I think there is definitely a line between cloning in animals or other objects, say, and "processing" the image in more of a dark room kind of way, but I think people are constantly pushing up against that line from both sides.
After watching/reading some about most nature photographers, they are doing all kinds of things to get their cameras in odd places, bait or track animals, etc. that give them shots the rest of us could never get, regardless of equipment. Different world.
I feed birds outside my office window and take pictures of them through the glass. I do mention this occasionally but not always. Here is one I took today.
Here you can clearly see the seed but I use the log to make it look more natural. I could take the pictures of birds when they are on commercial bird feeders but that would not look so natural. I dont think I am setting out to deceive just get a nicely composed photograph.
We had a chap come do a talk on macro photography at camera club recently, I was appauled with what he told us he did ~ supergluing crickets to sticks almost made me sick
I don't have a problem with altering, editing or cloning, all take skill to do well. After all I pretty much edit ever shot before I post on here even ifs it's just cropping. I'd rather folk were honest about what they've done and said how'd they'd achieved the shot, that way we can learn something. But then it's appreciating the final shot that's important to me, more art then a true reflection
@wearing0 ---- Sure it takes some skill to do good editing but we are talking about nature photography. Like National Geographic, Audubon Magazine has always held a high standard when it comes to their photography. When we look at those images we trust the photographers are out on site showing us real nature, not staged shots with tame animals or bugs super glued onto a stick. That's disgusting and if they are alive, it's unethical. So, if you know this is being done, are those still called nature photos? I don't think so. We are blurring the lines between truth and fiction and calling it natural.
Photographers take all kinds of liberties when it comes to photos, however we can't be claiming they are something of a high caliber nature photographer when they are creating images on a computer from other images or pulling animals out of cages to pose for us. The end result just doesn't have the same impact when we know the truth, does it?
@dmortega I don't remember saying I agreed to unethical treatment of animals I also said I thought the photographer should be honest about how the shot was achieved, I'm not advocating they lie about it.
I don't automatically assume a photo I see is natural at all in fact I assume all photos have been altered/ staged whether it's enticing animals, using a pet mountain cat or cloning in zebras. Where do you draw the line, it's alright to clone out distracting scenery but not ok to entice the animal there in the first place. If I'm looking at a shot of a animal whether it was wild or captive doesn't stop me admiring what a beautiful, wonderful creature it is or the skill of the photographer. Taking a good shot requires skill.
As soon as you take a photo it stops being natural, it's a version of that place/animal. For me that's enough, I enjoy looking a beautiful photos of places, animals, events that I am unlikely on the whole to ever witness myself, I'm happy to accept that it's natural to a point.
I suspect however we will have to agree to disagree on this
@wearing0 --- It's Ok with me if we disagree. I also, didn't mean to imply that you "agreed to unethical treatment of animals'. I was referring to your speaker. That kind of treatment to live animals, bugs included, is unethical. If they do that, what more are they willing to do for that special nature shot?
@dmortega ah well on that we can agree, no to animal cruelty.
I love these discussion it's part of what makes photography fascinating to me. Raw/JPEG, SOOC/ edited, HDR? to clone or not to clone, 365 projects kill your creativity/365 will make you a better photographer. It's all fascinating and most photographer I know have passionate opinions on them all, makes for lively and interesting discussions, keep them coming........
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
After watching/reading some about most nature photographers, they are doing all kinds of things to get their cameras in odd places, bait or track animals, etc. that give them shots the rest of us could never get, regardless of equipment. Different world.
Here you can clearly see the seed but I use the log to make it look more natural. I could take the pictures of birds when they are on commercial bird feeders but that would not look so natural. I dont think I am setting out to deceive just get a nicely composed photograph.
Photographers take all kinds of liberties when it comes to photos, however we can't be claiming they are something of a high caliber nature photographer when they are creating images on a computer from other images or pulling animals out of cages to pose for us. The end result just doesn't have the same impact when we know the truth, does it?
I don't automatically assume a photo I see is natural at all in fact I assume all photos have been altered/ staged whether it's enticing animals, using a pet mountain cat or cloning in zebras. Where do you draw the line, it's alright to clone out distracting scenery but not ok to entice the animal there in the first place. If I'm looking at a shot of a animal whether it was wild or captive doesn't stop me admiring what a beautiful, wonderful creature it is or the skill of the photographer. Taking a good shot requires skill.
As soon as you take a photo it stops being natural, it's a version of that place/animal. For me that's enough, I enjoy looking a beautiful photos of places, animals, events that I am unlikely on the whole to ever witness myself, I'm happy to accept that it's natural to a point.
I suspect however we will have to agree to disagree on this
I love these discussion it's part of what makes photography fascinating to me. Raw/JPEG, SOOC/ edited, HDR? to clone or not to clone, 365 projects kill your creativity/365 will make you a better photographer. It's all fascinating and most photographer I know have passionate opinions on them all, makes for lively and interesting discussions, keep them coming........