# Photography Ethics question. Again.



## sanj (Mar 21, 2015)

I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?


----------



## Click (Mar 21, 2015)

sanj said:


> Am I doing an unethical thing?



I don't think so. Go with your taste, it's your image. 

Very nice by the way.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2015)

The ethics comes in if you plan to enter a contest or submit a photo for publication where you would likely be have the photos rejected or be banned for life.

You can print your own and sell them and its perfectly fine, its just that those first examples have strict rules as to what you can do.

I think that mentioning the PP when posting online is a good thing to do.


----------



## canonistic (Mar 21, 2015)

it "can be" ethical or unethical depending mostly on your intended use of the photo.
If you are making a print for your wall for your own use, you may manipulate as much as you wish.
If you are submitting it to USA TODAY as a journalist the same image is completely unethical.
It is also unethical to submit it to most contests, if the rules stipulate no manipulation.

You likely removed objects that you found distracting, or were trying to improve the composition right?
Good intentions, just not fair to do it in some uses.

It's a very nice photo by the way.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 21, 2015)

canonistic said:


> it "can be" ethical or unethical depending mostly on your intended use of the photo.
> If you are making a print for your wall for your own use, you may manipulate as much as you wish.
> If you are submitting it to USA TODAY as a journalist the same image is completely unethical.
> It is also unethical to submit it to most contests, if the rules stipulate no manipulation.
> ...



I agree. On several occasions I've been clear that I support disclosure if modifications are done to a photo for sale. In this case I'd note that the birds are not an important subject of the photo, and pretty unimportant to the veracity of the photo as a whole. I agree that for contests you should not do this; however, it would not be unethical to sell this photo with birds removed: it's not a lot different from removing dust. If you add aesthetic content to the photo you should disclose the fact, e.g. if you had cloned in more birds.


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 21, 2015)

This is a question of when does art meet sport and historian?

DIYPhotography.net recently ran a story of a photographer who splashed colored milk on models to achieve the look of super heroes. But, this can't be done in one take. So he splashed one color on part of the model's body at a time, then combined the images in post to achieve the image he wanted. Each and every element of the image was captured by a camera and not "painted" on through software. This is one example of photography as an artist's medium.

Then there's the sport of photography which can be found in contests that seek to reward images as captured. Post processing is typically limited to exposure and color correction -- they type of stuff that would have been done in a color lab with a color negative. The sport is being at the right time, at the right place, with the right gear, using the right settings, exhibiting the right timing, and framing the right composition.

Finally, there's historian where the photo is intended to record an instant in time for historical record. Journalism is an obvious example. 

Personally, I enjoy sports photography because a good shot -- a really good shot -- has all three elements. It may record a bases loaded, game winning catch that happens to explore the limits of an outfielder's athletic skills while perfectly framing the moment against the backdrop of fans anticipating thrill of victory -- or the agony of defeat within the next split second. Sport is not only the subject, but there's sport in trying to capture this moment and in doing so with the artistry of exposure and composition.

So, it ultimately depends upon how you present the image.

Nonetheless, some images may scream "artistic license" (like the super hero milk shoot) while others may imply a journalistic accounting of historical record. The OP's shot is similar to many that we've seen in National Geographic (kudos' for a nice shot, indeed), so it's natural to expect it to be unedited. But, the editing falls into the cleanup category and doesn't alter the essence of the captured moment. 

I think the OP has improved the image, but is wise to acknowledge that minor cleanup has been done in post if presenting this image in public. Such disclaimer will help prevent any questions should the OP capture a prize winning photo to be entered into a contest or sold to a publication.

I'll throw out another question. When taking a group photo, such as a baseball team or a school group for a yearbook, is it appropriate to photoshop missing members into the final image?


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 21, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?



I would take the last two out as well. Go for it sanj


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 21, 2015)

Quote: "I'll throw out another question. When taking a group photo, such as a baseball team or a school group for a yearbook, is it appropriate to photo-shop missing members into the final image?"

Yes, adjust the photo based on input from the team, manager, president, whomever is your contract. You are creating a photo from instructions of the promoter. Adding, subtracting, manipulating to orders -- no problem with that -- every one knows.

As for the other parts of this: My personal opinion only ...

As journalists, we are required to submit images as shot in the field -- no manipulation. Sometimes, editors will crop, manipulate minor corrections, but generally it's always assumed that the image in any journal or newspaper, magazine is direct from the camera, a recording of history. Journalists have been fired for changing an image -- one in particular in the news last year - cropped (or cut) a piece of his assistant's camera out of the corner of an image shot in Afghanistan during a conflict -- and he was immediately fired. 

Fine Art: The image is what you make it -- the artist is in control and in my mind, no disclosure is necessary before, during, or after a sale, unless a buyer (or anyone) asks -- then tell the truth (I mean, why not if you are proud of the image) ... in the first place, most (but not all) manipulation is often obvious. If a buyer likes an image, buys it, it matters not how it arrived at its final destination. Where I would draw the line is non-disclosure if asked, tell the truth -- if it's a raw shot from an actual scene - say so ... if it's manipulated to a large or small degree, admit it. IF the image is for yourself, who cares?


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2015)

If you cloned all the birds out, then told a story about how you shot the picture of this lion all by itself then yes it is unethical.

It is not unethical unless you represent it as something it is not.

Otherwise you can PP and Clone to your hearts content.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 21, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Yes, adjust the photo based on input from the team, manager, president, whomever is your contract. You are creating a photo from instructions of the promoter. Adding, subtracting, manipulating to orders -- no problem with that -- every one knows.


The main point is that the buyer be aware. If the buyer (client) asks you to do so then it's ethical. What they do with the image from there is their own business.



> Fine Art: The image is what you make it -- the artist is in control and in my mind, no disclosure is necessary before, during, or after a sale, unless a buyer (or anyone) asks -- then tell the truth (I mean, why not if you are proud of the image)


When I was a kid my parents considered it a lie if I omitted an important piece of information, even if everything I said was true. That ought to hold in everything we do in business as well. You don't have to tell the buyer how you manipulated the image; however, it's unethical not to volunteer that it was manipulated. (edit: unless, as I said earlier in the thread, it had no substantial effect on the subject matter of the image)


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 21, 2015)

Looking at the photo, I wonder if you realize, Sanj, that it looks like you've replaced one whitish bird (camera right, slightly above lion) with two piles of poop? :

Except for Nat Geo or straightforward record keeping, who doesn't clean up their photos? Two nature photographers come to mind, Art Wolfe and Art Morris. Don't both routinely clean up twigs, oof birds, even raggedy beaks?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Quote: "I'll throw out another question. When taking a group photo, such as a baseball team or a school group for a yearbook, is it appropriate to photo-shop missing members into the final image?"



Or to take three or four photos of the team and to copy and paste the eyes of Jane from an image where she didn't blink......


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 21, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Looking at the photo, I wonder if you realize, Sanj, that it looks like you've replaced one whitish bird (camera right, slightly above lion) with two piles of poop? :


Looks like that whitish bird was another lion in the background and there was also a part of a bird on the middle-right edge of the frame.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 21, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?


What difference does it make if it is ethical or unethical?
Unethical doesn't mean illegal. Misrepresentation is illegal and this why, my opinion, it is not supposed to happen in news reporting.

Composite is putting a subject at a location where he cannot be at that specific time. Unethical or not, who cares? Artists do that all the time.
Using that composite as a proof that he was at that location while committing a murder somewhere else is a misrepresentation and hence illegal, and that matters.

Retake that shot at 1/800s then again at 5s and you will see birds clearly in one and just some black shadows in the other. Which one is ethical?
People argues about it but to me no photo on earth represents the truth, assuming that there is only one truth. So why worry about it?
Law is another matter and that I care entirely.

Agreed, that is a beautiful photo, with or without the birds.


----------



## untenchicken (Mar 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?



Not to worry Sanj, animals will not resort to dragging you in court over this


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?


It is all about creating the image you want to have and what your artistic vision sees. The only time it is unethical is if you try to pass it off as something that it isn't. It is like a wedding photographer removing the two dogs having sex from the background of the wedding party shot in the park, or taking those power lines out of a sunset photo..... it is the removal of a distracting element in order that the subject of your picture stands out more.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2015)

Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements


----------



## Click (Mar 22, 2015)

...LOL ;D


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 22, 2015)

Without adding additional commentary on the photo itself or the price, the most expensive "photo" ever sold, the Rhein II had objects removed with photoshop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements



Your "cloning things out" skill is much better than you "cloning things in" skill 

I hate Jane, she always blinks. And on that thought, one of these days I'll make a group photo out of multiple exposures and pp it so they are all blinking! Won't that be something?

Regarding the original question, I think it's extremely unethical to sell this picture as a proof that there are very few birds around a lion, but then again, if you are using me as your moral compass ... oh boy, that would be as bad as using a public forum for it!


----------



## sdsr (Mar 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?



When you took the photo you chose a focal length, aperture etc. that resulted in a blurred background. Was that unethical? 

As for the rest, if you say that the photo with the birds removed is what you saw, or what the camera captured, that's a lie, though rather trivial as lies go. If you enter it in a photo competition that bans such things, you've dishonestly violated an arguably stupid rule. If you sell or give it to someone who likes the image per se, I don't see why there's a problem at all, trivial or otherwise, unless they say they want it because the camera captured what you saw (which would be a tad weird), in which case we're back in the land of fairly trivial lies. If you're a journalist and want to submit it, you're bound by whatever the rules are of the organization you work for or are selling it to; ethics may not have anything to do with it except in some narrow, uninteresting sense. 

If the point is to create an "art" photo - which I suspect is how most sane people would regard this photo - do what you want. If it's OK to tweak white balance, contrast, sharpness, etc., it's OK to remove birds, add kittens, etc. If it's OK to manipulate the image in-camera before you take the photo, it's OK to manipulate the image after you've taken it.

(As far as I'm concerned, there are far more significant photo ethics questions, such as those arising out of, say, using homeless people as props to make a "cool" image.)


----------



## lescrane (Mar 22, 2015)

I've been cloning things out since cloning was invented and thought the issue was resolved, at least for me. Everyone has their own rules of what they feel comfortable doing and what they are skilled at. For me, if there's a lot of cleanup necessary it's almost not worth time.... remember it is a skill.just like graphic design is a skill, or editing for color/contrast etc is a skill

as others said, if cloning or other alterations are banned by a contest don't do it. Same for photojournalism if you are stipulating that the scene is a faithful reproduction of what you saw. If you are merely selling or displaying, or even publishing printsyou can clone to your hearts delight as you are selling a finished product that you want to be as aesthetically pleasing as it can be and you are not implying or attesting having a "unedited" final image


----------



## lescrane (Mar 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements



Is that MSI, Don? Looks familar.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2015)

lescrane said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements
> ...


Is MSI the Machias / Seal Island lighthouse? 

This is Peggy's Cove, N.S, Canada


----------



## Oceo (Mar 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> lescrane said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




When I lived in Halifax there was a much easier way to remove people from the rocks around the lighthouse at Peggy's. 
We would just wait for a late autumn nor-easter or an extra-tropical hurricane to come along and let the accompanying waves sweep those idiots off the rocks and out to sea. This proved time and again to not be a permanent solution, though. Sooner or later people _would_ go down on those rocks, but it was never the same people twice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements



Don, I think you missed the big distracting element


----------



## dolina (Mar 22, 2015)

Ethics is based on your audience and the organisation you belong too.

If you are a photojournalist this becomes really important as this is part of your occupation.

As a hobbyist... again based on audience and organisation you belong too.

As far as I am concerned if it is your copyright you have every right to do what you wish to it.

I find people grabbing your photos without prior permission for the purpose of "conservation" very unethical and pretty much illegal.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, one can go too far removing distracting elements
> ...


According to many, I am the big distracting element


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?



My definition of "unethical" would be "change the meaning of the content" vs. "remove distaction (small like sensor spots, or larger like a leaf of grass near the subject.

In this case, I do think the content is changed as there's a bird near the lion facing the other way. Obviously, these birds don't think they have to stay clear. If you remove the bird, it looks like the birds are avoiding the lion which is creating a no-go zone around it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2015)

Assuming there is no requirement preventing image manipulation, I say go for it. It is your photo, and if you think it is a stronger image with the birds cloned out, then that's fine. 

I struggle to see how anyone would consider it unethical. In fact, I think most people would automatically assume most images have been tinkered with. And while there are some areas where this is a no-no (such as wildlife and nature competitions), apart from scientific curiosity, it doesn't necessarily make those images more worthy or better or valuable.


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2015)

Thank you everyone for your wonderful thoughts. I am aspiring one day to have a book. If this picture goes in there, it will be about lion behavior and not mention anything about the birds.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 22, 2015)

Great picture. I fail to see any "ethical question" here whatsoever. 

Quite to the opposite, I find it fantastic, how digital photography enables us to get the images WE WANT so much easier than back in the old film days. And I don't consider an image "better or worse", "more ethical or less ethical" based on whether what is shown depicts the scene "exactly as captured" [but possibly arranged in some ways] or modified in whichever way after capture. 

The only limitation in my opinion applies to photojournalistic work. My personal limit for modifications is where they would "potentially change the perception of a news story in the eyes of the viewers". But I would not mind at all, if in some war reportage an assistants arm and camera are cropped out of an image. But "tripling the amount of smoke in the sky over Gaza after an air raid" is certainly unprofessional behaviour and (probably) unethical too.

With respect to this very lion image: it does not matter much to any viewer, whether there were also some birds in the vicinity close to the lion at time of capture. There is no perceptible interaction whatsoever between the animals. It is a great image of a lion crouching next to the water - and this does not change with or without birds visible in the frame. Removing some or all of those birds in PP only has the effect to focus more of the viewers attention on the main subject of the image - the lion, because some distractions (unsharp birds) are removed. Cannot see anything "unethical" in that at all. 

Had a second lion been photoshopped into the image, now that would change the story told and be "not acceptable" to me in the context of journalistic work or scientific work. But if only the imagery itself is concerned - for "art purposes" - why not! Even if a Tyrannosaurus Rex was added to the image, I would not mind or find this unethical" in any way. Just bizarre maybe - depending on execution.  

For this specific image, even if ALL of those optically pesky birds were removed, I cannot see anything that would make the image "unworthy" to participate in any nature photo contest. I also would not mind if the lion was lured to that specific place by means of some cat food or whatever. After all it is never a lion, it's only "an image of a lion" we are looking at. And if the wolf pictured http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8470962.stm is a tame, trained animal, and not a wild one, so what, it is still a wolf in a great image.

I think most of those contests' rules are utterly ridiculous and outdated, coming from some old-school analog socks with opinions from the last century. Those rules will change in time, as soon as digital natives finally take over command everywhere and those old buggers are retired for good. 8)


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2015)

Most likely I am crossing the limit now... Notice the eyes of the cub on the right.


----------



## RichM (Mar 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?
> ...



I would agree that, if you materially change the photo and try to pass it off as unedited, then that is at least unethical. But some post processing is an integral part of the art form.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?
> ...



This is a very good point: how other animals behave around lions is an integral part of "lion behavior." There is a difference between removing OOF birds far from the lion vs. birds near the lion.


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I can't agree. My thoughts:
1. These birds are generally oblivious of lions - lions seldom chase them.
2. This was shot with a 600mm lens and the birds you see are a minimum of 10 to 15 ft away from the lion and are flying around doing their thing without any concern of the lion. At waterholes birds constantly land and fly. These birds are mainly concerned with birds of prey and not lions.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I find it fantastic, how digital photography enables us to get the images WE WANT so much easier than back in the old film days. And I don't consider an image "better or worse", "more ethical or less ethical" based on whether what is shown depicts the scene "exactly as captured"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The only limitation in my opinion applies to photojournalistic work. My personal limit for modifications is where they would "potentially change the perception of a news story in the eyes of the viewers".


You almost get there, but stop just short: the reason PJ work has its standards is that the customer (i.e. reader) has a reasonable expectation of a standard of truth. The same holds in all other aspects of photography, or business generally: don't fool your customers. If I buy a book about the behavior of lions I have a reasonable expectation that it will correctly reflect wild lion behavior, unless otherwise noted. It's a very short step from there to say that if I buy a single photo that appears to be a wild lion that I have a reasonable expectation that it's not a fauxtoshopped zoo lion. I emphasize: what you do for your own artistic pleasure creates no ethical problems. What you do to create a product for sale does. 



> For this specific image, even if ALL of those optically pesky birds were removed, I cannot see anything that would make the image "unworthy" to participate in any nature photo contest.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> After all it is never a lion, it's only "an image of a lion" we are looking at.


You're entitled to your opinions, but do you think the general population of photo customers agree with you? As a photographer you're entitled to make your image as you see fit. As a seller you're not entitled to misrepresent your image to the buyer. As I said in an earlier post, omitting information the customer would find important is a form of misrepresentation.



> And if the wolf pictured http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8470962.stm is a tame, trained animal, and not a wild one, so what, it is still a wolf in a great image.


Again, you're giving yourself permission to impose your standards on everyone else. The fact that this photographer was penalized for misrepresentation should tell you that the majority opinion disagrees with you, and that you will be perceived as dishonest if you try to pass off a fabricated image as a representative image.


----------



## martti (Mar 22, 2015)

Against the rules is not the same thing as unethical.
If you photoshop a picture to make it seem that somebody is committing a crime and put it online, that is unethical. Or...you know what.

Nice lions. I am crazy about felines big and small. It is amazing how a lion or two can turn a boring picture into something extraordinary. Or a tiger or a caracal or an ocelot...let alone a cheetah doing 65 miles an hour, hardly touching the ground. Poetry in motion.

Who wants crows, anyway.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 22, 2015)

sanj said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


You've obviously given this a lot of consideration, so I won't question your judgement on that. I have a couple final thoughts. 

First: I live in the U.S. Several decades ago, when I was a child, I saw images on television about a famine in "Africa." (Africa was just a far-away place). The images that stayed with me were of starving children with flies on their faces. In my comfortable home a fly would be swatted away as soon as it landed. The fact that these children were either too weak or inured to flies was strikingly different from my existence. What the child did NOT do (swat the flies) was essential to the germination of my understanding of poverty and starvation.

Second: you may want to ask a wildlife biologist about the ethics of this particular shot. A book about lion behavior will attract the attention and critiques of experts.

Good luck with your project, it's a very nice photo.


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2015)

Thank you Orangutan for the encouragement. It is a dream project, hopefully one day I get there. 
Here is one photo for you: I was just amazed at how flies never frazzled them. 
Photo name CR: To show that the lion in the picture I posted was crouching to pounce on another lion (to play) and not to attack any bird.
Photo name CR1: to show you the full un cropped photo. We can see some gazelles in the background: demonstrating how far they are - like the birds I removed. These gazelles would not come close to a lion.


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the photo, I wonder if you realize, Sanj, that it looks like you've replaced one whitish bird (camera right, slightly above lion) with two piles of poop? :
> ...



Not another lion for sure. Cant make out what it actually is. My guess is an Egyptian vulture. I posted the full frame above.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 22, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Of course all replies in this thread are heavily biased, we're all photogs, after all. Remember someone asking "is it unethical to shoot outside designated hunting periods" in a hunter's forum, the answer would be "not if a good cause merits it, and even if not, what the heck". 

But think of some bird scientist researching the net about how large mammals and birds co-exists in nature preserves. And surprise, no birds to be seen anywhere near photo opportunities... and none of these images marked as "edited". 

There are endless possibilities with which an image can be observed, probably that's why magazines' rules are as they are - not to harass photogs to dump a shot because a bird got in the way.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 22, 2015)

When we digest all the responses here, it suggests varying opinion about what can be accomplished with PP, but it never gets to the OP point. The over-articulation of "individual pieces of this puzzle" expressed here do not examine the ethical component of our work as photographers and artists. 

No reason exists in any form of image expression that constitutes "unethical" images -- images don't contain properties of ethics. It's the photographer that determines how the image is received (or published). We can manipulate any file any way we choose, as long as we don't misrepresent what we exhibit. 

The bottom line in most of what has been written here illustrates that very clearly. 

No one says:: You can't digitally manipulate an image. No one says if you manipulate images you become an unethical jerk. But an artist suggesting to the public the image is not manipulated, when it in fact has been manipulated extensively -- that's where the ethical violation will always occur ... (Now, of course, we'll have a discussion about how we define 'extensively) -- (which is fairly easily defined unless one chooses to peep at the atomic level.) 

I believe we are all in agreement that minimal clarity, minimal sharpening, some cropping occurs as a matter of preparing the digital image for production without changing the image reliability... same as with the original B&W processing in a darkroom... Generally, an accepted factor in film processing.

So the ethical violations may occur only when and how the artist presents the work, and never in the work itself.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 22, 2015)

No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think. Just get over it. As long as there is no misleading or deceiving story/message sold with/through or about an image, everything is fine with me. 

The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals bevahiour and resulting subsequent images than cropping out some of those birds or changing closed eyes to open eyes in PP. 

By today's ridicoulous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted. ;D


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 22, 2015)

Quote:: "By today's ridiculous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted." ;D 

As I understand it, a simple muddy paw print is sufficient for a release. Except in the case of monkeys. ;D ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think.


That strikes me as a bit of a false dichotomy: the fact that it's not a perfect representation of reality doesn't mean it's not a very good representation of reality. More important, though, is the fact that there's a long-established expectation regarding how well photographs represent reality.



> Just get over it. As long as there is no misleading or deceiving story/message sold with/through or about an image, everything is fine with me.


I suggest you ask non-photographer friends what they think the standard ought to be. You may find that the standards set by photographers are very different from those set by non-photographers.




> The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals bevahiour and resulting subsequent images than cropping out some of those birds or changing closed eyes to open eyes in PP.


That would be a good question for a wildlife biologist/lion expert to address. It's plausible, but I doubt anyone on this forum has sufficient lion expertise to address it in any meaningful way.




> By today's ridicoulous political correctness rules the most "unethical" thing to do is probably publishing images of lions without having signed a model release from each and every cat depicted. ;D


Here's a recent cartoon that's almost on-topic: http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/bizarro/s-1626528


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 23, 2015)

QUOTE:: "The mere presence of one or several photographers near the lions has much more potential impact on the animals behavior and resulting subsequent images

Quote:: "That would be a good question for a wildlife biologist/lion expert to address. It's plausible, but I doubt anyone on this forum has sufficient lion expertise to address it in any meaningful way."

IF you'll accept a wildlife behavior anthropologist word on this :: It is absolutely true that photographers will unbalance species behavior in the wild, particularly predators. Altho, I have no experience with lion behavior, in general across any predatory species, intrusion by any unfamiliar species, including humans (or machines as well) will upset that balance and create unique and different responses instead of normal behavior. The greater (or a newer) the intrusion, the greater the unbalance to normal behavior. 

Animals in general are much more aware of human intrusion than humans realize, or even how soon animals perceive that intrusion -- Animals are extremely aware of the local environment, and don't require visual confirmation of a threat ... animals will respond only when they perceive that threat to be real and timely -- but the normal behavior will adjust any time even a minimally unusual situation occurs (Like a photographer entering the territory -- even in a blind or hiding)

SO, basically, I agree with quote one here. However, in many areas where research or photography occurs frequently, the effects will lessen over time, and eventually become a normal occurence and cause limited behavioral reactions from the animals. Thinks zoos, or wildlife preserves open to the public here.


----------



## sanj (Mar 23, 2015)

I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2015)

sanj said:


> I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.



Sanj, sorry but in my extremely limited experience and as an absolute non-expert i have often noticed clearly discernible reactions of wildlife to the presence of humans / cars ... to the point of "very active interaction". Once I had a spotted hyena or rather her 7 young cubs playing with our car for almost an hour.

Yes, there will be less reaction or no easily recognized changes in behaviour if human/s and/or machines are further away and/or well camouflaged - but ... if we humans get close enough to a wild animal like large cats to get a clean picture of it (with any focal length) i am sure the cat is fully aware of our presence.

Other than for scientific purposes I do not see this as "a problem in terms pf photography/imaging". It might be a problem for the wildlife, but I am also not too much fettered by that. As I said i don't mind at all stamping away some OOF birds in PP or cloning open eyes to another image. And wildlife imaging competetion rules that ban any sort of "visual content modification" are simply yeasteryear. I prefer to see "visually improved end results" ... i.e. IMAGES, rather than "raw captures". 

Personally I prefer your lion shot with less or no disturbing birds in it and your lion cubs with eyes open. And I fail to see any "ethical dimension" involved here. WE are the photographers, WE call the shots in OUR images, WE decide, what we capture, how we capture it and what OUR final images look like. It is our privilege to create images from light, "any imaginable image in the entire universe - real or "invented"- as we see fit, and as best as we can pull it off usin all and any skills and means at our disposal. 

So, your final images look pretty darn fine to me! 8)

And no, I would not want having to read a page of legalese small print attached to those lion images, detailing what steps were taken in PP and that a few OOF birds were stamped out. Demands for "full disclosure" are so utterly ridiculous. We are photographers, we create (stunning!) images from mere photons! How we do that, is nobody else's business. If we choose so, we may kindly explain where, under what circumstances, with what type of euqipment and how exactly we created an image - but we are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 23, 2015)

sanj said:


> I have been watching lions and tigers now for 30 years. I can assure you that if the vehicle with human keeps an appropriate distance and does not move around fast, there is NO impact to the animal's behavior. NONE. They feed, drink, hunt, mate, play totally undisturbed.



You don't know if you change the behavior, unless you observe them the same amount of time when you're not there. You only see them when you are there and how they behave when you're close enough to see them -- and believe it, every time a human or other 'device' approaches, regardless of what you think, they KNOW you are there way before you do -- and the behavior changes. IF they are in an area where human encroachment is frequent, they will adjust to human presence, but the behavior is different than when they are undisturbed, no matter how subtle the change.


----------



## pwp (Mar 23, 2015)

sanj said:


> I cloned out some birds. Am I doing an unethical thing?


You bet! The birds lawyers will be contacting you shortly...

This is a huge subject that desperately needs to be deliberated on by better heads than mine. My personal view is that the ultra hard-line taken by some media outlets and competitions needs some examination and refinement and possibly a chill-pill. There has been a farcical element to the World Press Awards every year for the past few years.

What if the birds were near the edge of the frame and you cropped them out. Is that unethical? A news editorial picture needs to tell a story. So long as manipulations or cropping don't alter the truth of an editorial image, then I say go for it. Is a staged or setup shot ineligible or unethical? 

Since the dawn of editorial photography images have had areas cropped, burnt in or dodged in order to bring emphasis to the key subject. We routinely use very long lenses or very large aperture lenses to isolate a subject to emphasize it. Is that unethical? We use ultra-wides to create a different look, often far from reality. Is that unethical too? Is the only truly ethical shot one that is taken with a standard 50mm lens, uncropped and with no refinements in post production? 

You could write a PHD on this subject...

-pw


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 23, 2015)

Once again PWP, you miss the point -- no one here has accused anyone that manipulates an image of unethical conduct in doing so ...

Where the ethics engages is ONLY when a photographer manipulates an image, and then states s/he did not manipulate it. Therein lies the ethical dilemma - never in creating the image, but only in the denial of that fact.

I suspect many of the responders here do not read all postings in a discussion - but merely read the initial post and jump in with a comment that lacks continuity within the thread. Happens a lot, and in a lot of threads -- and creates a lot of inaccurate redundancy in the subjects.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 23, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > No image ever shows "reality as it really is". Even reality is not quite as real as some like to think.
> ...


As long as it is not a *perfect representation* one may have a *reasonable doubt* - I am one of them.
Agreed, it tells a lot about reality. 
What bothers me, though, is the fact that one have the power to manipulate what he perceives (or more specifically, he wants to show because that's how he sees it) as reality and I have to agree that it is the reality because it is a photograph. 

May be it is time to change that long-established expectation. 
When I was a non photographer I took it for granted that a photo always tells the truth as it was caught on camera, but as further I advance in my techniques I understand more what possibilities I posses to be able to manipulate public perceptions.
The point is that we convert a 3 dimensional reality into a flat 2 and as a result we use only one, out of gazillion, aspect of that reality to represent it. It is a good representation but may not be good enough for some.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2015)

"faithful representation of reality" is not even an illusion. It is simply impossible as long as individual human brains are any different from each other. ;D

An image is always only an image. It is never a representation of reality. It might be a representation of one "surface of reality" - if "reality" even exists. After all, we might all be living in a matrix, and the whole world, inclduing any image we see and this forum is just ... "virtual reality". 8) ;D


----------



## pwp (Mar 23, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Once again PWP, you miss the point -- no one here has accused anyone that manipulates an image of unethical conduct in doing so ...


As a fallible, curious human being I frequently deviate from the point! 

This is a fascinating thread that re-visits a highly contentious subject, especially for committed working editorial photographers.

In this case I was extrapolating outwards from the core thread material towards a broader viewpoint. (_well tsk..._)
I'll attempt to keep the conversation right on-topic in the future.

-pw


----------



## martti (Mar 23, 2015)

When Disney's film crew threw lemmings off the cliff filming the White Wilderness, that was unethical.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 23, 2015)

Lots of good discussion on this topic, and I think at the end of the day, it's a personal choice and only matters if you're entering a serious contest or having your work published in venue that requires unretouched work (see this example of a disqualification for a simple clone vs. a crop).

Specific to this photo, you might look at it this way - had you been able to capture the photo a few seconds/minutes later, perhaps the birds wouldn't have been there. I have this happen all of the time with certain birds to feed in groups (mainly Ibis) and get in the shot when I'm trying to get a portrait of a single bird. If you wait, you might get the clean shot but miss the moment. Again, this is what typically happens to me.

In your photo, I don't think that removing the birds (which are quite distracting) constitutes a change that would alter the meaning or behavior of the subject, so I don't see it as serious change. On the other hand, it is an alteration and you have to decide to either discard the image or alter it. 

If it were my photo, I would likely discard it in favor of another photo, unless it was my best shot or the only shot of the subject and I really wanted it. I try very hard to reposition myself or wait for a better moment, but sometimes it just isn't possible. Over the years, I have retouched a total of 3 of my wildlife photos (portraits and commercial work are another topic) because they are 3 of my favorite shots and each shot is a special moment that I tried to capture without distraction but for one reason or another, I couldn't. I wish I could enter these in contests, but I can't. Here they are:






Removed distracting twigs and spider webs from perch





Removed distracting branches and leaves





Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw

EDIT: Here's a shot that pains me and one I have considered retouching, but haven't. I hate the distracting branch right behind the pelican crossing its beak, but if I remove it, should I remove the rock, shell and other items?:


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 23, 2015)

ahhhhh i love posts like this... to edit or not to edit... i'm just going to post this link and let it be.... 

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw



hehe, love that shot! That bobcat licks its lips and looks as if it just has seen a keen photographer ... for lunch. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Removed single blade of grass in front that covered part of the bobcat's jaw
> ...


Thanks! And yes, the other guy didn't make it, but I got to keep his gear


----------



## Besisika (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Lots of good discussion on this topic, and I think at the end of the day, it's a personal choice and only matters if you're entering a serious contest or having your work published in venue that requires unretouched work (see this example of a disqualification for a simple clone vs. a crop).


Mac, I am not familiar with natural life or landscape but what are the rules concerning retouching photos in these contests? I simply don't know.

As someone who doesn't know, it seems to me more like rules of a competition, rather than ethic-related.
On news reporting, I was specifically instructed not to do anything, even cropping. They called it "condition" and not ethic.

Thanks,


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 23, 2015)

For most of these contests, minor edits such as cropping, exposure and color adjustments, and subtle dodging and burning are allowed. No cloning or healing brush work is allowed, i.e. no elements can be removed or relocated. They call these traditional dark room techniques, and that is the foundation for their allowance. A RAW file is often required if you are selected as a finalist to ensure you are being honest.

They call it ethics to suggest that the image has not been altered to the point of being a different photo than was captured by the camera. As others have suggested, all photography is a representation of the truth and is distorted by subject selection, lens choice, and other factors. For example, one of this year's World Press winners was disqualified for captioning a photograph as having been taken in a nearby city instead of the actual location.

For me, I strive to capture to cleanest, best photos I can without retouching, but my earnings do not depend on it. The challenge of getting these photos is what I enjoy about wildlife photography. For others, particularly those selling prints or stock photos, cleaner backgrounds will sell better, so minor retouching and cloning is an important way to boost their sales. I can't judge them. People who lure animals in or harm natural feeding and reproduction behaviors are in a different category, and I don't consider that ethical.

It's up to each person to decide what they want to enhance/alter and as long as you are respectful of the wildlife and the resulting image, I think that is what matters most.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Ethical to remove a single blade of grass, my preference would have been to leave it but definitely nothing unethical.

The only ethics I would call in to question is if you represent the shot as wild and it were actually a zoo. As someone who shots wildlife, and has enjoyed the outdoor sports his whole life and pursued kitty cats on occasion I am very impressed if this is a shot in a natural setting, and I say well done. If it is a Zoo shot no so much. So without you saying where it was taken I am left wondering, am I impressed or is this a good Zoo shot.  Maybe the lack of information was by design to make us guess.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 23, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


Thanks and yes, it was taken in a wild setting at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in Florida with my 5DIII and 400 f/5.6. I agree about the captive vs. wild comments as well. I hear about bobcat sightings at this location all of the time, but this is the only time I have seen one (I hear them a lot). The cat crossed the road about 1/4 mile in front of me and after a good while searching, I found it in the briars near the road. It was slowly walking through the thorns and grasses, which made focus near impossible. I kept losing it as well due to the phenomenal camouflage. It finally walked into a semi-clear spot (this is actually a vertical crop), and while it works with the blade of grass, it's very distracting. because it's sunlit and quite bright. This was the only clear shot and the only one in focus out of around 10-15 frames I shot before it slowly walked into the woods. It was quite a thrilling experience and the type of thing I live for with wildlife photography.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Well done


----------



## Besisika (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> For most of these contests, minor edits such as cropping, exposure and color adjustments, and subtle dodging and burning are allowed. No cloning or healing brush work is allowed, i.e. no elements can be removed or relocated. They call these traditional dark room techniques, and that is the foundation for their allowance. A RAW file is often required if you are selected as a finalist to ensure you are being honest.
> 
> They call it ethics to suggest that the image has not been altered to the point of being a different photo than was captured by the camera. As others have suggested, all photography is a representation of the truth and is distorted by subject selection, lens choice, and other factors. For example, one of this year's World Press winners was disqualified for captioning a photograph as having been taken in a nearby city instead of the actual location.
> 
> ...


Thanks,
It looks like that was what the OP had in mind, while many, including myself, considered it in a broader sense.


----------



## Larry (Mar 23, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> .... Sometimes, editors will crop, manipulate minor corrections, but generally it's always assumed that the image in any journal or newspaper, magazine is direct from the camera, a recording of history. Journalists have been fired for changing an image -- one in particular in the news last year - cropped (or cut) a piece of his assistant's camera out of the corner of an image shot in Afghanistan during a conflict -- and he was immediately fired.



I have difficulty being sympathetic with this amount of political correctness re. photography "rules"

The subject matter of the image presumably was NOT the assistant's camera (or existence).

The assistant's camera could contribute nothing to the intended visual communication other than distraction. 

Had the photographer used a slightly longer lens, or "zoomed" by lens or foot a bit closer, the assistant's camera would not have shown.

Instead he zoomed by cropping (one possibility mentioned, or by cutting) and simply offered less (not DIFFERENT!) content than he might have included by using an even wider lens, etc.)

So, patently extraneous material was excluded from the image with nothing "changed" regarding the intended subject. 

The result, still an accurate recording of history, less all the other surrounding "history" that might have been/could have been/ thank heavens was not (confusingly) shown.

Who cares?

Fired? Nose-in-the-air hall monitor mentality, ..."It's against the rule!"

Sheese! :

Question authority.


----------



## icassell (Mar 23, 2015)

Not all photography is or should be documentary. This is supposed to be an art. I see nothing wrong with cleanup, cloning, colorizing, as long as it is not claimed that the image is straight out-of-camera (even there, I would venture that most photographers color-adjust, sharpen, etc.).

As previously mentioned, many competitions disallow this kind of modification and, in that situation, it would be unethical to enter this and claim that it was not modified. 

Documentary photography is different - in that case, one would not accept this kind of modification.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2015)

I do not care about input, i care about output, the "final images" we present to our viewers.
I like sanj's lion pics, i like mcguyvers bobcat image. While i recognize and respect the immense difference in effort to capture such images in the wild vs. people like myself clicking aeay in a zoo ... At the end it is an image that i judhe on its own merits. To me it dors not matter whether Picasso or fa Vinci labored many hours, weeks or months over a given painting (image) and whether they used narrow or wide brushes or whether they just finished it withon half an hour on the quick or whether they used brushes or rollers or spatulas ... Or whether they smoked some grass or drank some wine in their creative process, or if they created it in their studio or out in the landscape. 

As viewer all i consider is the final image. I don't care how much effort it took to create it. Or whether it was in the wild or in a zoo, staged or ubstagrd, captured "as seen" or modified post capture. It is the image, that counts. The lion crouching. The lipsmacking bobcat. Dont care whether the photographer got the shot after half an hour or after 2 painful weeks in a camouflage tent.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As viewer all i consider is the final image. I don't care how much effort it took to create it. Or whether it was in the wild or in a zoo, staged or ubstagrd, captured "as seen" or modified post capture. It is the image, that counts. The lion crouching. The lipsmacking bobcat. Dont care whether the photographer got the shot after half an hour or after 2 painful weeks in a camouflage tent.


If the purpose of a picture is to tell a story, if the story is a trip to the Zoo to take lip smacking pics of a bobcat then it isn't much of a story. 

I like mackguyver's story, it makes the picture. The blade of grass in front of the bobcats face is a situation many of wildlife photographers face. We all have those near perfect pictures, but there is the one little element he could not control. It is a minor touch to the picture that means little. His picture has meaning once you know the story behind it.

On the contrary no matter how many pictures you get of the Bobcat at the Zoo, it is still a picture of a Bobcat at the Zoo. Given enough time many could take similar, no matter how well it was taken.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 23, 2015)

Here's the totally RAW file (No correction setting in DxO), for reference:


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's the totally RAW file (No correction setting in DxO), for reference:



O wow, that is a hell of a kitty! I like this version even better - it does look a lot more "in the wild". Even if i'd not know the story behind it.

If it were my image - i wish  - I might just shorten that offending "drinking straw" a bit so it does not touch the jaw. How about that for a compromise. Of course it would still not qualify to compete under analog old-schooler nat geo competition rulez.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's the totally RAW file (No correction setting in DxO), for reference:



FWIW, from my perspective this is an inconsequential edit unless there are specific rules for submission to a contest, publication, etc.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I do not care about input, i care about output, the "final images" we present to our viewers
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As viewer all i consider is the final image. I don't care how much effort it took to create it.



If you're not submitting to a contest or selling the image there's nothing wrong with that. If you're selling or have a "client" or "customer" then it does matter. Think of it this way: we're at the very beginnings of 3D printing. Let's say in 20 years 3D printing has advanced to the point where you could print reproductions of Picassos that were indistinguishable from the originals. Does it matter how the copy was made? The answer is that it depends: if it's for yourself, or for a customer who is aware it's a copy and just loves the painting then it's not a problem. If you allow it to be sold as the real thing then it is a problem, regardless of whether the specific claim of authenticity is made.

The example above is just an illustration: I readily admit that any such buyer needs to insist on specific language in the sale contract where the seller specifically asserts authenticity. If "authenticity" is important to the buyer then it should be important to an honest seller. I do not believe in the P.T. Barnum school of business ethics.


----------



## martti (Mar 24, 2015)

There have been at least two incidents in Finland where a nature photographer has resorted to using a stuffed wolf or a stuffed bear to win a contest. THAT is unethical. In both cases it was a well known nature photographer. In both cases, they intially won the first prize. Both cases ended in shame and mockery.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's the totally RAW file (No correction setting in DxO), for reference:



This issue is really difficult. I do what you did with this image all the time as I'm often lying flat on the ground and there is very often a single disturbing leaf of grass near or even over the subject. Mostly I try to remove them, but sometimes 'no can do'. However...

... it could be argued that the *amount* of plain wildlife shots around implicates that you can just walk up to wildlife, i.e. it's not "wild" but a glorified version of "zoo". If people never see objects being in the way no one realizes that you have to be lucky and take cover.

I recently encountered resistance with my wild horse shots, they look too "tame" to some people insisting wild animals have to flee in panic. People would get the wrong impression about the animals. They don't realize they're seeing 10 calm images out of 40.000 shots, so *I'm "cleaning up" shots simply by selecting them*. Arguably, removing clutter makes this confusion even worse.

Do note I'm not arguing about "ethical" or not here, but just what the consequences of "cleaning up" an image can be.


----------



## martti (Mar 24, 2015)

Fundamentalists are not easy to please. The point of fundamentalism is exactly that. Another thing is that a lot of stuff which for the'infidels' is a mortal sin, is quite OK when it is one of the selected few doing the exact same thing. 
"Your wild horses do not look wild enough!" It is funny...are you supposed to just show the backsides of wild horses vanishing in the horizon in a cloud of dust? And an occasional roadkill?


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 24, 2015)

By coincidence, have just watched this video, which provides some interesting thoughts and examples on the ethics of post production: -

http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/photography-truth-vs-beauty/


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 24, 2015)

martti said:


> Fundamentalists are not easy to please. The point of fundamentalism is exactly that.



Indeed - and lacking any option for compromise, this leaves basically two options: "anything goes" or the current magazine-style zero tolerance. It is awkward, but probably there's really no define anything between these two.



martti said:


> "Your wild horses do not look wild enough!" It is funny...are you supposed to just show the backsides of wild horses vanishing in the horizon in a cloud of dust? And an occasional roadkill?



Actually, this is direct consequence of manipulated images!

Most "wild" horses are seen galloping around in a tight herd, ideally towards the photog or in a pleasant angle. But: The horses I know would only do that when they're chased (by a buddy of the photog), too much danger of injury in tight formation and w/o being able to look for holes in the ground. Real wild horses conserve energy, aren't frightened of humans that don't pose a direct threat or are very close, and run along the paths they know with ample space between individual animals.

But "real" horse behavior isn't considered "real", because by now "fake" has become the "real" thing. Argh.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 24, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the totally RAW file (No correction setting in DxO), for reference:
> ...


Marsu, those are good points and I'll add that these "too clean" shots also make amateur photographers very frustrated with their work as they believe that the photographer found a perfect subject on a perfect background. That's not to say that these shots aren't possible, just that they are rather rare and difficult. As I said, I have only retouched 3 wildlife photos, and most of my photos are left with what some photographers might consider unclean or distracting elements like these:


----------



## martti (Mar 24, 2015)

Just wondering....where in the world can we still find herds of wild horses?
Mongolia?
Not talking about feral horses (offspring of domesticated horses) but wild.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 24, 2015)

martti said:


> Just wondering....where in the world can we still find herds of wild horses?
> Mongolia?



The only remaining genetically "wild horses" are the Przewalski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse) as the European Tarpan is extinct. But since a century attempts have been made to back-breed the Tarpan, as they've mated with other horses back then. Alas, it's mostly the exterior that bears resemblance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konik

But horses of this Konik group can be found in central Europe, they're set up on lands not good enough for intensive agriculture and the idea is to prevent the open spaces to become bushland. As there's minimal care (national laws apply, of course), they're outside all the time and have to look for feed for themselves they're as "wild" as it gets outside Mongolia.

And lacking the existence of real "wild" I call this type of feral "wild" for illustrative purposes, to me "feral" sounds like riding horses simply bolted from stables like the American Mustang, but the Konik group is deliberately meant to get as "Tarpan" as possible.



mackguyver said:


> As I said, I have only retouched 3 wildlife photos, and most of my photos are left with what some photographers might consider unclean or distracting elements like these



Oh my, you're certainly tougher than me - my mental mouse pointer hovers over Lightroom's healing brush icon esp. looking at the green grass at the bottom of the snake shot :->


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 24, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, I have only retouched 3 wildlife photos, and most of my photos are left with what some photographers might consider unclean or distracting elements like these
> ...


I know, I wish I'd gotten a better shot of the snake, and I could knock out the leaves, but I'm okay with them and fear the shot would look too clean without them. I try very hard to get it right in the camera and move around all I can to get the shot. I found it very frustrating when I first started as I wouldn't notice them in the viewfinder, but would be upset when I got home to see leaves and things obscuring the eyes or other things. With time, a lot of practice, and even more patience, I've gotten better, but the wilderness is just that - wild. 

I am often tempted to remove small details like the ripples at the top of this photo:






Or the feather on this beak, but I think these "flaws" give the photos realism:


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I am often tempted to remove small details like the ripples at the top of this photo:
> Or the feather on this beak, but I think these "flaws" give the photos realism:



Imho these are better left untouched, the ripples give depth and perspective, and the feather feels natural. Esp. the bird looks really nice this way, but w/o the feather you might wonder if it's a stuffed museum piece :->

My problems are mostly with far in between, but tall grass - the natural enemy of the wildlife photog. Esp. when lying on the ground there's always something in the way except in spring - most of the time I have carefully tear out these out first as you cannot heal fur/feather texture in post-processing.

The biggest problem is when using fill flash as these leaves near the flash catch a lot of light and you only see it in image review because of the shutter blackout - a lot of my shots get ruined this way.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2015)

Wasn't there a Nat-Geo Awarded photograph disqualified for cloning a single plastic bag out of the photo? 

If its pure reportage, sure I'd imagine you wouldn't tamper what was in the photograph but processing it, is ethical. Also if your submitting to a contest, I wouldn't clone.

Otherwise, If I couldn't get it out of the frame, Hello J-tool.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

Mackguyver nice photos and I appreciate your restrain!


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> By coincidence, have just watched this video, which provides some interesting thoughts and examples on the ethics of post production: -
> 
> http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/photography-truth-vs-beauty/



Very nice video!


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

Larry said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > .... Sometimes, editors will crop, manipulate minor corrections, but generally it's always assumed that the image in any journal or newspaper, magazine is direct from the camera, a recording of history. Journalists have been fired for changing an image -- one in particular in the news last year - cropped (or cut) a piece of his assistant's camera out of the corner of an image shot in Afghanistan during a conflict -- and he was immediately fired.
> ...



Yes I agree: ALL photographs are a representation. ALL.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I do not care about input, i care about output, the "final images" we present to our viewers.
> I like sanj's lion pics, i like mcguyvers bobcat image. While i recognize and respect the immense difference in effort to capture such images in the wild vs. people like myself clicking aeay in a zoo ... At the end it is an image that i judhe on its own merits. To me it dors not matter whether Picasso or fa Vinci labored many hours, weeks or months over a given painting (image) and whether they used narrow or wide brushes or whether they just finished it withon half an hour on the quick or whether they used brushes or rollers or spatulas ... Or whether they smoked some grass or drank some wine in their creative process, or if they created it in their studio or out in the landscape.
> 
> As viewer all i consider is the final image. I don't care how much effort it took to create it. Or whether it was in the wild or in a zoo, staged or ubstagrd, captured "as seen" or modified post capture. It is the image, that counts. The lion crouching. The lipsmacking bobcat. Dont care whether the photographer got the shot after half an hour or after 2 painful weeks in a camouflage tent.



Agree!! Some stunt people I know talk about how they hung an actor from a building for hours to get a shot. For me the end result matters even it it was chroma or real or was done quick or slow does not matter...


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> "faithful representation of reality" is not even an illusion. It is simply impossible as long as individual human brains are any different from each other. ;D
> 
> An image is always only an image. It is never a representation of reality. It might be a representation of one "surface of reality" - if "reality" even exists. After all, we might all be living in a matrix, and the whole world, inclduing any image we see and this forum is just ... "virtual reality". 8) ;D



True True True!


----------



## dolina (Mar 25, 2015)

The very act of framing distorts "reality".


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

dolina said:


> The very act of framing distorts "reality".



Yes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> By coincidence, have just watched this video, which provides some interesting thoughts and examples on the ethics of post production: http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/photography-truth-vs-beauty/



Interesting one, a worthwhile watch!

After this, I'd say there's a distinction between changes on the set that could have been easily done instead of cloning (like removing garbage from the ground or removing some grass leaves) and what couldn't (like removing telegraph poles).

And of course layering (i.e. changing the composure) compositing multiple images is another ballpark like simply cloning a part of the very same picture to heal background or foreground distractions in the out of focus areas.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 25, 2015)

dolina said:


> The very act of framing distorts "reality".



No one disputes this fact, and it doesn't affect the main argument at all. Take for example http://petapixel.com/2011/10/04/an-eye-opening-look-at-how-many-conflict-photos-are-staged

The primary question is *whether the distortion is within bounds of expectation of the customer/client.*


If you are your own customer/client then your expectations are met
If your customers/clients see your work as photojournalism then it should meet the expectation of journalism as "the first rough draft of history" (quote attributed to Philip L. Graham)
If your customers/clients see your work as naturalism, then it needs to meet fidelity to that ideal
If your customers/clients see your work as "art," then we find ourselves in the grey area, and need to think a little deeper.

Consider literary satire. Good satire is almost unlimited: you can make any kind of improbable or even false statement in a completely factual tone throughout the work. We also know that it's sometimes difficulty to distinguish good satire from bad thinking, e.g. Poe's Law, so every work of satire needs to have some "wink" or clue to the readers that it's not to be taken seriously. The same is true for artistic photography: you can edit your work in any way you want, but you must leave some reasonable clue to your customers/clients that it's manipulated. You need not tell them exactly how it's manipulated, they can ask if they're curious.

I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?



In photojournalism, it tells me that the public's view is already so distorted that the bearer of bad news is killed instantly. No one wants to hear that with the psychology of media selection and framing manipulation of individual photos doesn't make a difference at all in the big picture (pun intended).

In "art", it tells me that you can tell it and still fetch a price of $4+ Million even if the manipulation affects the very essence of the picture like in this case:


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2015)

I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I also have a question for all of you who believe aesthetics are the only standard: would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?
> ...


Journalism has its problems, especially here in the U.S.



> In "art", it tells me that you can tell it and still fetch a price of $4+ Million even if the manipulation affects the very essence of the picture like in this case:



I know very little about this photo or its maker, but my understanding was that the price was high largely because it was manipulated to represent what the landscape would have been without development in that area. It was supposed to be some kind of social commentary, I think. Also, the photographer was already quite famous. But I'm too lazy to investigate, and my memory is probably faulty.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 25, 2015)

Hi Orangutan. 
I think it would be reasonable to say that most if not all memories are defective, I remember being right far more often than I am! ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Orangutan said:


> Also, the photographer was already quite famous. But I'm too lazy to investigate, and my memory is probably faulty.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Journalism has its problems, especially here in the U.S.



To be fair, in the western countries media have at least to try to hide any bias, while in Russia the whole thing is owned by the president's buddies and if you disagree you'll see the gulag or coffin from inside. They certainly don't care about plastic bags removed from pictures :-\

The problem over here (I'm in Germany) is that like the video above says, photogs are an easy target when it comes to placing blame, while the influence of big media enterprises is seldom reported on except in social media.



mackguyver said:


> I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.



No, I didn't see it in large. Is there a hi-res one available somewhere that shows the edits, or a version w/o the edits that shows the actual "as taken" image? If you've seen it, you can save me some google'ing


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I've always thought that $4m should have been enough for some decent retouching, but not in this case. I don't know if you've seen the close ups, but that is some sloppy PS work on this photo.
> ...


I've seen it, but don't remember where. It might have been on petapixel.com, but I'm not sure.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 25, 2015)

Well -- I don't even like it ... and certainly have better things to do with $4m than buy that image, even if it had an expensive frame... being famous has some value, I suppose. But not for me personally - the image is the image, and I don't care who shot it either. I would not specifically like an image just because someone famous shot it - I'd have to like if for what it represented artistically (or what it documents) rather than who clicked th shutter ...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The very act of framing distorts "reality".
> ...



"Would the aesthetic value of your work be diminished if you labeled your piece as having been manipulated? If yes, what does that tell you?" 

No, it would not. It does not matter at all. It would however be a total nuisance and inconvenience if image creators would be obliged having to "disclose something" with every photograph - but only if it was modified after capture. To me it is a lawyers approach to the matter. We don't need that in the creative process, because lawyers will be all over our pictures later on, anyways.  

Things should not come to a point of "political correctness" or even a legal requirement that all photographs presented to viewers must be accompanied by small print legalese "disclosure statements", similar to product manuals that need to "disclose", that "electricity can be harmful to humans" and "wet pets must never be dried in this microwave oven or in that tumble dryer". I resent that kind of approach for photography and creation of visual content. Similarly ridiculous as any novel having to have a preface stating "any similarity with real persons, blablabla ... legalese ... is purely coincidental and unintentional". Totally unnecessary. 

Of course client/viewer expectations are a thing to keep in mind. These excpectations are high on the list in terms of delivering what a client wants - as far as image contents and visual style are concerned. But they are very low on the list when it comes to an image creator's freedom to create images as he/she sees fit and to disclose something, nothing or everything about the circumstances and specific processes involved to actually create a photograph, an image. 

Most of the time, viewers/clients expectations are also rather unclear, diffuse, vague and very different from one viewer to the next. Even in journalism. Readers of tabloids certainly have different expectations regarding what content should be covered by their papers and how it should be presented, compared to readers of so-called "quality papers". Interestingly enough, the latter consider themselves to be much better educated, intelligent and smarter than the tabloid-consuming masses, but fall much more easily for the totally ridiculous concept, "that reality can in any way be faithfully represented" in imagery and written text. 

Or let's go back to the year 1508: what expectations might pope Julius II have had, when he commissioned the ceiling painting for the sistine chapel from Michelangelo Buonarotti. I imagine, he might have said something along the lines ... "Mike, I want you to paint me the ceiling of this chapel. Make it as grand as you possibly can. You may want to put the creation of man in the center of that painting, as that is a central point of the theological truths (!) we preach about around here. The rest you decide. I'll pay you well, you get an advance, and the rest upon finishing the work and if I really like it. So get started asap and finish it quickly, I am not so young any longer and want to live to see this painting and to brag about it to my visitors." Blessing, end of briefing.  
Do you think, Julius wanted to know, if and how Michelangelo manipulated viewers views to create a full "3D illusion" via elaborate distortion of proportions and scale, use of colours, paint and Pigment to make the scene "come alive"? And were the pope's expectations for the work likely met or not? 

Or when QE2 aks Annie Leibovitz to shoot her portrait? What are her expectations? Like the same as any other person asking to be portrayed: that the artist makes you "look as good" as he/she is able to. That the resulting image be "fit for a king", pardon me - for a queen. Expectation met? Probably. Post processing involved? Most definitely. Details of modifications made? Disclosure needed, that "this image contains all sorts of modifications compared to what the old lady depicted really looks like in plain cloths and in bright daylight?  Irrelevant! 

And take Andreas Gursky's fabulous masterpiece "Rhine II" referencd in this threads. Now, here comes one german, in the last year of the 20th century (1999) and manages to create his image of the "German Rhine", totally and utterly killing centuries and centuries of romanticist painting tradition of that mythical body of water, of that artery of travel and trade, of the "lovely landscape", of the ever-same moonlit castles and ruins, of half-naked stupid blond syrens and even more stupid horny male sailors, of nibelungs, of fighting between between french and germans, of gold and treasures, of chemical works and heavy industry on the waterfront, of nazis fighting american tanks crossing that last remaining bridge across the water, into the german heartland? Gursky just transcends all of this in only one image. It shows "the unaltered, bland and plain reality" more faithfully than any unprocessed sunday snapshooters shot of the loreley rock. Gursky did it in his own, precision-clean handwriting. He did it as best as he could. 

And guess what the biggest manipulation is all of the images mentioned here is? The one huge manipulation without which Rhine II would never have fetched a cool 4 millions? Bunarotti would not have received 6000 gilders plus expenses from Julius II? Isn't it obvious! SIZE! Had Buonarotti painted gods index finger spark-plugging life into poor adam on a 10x20 piece of cardboard, neither he nor the image would be remembered. Had Gursky not printed his Rhine II image in museum wall dimensions, but as a 4x6" or only shown it 1200 pixels wide on uncalibrated office PC monitors ... it "would be worth" ... not much. Rhine II is an impressive 186x363 cm in size. Big. Bold. New. Never seen the Rhine in this way. That's what counts. It does not matter, whether Gursky stamped away some ugly middle-class homes, or some equally ugly factories along the far river bank or whether he magically managed to find a clean enough stretch along the river - even in 1999. No need to explain or disclose. The truth of the image is "self-evident". Its "relation to reality/realities" any viewers guess. That's part of what makes it interesting. And what makes it so pricey.

Or Robert Capas' Falling Soldier in the spanish civil war? We still don't know for sure, how "manipulated" it is. Whether it was totally staged or not, whether it really shows the very split second a man finds his death by a bullet or whether nobody was harmed at all in front of the camera when the image was captured. Now, that was a purely photojournalistic image, not "art". And it shaped viewers perceptions of that war, and "made history." It also changed the public's expectation about what images a war reporter should show ... "right in the middle of the action, fighting, killing, blood and gore", delivered to the comfort of their safe homes. Manipulated or not ... totally irrelevant!

Sanj' lions? Viewer/client expectations? To see an image of a magnificient animal - lion, sole and main subject - in all its glory. Do visual disturbances in that image help meet that expectation? No, they don't! So go ahead and clean up the act. The image is so much better without those visually disturbing blurry birds. The creator of the image has the very right to wipe those birds out of visual existence in his images. That's a true creator's privilege!  Viewers? Get to see the best possible image Sanj could get of that lion that day. In all its glory. Disclosure? Utterly unneccessary! 

Whether the image was captured in a zoo or in a specific national park, whether it shows a wild or trained animal ... only matters, if the photographer has been specifically paid (!) to go to a specific place and bring back pictures only of wild animals captured only there. Or if the image's caption when presented to viewers says something specific to that effect. "This is an image of a wild lion, captured in Masai Mara, 11th waterhole from left, March 20, 2015 and by the way, the image was postprocessed in different aspects, including stamping out of some viuallly distrubing blurry birds overhead of the lion " ... now does that help? Does it make an yviewer feel any better or any different about the image shown? 

So, to wrap it up: forget about viewers/clients expectations. Go and shoot and create the way you see the world through your mind, through your eyes, through your lens. Do what it taks and what you want to create your images, but make them as best as you can, as true to *your own expectations* as possible. Do not disclose much about how you created them. Stay away from any sort of competition run by old socks with petty minds and petty rules from times long past. Make your own visual rules. Break expectations. If possible, show something in a way that no one else has shown it before. And, much easier to do: make your images as large as possible. If you succeed in breakin the rules, you'll break the bank. ;D 
Or at least, nobody can bog you down with their yesteryear expectations or with demands to disclose your "manipulations of (their perceptions of) reality" ... 

PS: probably the first time Gursky, Michelangelo, Capa, Leibovitz and Sanj are mentioned in one posting in this forum. Break expectations. Do something new. Make your own rules. Just wish my images were as good and bold as my writing. Well, talk is cheap ...


----------



## martti (Mar 26, 2015)

Every story told leaves so many stories left untold that it distorts the reality.
Every sound you hear, every sight you see, every thought you think, every emotion you feel.
So how about trying not to be so ridiculously dramatic of what you so solemnly call ethics of photography and just stick to the rules given by the context?


----------



## koolman (Mar 26, 2015)

In my opinion photography emulates VISION and awareness. 

That special capturing the moment, the unique lighting, or shape, or colors, or expression on someones face.

Often we see PP - in which the photograph itself - lacked vision - and the lighting / colors / shapes - where "photo shopped" in after the "click". This emulates digital art - but not "photography".

In your case - you took out distracting elements which you had no control over. The "Vision" is there. So I see no problem.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 26, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Your post was tl;dr, but you seemed to have missed my point. I'll try to simplify.

_#1 In business, don't fool your customers._ 

The basic principle is pretty much that simple. Just as sellers of food, clothing, luxury goods should not fool us, we should not fool our photography customers. Even if organic food is chemically indistinguishable from traditionally produced food, we should not mislabel it. Even if a counterfeit scarf is of higher quality than a couture brand, we should not mislabel it. If your photograph would fool your customers into believing it's something it isn't, then it's unethical. Photography for sale does not get an exemption. The bigger question regards what are reasonable expectations about what would/would not fool your customer. This brings us to principle #2.

_#2 Society as a whole determines reasonable expectations about everything, including photographic fidelity. The sub-group of society comprised of photographers do not get to make that decision on their own._

Really, I urge you to talk to some of you non-photographer friends about what they expect from a photograph, you might be surprised.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 26, 2015)

Well put orangutan :: It is about what the client expects for the money - truth in product.

As far as the photographer / digital manipulator, it makes no difference. It's the interaction with a client that matters (clients include competitions as well) ... If you imply that this photograph is 'direct from the natural world', and a representation of the natural conditions at the time of the shutter click, and it is not (excluding minor adjustments everyone expects in darkroom), then you're deceiving your client ...

It's never the interaction between photographer and image that gains the label 'manipulated', it is only the relationship between shooter and client that allows or defeats ethics.

Interesting enough too, this argument or discussion can only arise now that digital manipulation emerged in post processing. Film and slides do not allow it - technically, we cannot make changes as intrusive on the original as we can once digital files became the norm.


----------



## martti (Mar 26, 2015)

It should be "do not get caught fooling your customers". 
And if you blow the whistle on somebody else fooling his/her customers, WATCH YOUR BACK!

While you are discussing whether cloning a couple of crows off a lionesse's face in unethical, the big names are doing this and nobody calls foul:
http://news.euoa.net/pallywood-little-girl-used-as-prop-for-cameras-at-unrwa-school-6173.html

Because if you call foul you might lose your job....happened...


----------



## martti (Mar 26, 2015)

The professionals take it to another dimension, don't they.
This is the 'reality' the media is cooking up for us.
What to believe? Russia Today? Al-Jazeera? Press TV (Iran) or Fox Networks?

https://vimeo.com/29280708


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 26, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Really, I urge you to talk to some of you non-photographer friends about what they expect from a photograph, you might be surprised.



Indeed, they usually don't care about authenticity or the camera being a Rebel or 1dx, but if they look good on the shot and the wrinkles don't show :->


----------



## martti (Mar 26, 2015)

Marsu, have a look at Ruben Salvadori's stuff. He is a young guy, smarter than the most. Talking ethics...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 26, 2015)

martti said:


> Marsu, have a look at Ruben Salvadori's stuff. He is a young guy, smarter than the most. Talking ethics...



Thanks, I had already seen the video and now looked at his site.

He should be careful when reporting on his own kind, accidents do happen in confusing situations in warzones. For example someone might forget to warn him of some immient danger that is known to others. You have to admire his courage on this, probably coupled with the carelessness of his relative youth... but maybe I've seen "Serpico" too often. And no, *this* is not Al:


----------



## martti (Mar 26, 2015)

Thank you. Is there something we could do to keep him protected?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> He should be careful when reporting on his own kind, accidents do happen in confusing situations in warzones.


I agree with the note of caution as people don't ever like someone who exposes them, but isn't his point (in many ways) that these situations aren't dangerous? The press shows us Palestinians hurling rocks and Molitov coctails at the (just out of frame?) Isrealis, right? Or is it just a bunch of bored youths getting some cash for a staged photo op? All the same, I'd be looking over my shoulder if I were him.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Your post was tl;dr, but you seemed to have missed my point. I'll try to simplify.
> 
> _#1 In business, don't fool your customers._
> _#2 Society as a whole determines reasonable expectations about everything, including photographic fidelity. The sub-group of society comprised of photographers do not get to make that decision on their own._


you should have read my post before answering. Even if it was rather long. 

#1 if we are talking about paying clients (!) - yes, they shall and will get what they ask AND PAY for and what is agreed between both parties. All "free of charge viewers" ... can go f* themselves. They are entitled to ... nothing. 

#2 the "general public": has no clue. Especially not about the fact that tehre is no "faithful representation of reality, neither in photography nor in any other respect". So they shall and will be f'd all the time. Most of the time they actually applaud loudest when they are served the worst stuff, the most blatant fakery. 

(Good) Photographers? Are more than craftsmen, paid for a specific job with everything precisely prescribed in every minute detail. If the clients would know that exactly what they want, they could as well create the images themselves - it is not all that difficult to hold a camera and press a button. 

(Good) photographers are artists too ... and artists do what they gotta do. Rules notwithstanding.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 26, 2015)

martti said:


> Thank you. Is there something we could do to keep him protected?



Hardly, that's the problem - once the blaze of glory has worn off, whistleblowers often face the harsh reality that no one (or very few) like the bearers of bad news.



mackguyver said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > He should be careful when reporting on his own kind, accidents do happen in confusing situations in warzones.
> ...



Aren't dangerous to *begin* with. But I've been to the occupied zones in Palestina, and have a very definite memory that this area has a kind of latent violence you cannot imagine in good ol' peaceful central Europe. Example: If you put your backpack on the ground and walk some meters away to read a bus time table, people panic and the bomb swat team is called in - and for good reason. I've met Isrealis who travel to Europe just to enjoy the calm of not fearing to be torn to pieces by a suicide bomber 24/7.

Note that I'm not taking sides here at all, just remembering the atmosphere. The one thing that prevents people going at each other's throats all the time is the dominance of the Isreael security/military force and the hope of some return of invest of peaceful behavior by the Palestinians.

But there's a reason why people go frenzy when someone points a camera at them - it might be playful at first, but you cannot control or predict people pumped up with adrenaline. And when some religion gets into the mix, it's time to take cover - they're actually dead *serious* about their faith, and unfortunately this includes having their holiest sanctuaries on the exact same spots.

I imagine this latent danger is also the reason why "embedded journalism" is welcomed with open arms by media people, even though the resulting bias is obvious... and this is the on-topic part: scene selection beats imagine manipulation hands down.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2015)

Marsu, that's interesting to hear that you have been over there and I'm sure the atmosphere is very tense. My only experience has been walking around big cities at night and sometimes wandering into a bad neighborhood or being surrounded by a gang. Fortunately I didn't have a camera, but on a recent shoot in a relatively safe city, my camera attracted a lot of attention from the homeless. They kept asking me how much it cost and such making me a bit nervous.

Back to the ethics topic, I wonder what sanj decided to do


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Marsu, that's interesting to hear that you have been over there and I'm sure the atmosphere is very tense. My only experience has been walking around big cities at night and sometimes wandering into a bad neighborhood or being surrounded by a gang. Fortunately I didn't have a camera, but on a recent shoot in a relatively safe city, my camera attracted a lot of attention from the homeless. They kept asking me how much it cost and such making me a bit nervous.
> 
> Back to the ethics topic, I wonder what sanj decided to do



I decided to go with the picture without the birds.  Thanks for the confidence. Appreciate.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu, that's interesting to hear that you have been over there and I'm sure the atmosphere is very tense. My only experience has been walking around big cities at night and sometimes wandering into a bad neighborhood or being surrounded by a gang. Fortunately I didn't have a camera, but on a recent shoot in a relatively safe city, my camera attracted a lot of attention from the homeless. They kept asking me how much it cost and such making me a bit nervous.
> ...


This thread certainly went all over the place, but I'm glad to hear you made that choice and feel good about it. I'm sure it's a stronger photo without the birds distracting from the lion.


----------

