Year 2018, what I would like to know is the extend to which an image can be cropped?

 

[Bythesea]

@James Foad - you might want to start a new thread - the last post in this one before yours was 2011!

 

[James Foad]

Ok will do, thank you Brian