Comments on: What Makes a Nature Photograph “Real”?

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:36:47 +0000

I think being able to enhance a Nature photo is terrific – it simply helps express the wonder you have seen. However, I do find composite photos less admirable, since they are creating an image that simply did not exist.

By: Travis John

Travis John — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:18:37 +0000

I like structure. If the composition of a photograph is unchanged (i.e. superimposition), it’s real to me. Having said that, I think a lot of animosity has arisen due to the technological shift in capturing. There’s still no precedent established or doctrine of “responsible” editing in photoshop. I don’t think there should be. As an artist you use any means necessary to communicate whatever the hell it is you want to show people. I’m sure Matthew B. Brady would have used photoshop if they had ethernet cables installed in conestoga wagons at the time, too.

By: John H Gaukel

John H Gaukel — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:16:14 +0000

Is this photo real ? Probably not ! Glamour , movie star , gossip ,news and food magazines,I would say , all use altered pictures . When is the last time a hamburger looked like it did in a add ? Should a nature photographer not doctor his pictures ? How many times in the outdoors are conditions perfect for that great photo ? To much light , to dark , to much rain , to much wind , or to far away . Or you didn’t see the subject at all and you had to go to a wildlife preserve to get a picture with a fence in the background . If some photographers want to alter their photo’s to make them more appealing or have more of a natural setting that’s their prerogative . If some photographers want to leave them the way they took them then that’s their prerogative . Maybe all photographs should have a disclaimer on them ” creatively altered ” or ” this is what I got ” John Howard

By: Joan Campbell

Joan Campbell — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:45:55 +0000

“Real” or “not real” has become a question of degree, hasn’t it? In the case of nature photography, I have no problem with the sort of editing you did in the shots above, Candy. However, if you’d taken shots of bears in a zoo and merged them with wilderness shots of scenery, that would be beyond the pale — unless captioned appropriately to explain the mashup.
There are a couple of New York Times blogs that are focusing on photographic alteration this week: Randy Cohen considers fashion photos at:
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/should-photos-come-with-warning-labels/?emc=eta1
and Errol Morris has a 7-part series on documentary photos at:
http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/the-case-of-the-inappropriate-alarm-clock-part-1/?emc=eta1

By: Art Hardy

Art Hardy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:58:47 +0000

One of the reasons that many photographers have made the switch to digital media is the feeling that with all the controls at there disposal, they never have to print a bad picture again. In the old days you’d take your film in for processing and after spending 10-15 dollars, hope that you had a few good prints out of the roll. Now you can preview the images, select the best of the bunch and with a bit of Photoshop work, make a good photo better. What a feeling of power! I draw the line at taking subject matter out of the image, though. That’s part of the composition of the picture and should be dealt with in the framing of the original image.

By: muriel shiff

muriel shiff — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:25:22 +0000

Dear Candy:
Digital was made for cropping, lighting, straightning the horizon, but to “photo shop” an entire picture is great for the effects, but doesn’t truly show what the photographer saw. I guess it’s what a person wants from the photo. I liked you cropped photo.

Muriel

ps thanks for sharing.

By: Nine Quiet Lessons

Nine Quiet Lessons — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:32 +0000

I think there’s a distinction between photos presented as reference materials for a technical work, which I agree should definitely be left undoctored for accuracy’s sake, and photos presented as art. In the latter case, it’s reasonable to assume that the artist is presenting a view of the world as it should be rather than the world as it is. Of course, as you say, it’s nice to have a disclaimer in that case.

By: Ben Branch

Ben Branch — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:03:05 +0000

Personally, I have no problem modifying a photo to take into account the weaknesses of the camera versus the human eye. First, cropping — we naturally focus intently on the interesting subject, and all else falls to peripheral vision. Cropping is the photographic equivalent of ignoring something uninteresting that intrudes in the periphery of the view.

Second, exposure compensation (or whatever you call it). When I’m looking at a view, I can focus on the dark elements and the eye adjusts and I can make out fine detail (even if I need to shade my eyes). Similarly, when I’m looking a a bright area, my pupils narrow and then I’m seeing well. The camera, on the other hand, has to take an image at a single exposure setting, so the darks may be impenetrable and the light areas washed out. Using software (I use the free tool GIMP; see http://www.gimp.org) to pull out the darks and un-washout the lights can really help a photo present what the human eye would see. Overuse it, though, and the photo can look artificial. A little goes a long way.

Third, I sometimes use sharpness enhancement. Particularly with point-and-shoot cameras, a lot of photos tend to a soft focus, and just a bit of sharpness enhancement restores what a human eye would see as it focused on each element of the scene.

So, although I unabashedly use the three techniques above, I would answer “yes” if any body asked me if my photo was real. The weakness of the camera is my rationalization!

By: Helen Iltis

Helen Iltis — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:44:07 +0000

That is an excellent discussion of recording your images so you bring the best visual to the viewer . We are fortunate to have the technology to bring out those wonderful nuances in our images and to be able to remove unwanted distracting spots . I think it is part of discovering what is there in the image, an eye, a wisker
or maybe a metalic glint on a wing to tell the story. I’m not much for combining images, but I guess it could be creative and into the realm of artistic expression.