Photography Discussion ⇒ The Ethics of Landscape Photography - Article for Discussion

[Matt Quinn]

Okay, Matt, I went back and tried to restore the mist. I now have mixed feelings: I still like my original vision, the scene as I saw it regardless of what it actually looked like (the second picture below), but the rework to restore the mist is, yeah, probably closer to "real," as close as any picture gets anyway. I'm not sure I like one better than the other. They are two different interpretations.

Thanks Chuck. I do prefer the misty one; de gustibus...Many thanks. Matt

[PietFrancke]

Do no Harm. I get that, and agree. Well, mostly... I have no problem throwing a maggot into the freezer. I put a spider into the freezer once, and ended up feeling bad about it. I think there is something that happens to the photographer when he does this - that does not happen in normal life. Prior to this event, I have NEVER had a problem stomping on spiders. Now I tend to leave them alone or simply move them outside, go figure! Most people continue to stomp them.

About deceive... If a woman wishes to look beautiful, is makeup allowed? Or what about form enhancing clothing? So to that issue I say Balderdash!! Landscape painters make their mountains LOOM. They make the surf CRASH and BOOM. I like Duck's explanation and description of Hyper-Real. If you wish to do documentation, go for it, if you wish to create art (or are trying to learn how to create art), go for it.

Just because the artist is using a camera instead of a brush, it does not force a set of requirements on him that would be missing if he were using a brush. And even an "honest" photo can lie by omission. Anyway, my Morality on that issue is to not be concerned about Pleasing those who would place a limit on what I choose to do. I will do what I wish, and I will be honest about anything I have done to those that ask - if I wish to be courteous.

If a contest has rules, don't cheat, but if I am not participating in a contest, then don't apply your rules to my efforts to please myself. Rules, Rules.. Who Wrote the Rules?

[Duck]

Rules.jpg (27.8 KiB) Viewed 442 times

[minniev]

Okay, Matt, I went back and tried to restore the mist...

This image has a lot of potential and I like what is happening, but please consider starting a new thread for that conversation. I'm sure Minnie would appreciate that.

Moderator hat comes off now. Back to the regularly scheduled program.

Thanks

Forgive us Duck, Chuck and I came here from Another Town where I was (in)famous in said town for encouraging threads to go off topic and wander down many various roads. I would guess that wherever relocated citizens see my name on a thread, they know how I am and do as I am prone to do. I once posted a thread entitled "Please Hijack Me". My thread expectations are as messy as my photography. All is well with Min, in our polite jurisdiction.

[minniev]

What a terrific discussion! ...

I think sometimes we photographers overlook that what we produce is an art form. At the dawn of photography there were painters who were horrified that they were gonna be out of a job. Initially it was difficult to impossible to manipulate photographs. Daguerreotypes were mirror images and there was nothing you could do about it. So were tintypes (ferrotypes). There was only the original and no good way to reproduce it. The best the early practitioners could do was add a little tinting, maybe some pink in the cheeks (very commonly done). Fox Talbot figured out a way to make a negative so then it was off to the races with all sorts of imaginative manipulations. But the painters were still happily painting, and painters had a distinct advantage (not just color): they could paint what they saw rather than just what was there. Silky waterfall? No problem. Intruding branch? Leave it out. Needs a nice red leaf just there? Paint it. Who's gonna know?

I like your relocated gulls. I also like the shot in gloomy weather (perhaps because that's the only weather I've seen it in too). Thank you for sharing the shots and a persuasive advocacy argument for our art. I do think we often practice both craft and art, rather than one or the other.

I've been known to do some relocation of dam birds, dragging one about the frame to get him in the position I wished he'd taken. One of the images in the museum show features a dam bird who's been dragged a bit. I often clone out parts of dam birds that are caught in the frame but I didn't want as part of the composition. However, I haven't cloned out the bird poop. Why? I dunno. I took some pictures yesterday that have light wires and poles in them and that I intended, when I shot them, to remove. Yet, I felt a little odd when I picked up a pretty leaf and set it on a piece of wood to photograph. I think I'm just kinda nutty, and like the fun of finding things at my photo sites rather than setting them up. If I was real persnickety about manipulation in general, I wouldn't be cloning out stray bird wings or that blurred bufflehead landing beside the blue heron I considered my main subject.

[Duck]

Forgive us Duck, Chuck and I came here from Another Town where I was (in)famous in said town for encouraging threads to go off topic and wander down many various roads. I would guess that wherever relocated citizens see my name on a thread, they know how I am and do as I am prone to do. I once posted a thread entitled "Please Hijack Me". My thread expectations are as messy as my photography. All is well with Min, in our polite jurisdiction.

All good. I just didn't want members to feel their conversation wasn't on point. Specially since the sidetrack makes for a great post on it's own right.

[Duck]

... I often clone out parts [...] Yet, I felt a little odd when I picked up a pretty leaf and set it on a piece of wood to photograph. I think I'm just kinda nutty, and like the fun of finding things at my photo sites rather than setting them up. [...]

Aha! So it's not an issue of ethics but rather an issue of mental health.

That's it! We're renaming this place from photoMENTORIS to photoMENTAL-LESS!

I'm in! Who's coming?

[minniev]

... I often clone out parts [...] Yet, I felt a little odd when I picked up a pretty leaf and set it on a piece of wood to photograph. I think I'm just kinda nutty, and like the fun of finding things at my photo sites rather than setting them up. [...]

Aha! So it's not an issue of ethics but rather an issue of mental health.

That's it! We're renaming this place from photoMENTORIS to photoMENTAL-LESS!

I'm in! Who's coming?

Perhaps the wishful artist in us makes us all a little bit goofy. I probably wouldn't enjoy being normal anyway

[St3v3M]

...
Why I feel so differently about shooting and editing is somewhat of a mystery even to me. Part of it is the challenge of trying to shoot what I find rather than manipulate the subjects. ...

I tried so hard to go through the comments without saying something about each one but the more I read the more I want to have a say.

What you shoot is what you see, what you edit is what you want others to see, the difference is the story you present. S-

[St3v3M]

I found the article to be well written and rich with food for thought. The term "willfully deceive" the viewer resonates with me because it's how I feel about composites that are not revealed as such. And yes, this feeling is contradictory to how I feel about edits that "enhance" a scene.
...
But this topic of yours will remind me to consider a bit more thoughtfully in the future about whether or not a viewer might feel deceived about any of my edits.

Having come to this late I wonder if your opinions have changed with your current posts? S-