Ethics?

troutfisher

troutfisher

Messages
2,981
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Basically where do you draw the line at 'improving' a shot.
Some weeks ago a colleague and I were discussing photographs we had both taken of the same scene ( Ribblehead Viaduct from the road leading downhill to the pub for those who know the area) I had cloned out the telegraph poles and wires as I felt they detracted from the scene,he said I was being unethical as the photo should record what is there,not an idealised view.
This came to mind again today when I was photographing some flowers in a field and was happily trimming blades of grass to get an clear uninterupted shot of the flower head.
I thought is this ethical or should I shoot it 'warts and all'
Thoughts ?
 
Last edited:
it depends.

Do you want to document the world around you, or create art from the world around? And those two aren't mutually exclusive either.

I use photoshop extensively, from touching up the sliders to cloning out whole sections of photographs. To me, it's just the same as the darkroom, an extension of my camera. I use the tools available to me to forge the photograph I want to create.

It's a very complex subject.
 
For many many years photography has "edited" the final image. It's not new to digital. What is new to digital is the fact that photoshop is available to the masses. The models you see in the papers aren't as tall, don't have such shapely legs or such white teeth.

I am a photo realist at heart, but if a perfectly good shot is being spoiled my telegraph poles, why not clone them out?
 
I know where you are coming from Chris. Sometimes I do it sometimes not. I tend to go on how much it alters the finished shot. Sometimes I do a lot of cloning and when it's finished and I look hard at the photo and it just looks so unlike the scene originally I don't like it. Other times it works wonders.

I bet most classical artists chose to ignore certain unpleasing things when painting.
 
shopping a news item is wrong shopping a picture for yourself is not. people they say it is just can't do it lol


ultimately I dont give a rats ass what anyone else thinks
 
Last edited:
I would say that it's nothing at all to do with ethics unless you misrepresent the result. If it's a work of art, then you can do anything you like with the image, but if you're presenting the image as a true record then it needs to remain true.
 
I don't see anything wrong with judicious use of PS. For me, photography is an art form and I treat my images as such. I think POAH hit the nail on the head, some, not all, detractors of PS probably can't use it.
 
Painters have done this for years. Adding or removing objects that either enhance or detract from the picture. I don't see why this isn't also acceptable in Photography. I accept that it's not the done thing in news or reportage photography, but in other area's why not?
 
Chappers said:
Painters have done this for years. Adding or removing objects that either enhance or detract from the picture. I don't see why this isn't also acceptable in Photography.
Click to expand...

Because it stops being photography and becomes something else, something photographic but not photography?

Man Ray said, "I paint what cannot be photographed, that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
 
In my opinion this question will have existed as long as humans have recorded the world around them.

Ultimately, for me, if you enjoy what you do and the results please you and those around you what difference does it make? If it pleases others great. We are all entitled to our own opinions but you can't please everyone all of the time.

If you are being paid to produce something - the piper calls the tune.

As long as what you do is not designed to hurt someone - go for it:thumbs:
 
Photography is an artform, and you cannot expect things to be altered to make a shot more visually appealing.

If it is intended as a documentary shot, then it should not be altered at all.

But in general, a lot of the photos we see on a daily basis are altered. My wife worked in the marketing department of a national clothing retailer and said that there would often be a group of people round a screen with "make her legs longer" "what about bigger boobs?" "make her arms slimmer" being said about the marketing shots to be used. This was a normal, daily occurance.

People really need to accept that is happens.

What you do on your own shots is personal preference. If you like it do it. If it will sell, do it.
 
lawrie29 said:
Photography is an artform, and you cannot expect things to be altered to make a shot more visually appealing.

If it is intended as a documentary shot, then it should not be altered at all.
Click to expand...

But it's possible to manipulate an image without any post-capture manipulation. Just think about the different emotional 'feel' of a portrait shot with wide-angle vs tele, or shooting upward or downwards.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Because it stops being photography and becomes something else, something photographic but not photography?

Man Ray said, "I paint what cannot be photographed, that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Click to expand...

This. All I will clone out are dust spots or lens flare. I have coned out a few telegraph poles here and there, but it was never worth the effort so I don't bother now. I've usually gone to enough effor with composing the photo to keep any distracting things at bay.

I don't mind removing blades of grass (actually ohysically removing the garss in 3d, not the photo) if it gets in the way of something, some twigs too.
 
I think of it along the lines of a picture is a record of what's there, a photograph is a record of how the photographer sees it.
 
If you take it to the other extreme then models shouldn't wear make up, you shouldn't use artificial lighting, images shouldn't be composed to leave information out. You should create a custom white balance and camera calibration for every shot and make sure the colours are accurate to what they were when you took the shot. No polarising filters. You shouldn't use slow shutter speeds for creative effect and the DOF should be what? the way we percieve things or the way it is when we focus on one point? No black and white, vingetting, dodging and burning. No lenses that produce an image we can't see with the naked eye?

If you clone things out do you only clone out man made objects? or can you clone out people, skin blemishes trees?

There is no clear distinction except maybe post production vs what you can get in the camera.

The way I work is to visualise the finished image in the way I want to see it, and that's what I work toward as I capture it. I compose it in a way so that's what people see when they view it, but if there is something like a power line that I would like to remove from the shot and I can't compose to do so, I will remove it in post. I don't want my images to be a document of what is in front of the camera without any input from me, if they were I'm not sure anyone would pay me to do it.
 
hollis_f said:
But it's possible to manipulate an image without any post-capture manipulation. Just think about the different emotional 'feel' of a portrait shot with wide-angle vs tele, or shooting upward or downwards.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying, but the public are so used to seeing manipulated photos, I don't think they even know anymore.

I posted a picture of my dad about 3 years ago, cannot remember if it was on here or another site, one guy did loads of things to it, whittened his teeth romoved a mole removed some hair and other stuff, when I said but thhats not my dad, his reply was, " well everyone who is old will like this done to their photos as it makes them look younger". Dad didn't like it either by the way.

As others have said new or documentary shots no, everything else yes as long as you or in the case of portraits the sitter is happy. As for advertising this is a different matter, kids want to look like the models they see in magazines, had a few interesting discussions with my 12 year old daughter already, which makes me sad as she is/was aspiring to un obtainable body image.
 
It is simply down to personal preference. I'd never think to judge another's approach to any artform, but my personal preference is for minimal/no editing beyond the taking of the shot.

The photos I most enjoy taking are captured moments. Seeing a scene that works in terms of composition, an interesting viewpoint, waiting for the light to fall in the right way, waiting for any people or cars to slot into position. Waiting patiently metering, re-metering, tweaking exposure levels until you are happy.

Only when the shot occurs in front of you, can you capture it. Wherever possible I want my final image to be a captured moment in time from exactly the right spot and angle.

I acknowledge that the development process still gives you a fair bit of power to further tweak an image - and that in many situations the captured image unedited won't fully convey what you could see.

Moving a branch out of the way, or a few stray strands of grass is not cheating. No different from arranging the flowers in the vase before you take the photo.

As for removing the telegraph poles, if the image I think I'd have to see before and after shots to make a personal judgement over whether the shot required it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top