LAUPS winners: Subject's manipulation?

Drew, no one took Mauricios words out of context, he provides the context himself and makes it broader than the original topic. He says there is absolutely no space for altering of an image digitally in natural history, and that all effects should be done in-camera.

I dont think anyone would disagree that a tame wolf, or fake smoke during a war, are indeed unacceptable. Manipulating the content of the image is a deadly sin. Like i said earlier, the photographer means to deceive. No one disputes that that is wrong I think. But there is more to it than adding smoke or using a tame wolf. The photographer of the Abu Ghriab images could have said to himself 'you know what, I dont remember these shadows in these dark halls to be so harsh, im going to lighten them up a bit so you can see more detail'. It changes nothing to what the image is about. It adds no prisoners, angry dogs or fake blood. Yet, it was 'altered digitally out-of-camera'. Im not sure how this works in photojournalism. Will a war journalist be brought down if he selectively adds a mask to brighten, darken, or whatever effect you want, a certain part of an image without changing what the image is about? Anyone know how this works?

In nature photography this is obviously the case. In many contests they dont allow these types of selective changes, and you feel an undercurrent of disrespect to someone who does. And when you ask why, it's usually about the art of getting it right in-camera, like old-skool. But, really, when old-skool made print, thats all they did. Dodging, burning, to make the image closer to what they remember, and thus better. But in the digital age when we make our digital prints (ie: screen) we're now saying, dodging and burning (and other selective skills) are a sin, and anyone who uses them is highly suspect.

Why is this? It fascinates me. Why was it ok for Ansel Adams and other masters (and we actually see it as part of their amazing skills) but not for us?

times have changed and so has technology

Technology has always evolved and as it has done so the users of that technology have had to redefine what is and what is not acceptable - for example a high speed flash photo of a hovering insect is now accepted as a natural history photograph if taken in the wild, despite it portraying a subject in a way which we could never see for ourselves. What is important is to understand that changes in technology are opportunities to portray the natural environment in new ways. Sometimes there is a great deal of ludditism involved and it takes time and effort to make those responsible for setting out the rules realise that they need to take new ideas and methods of image production on board and to adjust those rules accordingly.

Subject manipulation is generally unacceptable (although I am sure that it too has grey areas - baiting, access, etc.) but the belief that digital alteration is unacceptable is too generalised at the moment, and its too be hoped that readers of threads such as this one will start to ponder whether there are in fact acceptable levels of manipulation/alteration, some of which are driven by techniques only available by utilising specific shooting methods followed by the use of relevant software and require considerable camera/field skills together with computer skills too.

Cor, it seems to me that any black and white portrayal of the natural world (by Adams or whoever) must be a gross alteration to the original, as seen, scene and cannot possibly be acceptable in a natural history photograph!

Cor, it seems to me that any black and white portrayal of the natural world (by Adams or whoever) must be a gross alteration to the original, as seen, scene and cannot possibly be acceptable in a natural history photograph!

Going off thread of course, but black-and-white is an interesting discussion in itself; because of course there was a time when all photography was black-and-white, most news photography was black-and-white, much of our vision is in black-and-white (all our vision at night) etc. Digital has added a new twist as all digital images are recorded in color, so every digital black and white image subtracts color, but leaves all other info intact. Ultimately it's all about truth and honesty I guess. Any Wikileaks documents on these LAUPS images?

.... Im not sure how this works in photojournalism. Will a war journalist be brought down if he selectively adds a mask to brighten, darken, or whatever effect you want, a certain part of an image without changing what the image is about? Anyone know how this works?

Plenty of images in photojournalism contests have been disqualified for over-manipulation from too much burning, dodging, saturation, etc.... Usually they are disqualified before they win. The judges just pass on them. But they are disqualified because all of that manipulation DOES change what the image is about. Just look at the classic O.J. Simpson Time cover photo. Link Yes, some over-manipulated photos will slip through but that's what a judging panel should be for - to draw the line in the sand as far as what is acceptable and what isn't.

In a nature photography contest it's more difficult if the judges are not familiar with the natural behavior of each and every species to determine if what they are seeing is natural. Which brings up another point. Often times what makes a photo special is unnatural behavior. So then the question is, did the photographer catch this unbelievable moment, or did they create it. I agree looking at the entire take might help clarify that.

As long as there are contests there will be people pushing the boundaries of acceptable manipulation and there will be people cheating. It's up to the judges and photo communities to call them out.

Usually it's obvious to a judge or publisher if an image has been overmanipulated. You cant tell me that Time thought that was the actual photo taken. They chose to publish an obviously altered image, almost a caricature of an image. Thats not what im talking about.

Im talking about (minor?) modifications that photographers used to do in the darkroom, and now do in the 'lightroom'. What exactly is the difference? The idea being to improve the image, closer to reality, or closer to perfection. Yes, thats subjective, but judging is anyways. By saying these minor dark or lightroom modification are cheating because they werent done in-camera, aren't you saying some of the most recognized nature photographers in our worlds history are frauds? And if not, why not?

Usually it's obvious to a judge or publisher if an image has been overmanipulated. You cant tell me that Time thought that was the actual photo taken. They chose to publish an obviously altered image, almost a caricature of an image. Thats not what im talking about.

 

Im talking about (minor?) modifications that photographers used to do in the darkroom, and now do in the 'lightroom'. What exactly is the difference? The idea being to improve the image, closer to reality, or closer to perfection. Yes, thats subjective, but judging is anyways. By saying these minor dark or lightroom modification are cheating because they werent done in-camera, aren't you saying some of the most recognized nature photographers in our worlds history are frauds? And if not, why not?

I agree with you Cor; this is particularly the case as more and more stuff can be done in camera - an out of camera JPEG being nothing more than the sum of these manipulations

I dunno Cor. Reading the post, what I read from it was that image was captured as is and the subject/scene etc was not set up/made up/faked. That's how I understand his statement. I don't think he is saying that post-processing is necessarily forbidden, as RAW images do need processing, if just for the printer profile.

In photojournalism (war, human tragedy, stories about people) and in natural history there is absolutely no space for

altering of an image digitally and or influencing the moment via subject manipulation ,etc. as he credibility of what we see is then

put into question.

This is not just a conservative view from an old time pro but a mantra to live by.

I work hard to capture the moment- all 'special effects' done in-camera and at the moment of capture.

1/13th of a second is no issue underwater- 1-2 sec neither. Spending days and weeks to capture something unique

are all in a days work.

 

You can put in the time- hours days, months to get a shot- but you cannot fool pros on the

acquisition of images in the wild as we all know what it takes.

 

I know the photographer that initiated this post very wel (elbuzol- I know his style and his code of honor (yes, some shooters have this).

I know also that he has won many competitions without influencing the subject and simply by putting in the time and being there to capture the unique images that make a winning picture.

As for post-processing in contests, I think the limitations on post makes it easier for the organizers. Once a photograph is in post, it's sorta hard to prove what has been done and what is original. Does that limit digital artistry? Maybe. But it also makes it easier on the judges to know what is "real" and what is done in post. Perhaps one day a really good competition will insist on a .log file that comes with the RAW to show how it was processed. But then it'd be program specific and biased.

Usually it's obvious to a judge or publisher if an image has been overmanipulated. You cant tell me that Time thought that was the actual photo taken. They chose to publish an obviously altered image, almost a caricature of an image. Thats not what im talking about.

 

Im talking about (minor?) modifications that photographers used to do in the darkroom, and now do in the 'lightroom'. What exactly is the difference? The idea being to improve the image, closer to reality, or closer to perfection. Yes, thats subjective, but judging is anyways. By saying these minor dark or lightroom modification are cheating because they werent done in-camera, aren't you saying some of the most recognized nature photographers in our worlds history are frauds? And if not, why not?

You missed what I was saying. Obviously Time knew that photo was manipulated because their artists are the ones who did that to OJ. That was an extreme example to illustrate my point. What I am saying is that manipulation can change the mood, and in essence, the message of the photograph and often without going to those extremes. So where do you draw the line?

I agree with what you are saying that minor modifications are not cheating. RAW images need post processing. Look, this is an argument that can go on ad infinitum and really aren't germane to the original post IMO. Post manipulation is a subject that can, and has, been debated endlessly. Do you draw the line at cloning, cropping, dodging, burning etc..? There is no hard and fast line. But I believe there is a hard and fast line concerning subject manipulation. Leave your subjects alone.

It's tough to do things right.

Two weeks ago I was tracking a lovely yellow seahorse in the Philippines. I was watching it move from one place to another (without my help, mind you) hoping it would go to a place where I could photograph it without endangering the surrounding corals. A Russian photographer saw me watching it intently, came up and shoved his camera at the seahorse and snapped away. He scared it deeper into the staghorn corals. No problem for him....he grabbed a large branch of the coral in his way and broke it off. I was so angry I aborted the dive to fume. It was hard being on the same boat and be in any way civil.

 

Good thing he didn't speak English.....

Sounds like a perfect candidate for the "instant weightbelt release punishment". This action accomplishes two things: 1. removes the individual from the environment they were damaging. 2. with sufficient depth, removes the individual from the gene pool preventing future environment damage.

Adam.

Jeez some of these views are pretty extreme. I wonder what the punishment is for eating chocolate with cocoa supplied from Mali, Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire?

Jeez some of these views are pretty extreme. I wonder what the punishment is for eating chocolate with cocoa supplied from Mali, Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire?

You ever see the Schwartzenegger movie where the guy was forced to swallow a snake?

Im with Adam...

I also enjoy the old "remove mask and throw it into the blue". Dont have to speak English to understand that.

Olly

Isn't it to be judged like most crimes? By the intention? Is the intention to deceive? Are we not manipulating things simply by being there to record the image?

Are we bringing quantum physics and Schrödinger's cat into this now?

In front of the law, ignorance and good intent are no excuse! At least that's what I was told my last speeding ticket.

Are we bringing quantum physics and Schrödinger's cat into this now? smile.gif

Allison,

 

May I ask did you via the DM, someone else, make it clear to this guy that breaking off coral is not acceptable? Did you inform the DM of his actions? I know it is uncomfortable but I am curious.

Yes, I did tell the DM. He was really upset. I do not know if the crew talked to this guy or not. There was a real language barrier. I'm sure the diver noted a real coolness, however, from everyone else. He seemed to try a lot harder to be nicer to everyone soon afterward.

Are we bringing quantum physics and Schrödinger's cat into this now?

Well maybe not quantum "Verschrankung(sp?)!" mechanics, but philosophy at the minimum.

I always like the arguments of bringing it down to the ol' "you're already affecting the situation just by being there!" line in. To go back to this example, if the iguana jumped into the water on its own, and one jumps into the water to photograph it and can actually get that close as to do a split shot, then obviously the iguana isn't all too fussed about the photographer. However, if someone tosses a land loving iguana into the water to photograph it, that's subject manipulation. Same for the sea moth. If a benthic sea moth hits the water column high enough to get a shot of it from the underbelly, then it's luck. However, it is held up so a pic can be taken, then that's also subject manipulation.

I really don't see the difficulty that is to understanding that?

It's obvious that the LAUPS knows about this thread and have not replied. I hope they are thoroughly investigating this and hopefully they will give a statement about this. It'll be pretty tough to prove any of this was intentional subject manipulation. It's more of the judgement of any organizing committee to allow such questionable pics to win a category in the first place, just in case it sets a bad precedent.

I find "shorthand" comments like this, even from such lofty pinnacles of photographic achievement, very unhelpful: we must understand that there is a lot of digital manipulation taking place in the electronics of the camera and that there are certain manipulations that can be controlled on a computer that do not affect the integrity of the image: starting with RAW conversion...

... consider this: even if it is evidence of a lesser degree of photographic skill, does introducing a blurred masked background layer, instead of using an optical set-up with appropriate Bokeh, really invalidate a natural history image except in the specific context of a competition?

Why is time and effort in the water rewarded and time and effort in the digital darkroom rejected?

T

It was brought to my attention that I may wish to respond to man of the comments on this thread.

I do not read WP on a regular basis but there are some things I would like to clarify.

My original comments have off course been taken out of context and this thread has span out of control.

In the context of a wildlife competition that requires no Subject manipulation and minimal Photoshot interference with the photo the comments above are totally accurate.

If you are a wildlife photographer- your time in the water and the results you produce are definitely to be rewarded.

If you are a lets call it 'digital artist' that spends hours on a wildlife photo then I would say there is little reward to be given in the context of a WILDLIFE COMPETITION.

Let me be clear. There is nothing wrong with digital manipulation- these are the tools available today to express, interpret or create all together a new image.

These are perfect for Advertising, art, even landscapes and cityscapes etc... and lets also add animals to this. Its all ok.

What is not ok is to apply all this to WILDLIFE Photography in its pure sense.

If there is a category for Digital interpretation of wildlife then that is a great place to express your creativity in the digital darkroom.

Lets not stray from the original content of this thread.

It was not about digital manipulation.

It is about subject manipulation.

Mauricio, you think all of Ansel Adams' images should be removed from our heritage because he manipulated his shots with the technology available to him at that time?

 

I know people always refer to Ansel Adams, but thats because when someone says that only in-camera work is valid, they never actually give an argument to why, and why Adams was somehow different.

 

To me it's more about intent. Did the photographer intent to deceive. Thats subjective, but photography is subjective and cant easily be put into black and white rules.

COR

Many years ago I did my University Photography Thesis on the work of Ansel Adams- I know his work fairly well- My thesis was called

"The Process of VIsualization in the Photography of Ansel Adams"

I was fascinated by the way he could think ahead of time what his image would end up like if he

did this, and then applied that in the dark room.

His work was and continues to be very powerful. His interpretation of the landscape....

He processed his images from Negatives to final prints. Today we go from Raw to Print.

He used very basic tools and a tremendous amount of skill- He spent days and weeks waiting for the light to be right.

For the clouds to be in place... his lab tools simply brought out the correct contrast between shades of Black and white.

Today digital shooters have many tools but less "in the field skills". I say less because there are many skills that any

underwater photographer has to have to even get he most basic of shots.

A master of underwater wildlife photography should not be based on his/ her skills with Photoshop and its many possibilities.

Again- I will emphasis that this thread has spun out of control and has lost its focus.

I, personally, just me- truly believe that wildlife photography should remain pure while in the field.

No subject manipulation is allowed in my work.

Vert little post production (limited to levels, contrast and sharpening which are essential for a Raw conversion).

I can count the times I have cropped any one of my images.

I can tell you all motion, emotion in any one of my images is done in the field and in camera.

THere is no issue with manipulation in the digital realm- An artistic rendition of a wildlife moment underwater or on land is perfectly fine.

What is not fine is subject manipulation- as this thread originally stated.

Interesting debate- lets not loose focus.