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. Cross-posted with Talk Photography Nature forum.

Geoff

geoffdore.com

 

[boliston]

I would not be happy doing it as to me photography is all about capturing something that you have seen and is worth capturing.

If you are interested in using photography as a business rather than a hobby i could see that the rules could be different as the priority would be on creating something that will "sell" rather than to please yourself.

 

[Dave450]

I would not be happy doing it as to me photography is all about capturing something that you have seen and is worth capturing.

If you are interested in using photography as a business rather than a hobby i could see that the rules could be different as the priority would be on creating something that will "sell" rather than to please yourself.

Pretty much agree with this. I love to get it right in camera. Someones signature here sums it up perfectly:

The camera never lies, photoshop allows you to.

 

[geoff-d]

I would not be happy doing it as to me photography is all about capturing something that you have seen and is worth capturing.

Wow! - quick response! I agree, and what you say is the main reason I took up photography - do take a look at the images though and have a read about what I did and why, see what you think.

Cheers

Geoff

geoffdore.com

 

[geoff-d]

Pretty much agree with this. I love to get it right in camera. Someones signature here sums it up perfectly:

The camera never lies, photoshop allows you to.


Hi Dave - oh oh oh! I would say that, from day one, the camera nearly always lies! That's the 'classic quote' but whoever came up with that saying knew nothing about photography! ;-)

The fact is, there are many things that can conspire against us in our efforts to get the image we want - yes, getting it right at the shooting stage is always the goal, but much of photography through the ages has involved 'tweaking' the picture after it's been taken.

cheers

Geoff

geoffdore.com

 

[MarkEvan]

I think on a personal level I try to get as much right in camera as possible but have no qualms with editing a shot to something I am more happy with.

 

[boliston]

The good thing about digital is that you can shoot several shots of the same thing - the chances are that you are at least going to be happy with one of them. This is why I prefer to use the "delete" button than photoshop.

 

[salacalvet]

Personaly I prefer as little as posible, however on occations when settings have been wrong and the capture is quite rare I would try and get as much back as I can.

One that springs to mind is a Bonelli's Eagle close by and under-expose. Great detail came back with PS. Rather this than binning the momnet.

 

[u8myufo]

Hi Geoff, I try and steer away from debates if I can However have you read Photoshop for Nature Photographers by Ellen Anon & Josh Anon? It is quite interesting and does go into this subject. Personally I like others try to get it right in camera but as mentioned in the book, nothing can reproduce what your eye can see. Therefore imo you need to do what you can to replicate that scene which I try to do from memory. I got no problems with cloning stuff out if it makes the image more pleasing to look at. Having just read your blog I think you have already shot yourself in the foot regarding digital manipulation, you bought a DSLR I also read that you find manipulating the Sand martins images was a valid one for producing the end result Something I would not do, and you did ask for peoples thoughts

 

[PsiFox]

Manipulation of images did not start with the digital age.

Many of the names for functions in photoshop were created by photographers manipulating images in the darkroom.

 

[geoff-d]

Hi Geoff, I try and steer away from debates if I can However have you read Photoshop for Nature Photographers by Ellen Anon & Josh Anon? It is quite interesting and does go into this subject.
-snip-
I also read that you find manipulating the Sand martins images was a valid one for producing the end result Something I would not do, and you did ask for peoples thoughts

Hi Rich - I did ask for peoples thoughts, thanks for yours - not heard of that book will check it out thanks

cheers

Geoff

geoffdore.com

 

[u8myufo]

Manipulation of images did not start with the digital age.

Many of the names for functions in photoshop were created by photographers manipulating images in the darkroom.

Yeah I do realise that Mark I was just making light of the fact that Geoff was brought up with film and switched to digital. It was not that long ago when all film users were anti digital

 

[Richard Peters]

Pretty much agree with this. I love to get it right in camera. Someones signature here sums it up perfectly:

The camera never lies, photoshop allows you to.

Not totally true, as an image has already been processed to some degree by the camera before it writes it to the memory card...

But yes getting as close to spot as you can is always the preferred method. I figure if it takes me more than a couple of minutes to adjust the image then it more than likely needed taking again lol

 

[lartamax]

I shoot in both jpeg and raw. I have saved many a picture using photoshop. Generally speaking I tend to use it to demonstrate what I saw when I took the photo but which due to lack of experience I messed up by shooting fully in manual.
I want to produce my photos with as little processsing as possible but to drive 50mileto take photos and find the 1 you really wanted didn't come out like you wanted. Well I 'm not driving 50mile back for another go when 5min in photoshop will sort the problem.
I believe there is a place for processing afterwards. How far you take it is an individual matter but a simple crop because you didn't have the 400mm lens to fully zoom in well for me its not an issue. Crop and small adjustments everytime rather than lose the photo.

 

[geoff-d]

I shoot in both jpeg and raw. I have saved many a picture using photoshop.
(snip)
I believe there is a place for processing afterwards. How far you take it is an individual matter
(snip)

Hi lartamax - thanks for your views

Geoff

 

[tappilappi]

When I was younger, HAVING to use 35mm film gear with manual exposure, focus and no image stabiliser seemed like fun : Now I use all the technology I can get my shaky hands on, including pp! One point that does not seem to get mentioned is that photoshop etc. is generally in the hands of the photographer - in my film days it was the expert printers who transformed our negs into great prints. Now-a-days, ALL of my prints are ALL my own work.

 

[geoff-d]

in my film days it was the expert printers who transformed our negs into great prints. Now-a-days, ALL of my prints are ALL my own work.

Absolutely. Many 'tricks' such as dodging and burning were performed on prints in the days of large format black and white.

Geoff

 

[PsiFox]

Absolutely. Many 'tricks' such as dodging and burning were performed on prints in the days of large format black and white.

Geoff

Ah the good old days, cutting a piece of cardboard to make a mask over part of the photopaper

 

[geoff-d]

I would not be happy doing it as to me photography is all about capturing something that you have seen and is worth capturing.

If you are interested in using photography as a business rather than a hobby i could see that the rules could be different as the priority would be on creating something that will "sell" rather than to please yourself.

Sorry Adrian - overlooked your post

yes, photography is about capturing something you have seen, but sometimes the camera (or photographer!) is quite quick enough - do have a look through the images examples I've posted (link at top of thread) which I've put in a sort of order from minor work to major 'manipulation' - in a couple of cases (Sand Martins on vertical twig, Gull mobbing Gull) the image I wanted has been captured but in two consecutive images fractions of a second apart.

As to you second point my priority has always been to get images that please me rather than increase sales potential!

cheers

Geoff

 

[geoff-d]

The good thing about digital is that you can shoot several shots of the same thing - the chances are that you are at least going to be happy with one of them. This is why I prefer to use the "delete" button than photoshop.

Hi Adrian - I missed this one too!

Yes, true for many subjects - action shots of birds etc is less straightforward! Even using a camera shooting at 8fps one can end up with no images 'just right'.

Again, take a look at the Avocet shot where I go into some detail about why I decided to digitally 'rescue' this image rather than just delete it - has what I've done made it any less of a capture of what I saw? and of what the camera nearly missed?

Cheers

Geoff

 

[CT]

Cropping is something I have no problem with at all, it's pretty well essential most of the time with small bird images - even with longer lenses ,and I certainly crop many of my bird images, usually to show more detail of the subject bird and/or to improve the composition within the frame.

Levels adjusting and removal of small branches I have no problem with either, but there's definitely a point I wont go beyond, although I'd struggle soemtimes to define what that point is - it's probably just a gut feeling that I shouldn't do it. I'd have no problem with the amount of editing in the three examples on your site with the exception possibly of the background blur in the Swallows shot which is arguably altering it's environment entirely, although it does improve the shot.

Ultimately it's a matter of where you personally draw the line, and the only thing that's really wrong about whatever editing you do is to deny you've done it.

 

[geoff-d]

I think on a personal level I try to get as much right in camera as possible but have no qualms with editing a shot to something I am more happy with.

Absolutely, Mark - but how far to take this 'editing' and still maintain that the resultant image is a 'nature photograph'? I as much as any nature photographer do not want to see completely 'made up' images of nature and I certainly would like to know if/when an image has had elements moved/removed/added so that I can make a more informed judgement on the merits of the image.

Thanks for your input

Geoff

 

[geoff-d]

Personaly I prefer as little as posible, however on occations when settings have been wrong and the capture is quite rare I would try and get as much back as I can.

One that springs to mind is a Bonelli's Eagle close by and under-expose. Great detail came back with PS. Rather this than binning the momnet.

Hi Martin - have a look at my Little Egret shot (link at top of thread) which has had a lot of (burned-out) detail brought back as you say - what about the 'digital extension' of the bottom of the frame?

Geoff

 

[KIPAX]

If you are interested in using photography as a business rather than a hobby i could see that the rules could be different as the priority would be on creating something that will "sell" rather than to please yourself.

You can apply this question to just about an type of photography and especialy the above answer answer..

I photograph for media and to sell as prints.. For media the files have to be as is..you can do the minimum processing as in the OPs question but you can't make any actual changes... But pictures for my website to sell as prints.. I will make whatever changes needed to sell as a good looking picture.. I will remove bits, move bits change bits and put onsite as a picture for sale.

If you only want other nature photographers to see your picture and you want to show how good you are then keep as is... Otherwise nobody else cares

 

[geoff-d]

but there's definitely a point I wont go beyond, although I'd struggle soemtimes to define what that point is - it's probably just a gut feeling that I shouldn't do it. I'd have no problem with the amount of editing in the three examples on your site with the exception possibly of the background blur in the Swallows shot which is arguably altering it's environment entirely, although it does improve the shot.

Hi CT - I know what you mean by gut feeling. There were more than three examples - were you on ight page? 9 examples roughly in order of increasing digital modification. Re Sand Martins (Swallows) shot with background defocus - is this any different to altering amount of background focus by lens/aperture choice at the time? (if possible) - I see you have many good shots of Kingfisher on your web site - I assume you set up the twig perch for it? and if so I'm sure you set it up so that you could get a nice clear out of focus background? Some would say that is altering the background at the time of shooting. Just food for thought....

Ultimately it's a matter of where you personally draw the line, and the only thing that's really wrong about whatever editing you do is to deny you've done it.

Absolutely!

Thanks for your input

Cheers

Geoff

 

[CT]

Hi CT - I know what you mean by gut feeling. There were more than three examples - were you on ight page? 9 examples roughly in order of increasing digital modification. Re Sand Martins (Swallows) shot with background defocus - is this any different to altering amount of background focus by lens/aperture choice at the time? (if possible) - I see you have many good shots of Kingfisher on your web site - I assume you set up the twig perch for it? and if so I'm sure you set it up so that you could get a nice clear out of focus background? Some would say that is altering the background at the time of shooting. Just food for thought....

f

Well I invariably almost always shoot with a 500mm lens and sometimes using a 1.4X TC (700mm) so blurred backgrounds are no problem in fact they're pretty much the norm.. Yes - the perch was placed by me, but I've no qualms about doing that anyway- I let the purists worry about it.