I used to tell my advanced photojournalism students that they would never become great photojournalists if they cheated on their taxes. My point is that honesty and integrity are essential qualities of photojournalism. Further, these qualities aren’t the types of things you can turn on and off. Either it’s part of you or it’s not.
However, people have been bending the truth with their photographs since long before there was a Photoshop. The saying that “the camera never lies” has never been true and is probably less true now than ever before, because Photoshop makes it so much easier to alter a photograph.
I consider myself a person of great honesty and integrity. As such, I’ve always been very judicious in the use of Photoshop to enhance my photographs. Basically, I used Photoshop to help my pictures become better much the way Ansel Adams used filters, contrast, selective burning and dodging, and bleach to enhance his own images. The final prints appear to capture the reality of the original scene, but simply put, they’re “better” thanks to Adams’ tinkering.
The saying that “the camera never lies” has never been true and is probably less true now than ever before, because Photoshop makes it so much easier to alter a photograph.
An unavoidable sign seems out of place in this photograph. f5.6 at 1/500 sec. at 300 mm
Recently, I’ve allowed myself to use digital editing software more aggressively, to transform an “almost” photograph into a “stunner.” I was photographing landforms in the Mammoth Hot Springs area of Yellowstone National Park when I saw a herd of elk surrounded by a group of photographers. I walked over, made a few dull pictures, but then I noticed a rather large bull wander off from the area where I had been photographing.
I switched to my longest lens as I quietly followed him. For some reason, neither the other elk nor the herd of photographers followed. While watching the bull through my camera, I saw him turn his body, throw open his mouth and bugle. The light was very nice, my composition was fine, and I felt confident that the frame was well focused when I pressed the shutter. But I also saw that there was a sign in the frame. I couldn’t do anything about it. There was no way to get it out of the photograph without cutting off the elk’s hooves .
In this altered version, the sign has been digitally removed by cloning grass in its place. Which do you think is better?
Later, I was showing my Yellowstone photos to a dear, old friend who used to be a National Geographic photographer. We agreed that the elk photograph was a beauty except for the sign. He suggested that I use Photoshop to clone some of the grass from the bottom right and use it to conceal the sign. The suggestion immediately raised red flags in my mind as I thought that I could never do anything that unethical.
But curiosity got the best of me, and I had to see how it would look. Five minutes in Photoshop and the sign was gone and a “stunner” was born. As much as I like the “new” photograph, I just don’t feel good about it. I don’t feel comfortable showing it.
What do you think? Should I just get over my misgivings about ethics and Photoshop and appreciate the lovely photograph? Or have I created a monster—a lie, a deceit, an abomination? How and when, do you think it’s okay to use Photoshop to “enhance” your wildlife photographs?
Defenders of Wildlife leads the pack when it comes to protecting wild animals and plants in their natural communities.
Is the sign essential to the story? I think it adds something to the composition and context and it works for me.
Meanwhile, what’s the difference between photojournalism and photography as art? I think maybe the Photoshopped version could be called art, but it shouldn’t be published in a news venue.
[Reply]
Technically the sign is still there, you just covered it up with grass. It is a beautiful picture with or without the sign. In my opinion the one without the sign is not a lie or a deceit. You didn’t alter the animal or its size. You didn’t put a UFO in the background. You just covered a sign with grass. The piece is about the beauty of the animal and the scenery, not the sign. But if it makes you uncomfortable, you should not publish it. I think they are both beautiful shots.
[Reply]
As a professional photographer and artist, I say it depends on use, objectives and claims. My objective is not usually journalistic, but a beautiful artistic image. Is it unethical to alter such things as colors, contrast or saturation? Are you sure your image matches the original setting exactly? Even Ansel Adams, and many other greats use(d) darkroom manipulation to enhance. Just look at the quality of his images. Did he cheat? Maybe, but that’s part of what brought out the best in the images.
[Reply]
It’s a thin grey line between enhancing a photo and re-creating a photo. For me at least, it’s one thing to tweek a picture by using part of the image (grass) to remove an undesirable part (sign). As opposed to say placing an object like the Elk in a scene it wasn’t in at all. In Ansel Adams “Moonrise Hernandez NM.” he burned the night sky extensivley to remove the undesirable clouds in the upper portion of the picture. Ultimately it seems to be a question of are you cleaning up an image of distracting cluter, or creating an image that didn’t exist. The elk was there bugleing. The grass and ice sheet were there. There just happened to be an unwanted sign there too, that you removed using another part of the image. Where to draw that line is a personal question. But to me I think this would be acceptable though of course not preferable.
[Reply]
This is a tough subject, but I see it a bit differently.
Think of it this way: Each of us physically observes a particular scene in somewhat different ways. What we thus see is a sensation we then take away. Call this what we see in our “mind’s eye.”
Now we take a photograph of a scene and look at it later. And realize that it’s not the same as what we have in our “mind’s eye.” We practice photography — filters, techniques, and so forth — to try to get the scene to match what’s in the “mind’s eye.”
Photoshop is just another tool that we use to try to get a photograph to mirror what’s in the “mind’s eye.” Used as such, I find it just fine.
However, if one’s use of Photoshop is to eliminate or to alter what was both in the “mind’s eye” and in the scene, then it’s bad. By this measure, removing the sign in the example shot and replacing it with grass was not a good move. It was just an attempt to cover up bad photography.
Lynn
[Reply]
We’ve all photoshopped photos in the past (just think of red eye), but now as I help manage an image library that serves images of the environment, it has really become apparent that photographs are scientific records – and they are a vast resource for studying changing conditions over time, species behaviors, and more. Thus our policy is to not accept edited images – photos can provide extremely useful data to researchers now and in the future. (we do sometimes accept color-corrected images or cropped images, but we prefer that a copy of the original is also preserved).
Our environment is often not pristine – there may be plastic bottles on the ground, or signs and people in the background. Personally, I think it is important for people to know this. Also, the photoshoppping of background elements from a wildlife picture can remove valuable information about the plants, etc., that a focal species is associated with. Researchers examining conditions over time by mining images from the internet need the facts. At the very least they should know from the image provider what their policies are about editing are.
It’s always going to be a question of whether the goal is art, or to represent fact. If you want to represent fact, then I urge caution in photoshopping.
fyi – it is often easy for a trained technician to spot photoshopping in a digitial copy of an image.
[Reply]
I have had many similar experiences where I have been tempted to alter a fabulous and rare wildlife shot because of signs, roads, litter, etc. But, I never have been able to make myself feel good about it. I use the filtering and color balancing aspects of my software regularly but I think a photo should be a thing of beauty on its own without a lot of manipulation. I have even learned to appreciate some of my photos that I originally thought were spoiled by the signs of man. Having said that, I would not blame anyone for using the clone feature in a similar situation. It sure is a nice feature.
[Reply]
Charles Kogod Reply:
February 11th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Thanks Julie
I haven’t been able to feel good about it either.
I like the “new” photo but…….
C
[Reply]
This was a good discussion on the blog of Gary Crabbe, a west coast photographer, back in December and the accompanying comments were thought provoking and might be of help to you.
http://www.enlightphoto.com/views/2010/12/17/drawing-the-line-crossing-the-line-erasing-the-line.htm
[Reply]
Stephanie
Thanks for sharing that blog with me.
It is nice to realize that other people are struggling with the exact same issues.
I have a background that is rich in both fine art and photojournalism so it is especially confusing to me.
Thanks again
C
[Reply]
I see nothing wrong with removing signs,power lines and distracting things in a photo.I hate radio collars on animals and I always clone them out.
As long as they are honest about what they did to produce the photo, each photographer should be as creative as they want. I sell photos as art for people to hang on their walls. They make the choice to buy or not.
Control freaks should leave other photographers alone.
[Reply]
If you were to try to publish the photo in a journalistic way, then no. If it is for the beauty of the shot then all is fair.
Even if you choose to sell it through stock agencies you could notate that the photo had been edited.
[Reply]
To me, beautiful nature photos are ruined by “signs” of man. I see nothing wrong with editing out the sign in this picture. I agree, there has to be a line drawn somewhere regarding editing photos, but something as small as this is ok as far as I’m concerned. Beautiful photo!
[Reply]
So the question seems to be is the photo for art or documentary purposes.
[Reply]
I suppose that would depend, in some degree, as to what the purpose of the photograph is. If it is a documentary, or journalism, it would be more important to display it in it’s original form. But, if the purpose is to sell the image on greeting cards or other products, it would sell better without the sign, power lines, trash, etc. In that case, I don’t really see it as being a matter of ethics.
I paint wildlife and other animals, so I use many of my photos as research, combining them to get a better composition. I would always paint it without signs or debris. But, that is my artistic interpretation, not a scientific record.
[Reply]
The fact that it is two dimensional is more a misrepresentation of reality than anything else.
[Reply]
I have been a student of photography for over 40 years, what is ethical and what is not has always been debated over that time. The purist says never enhance of change anything, it has to be out of the camera film/digital and they are correct if they believe that to be so but who made up the rules, artist have always been able to do what they want and are questioned very little about ethics. Norman Rockwell was one of the greatest illustrators of the 21st century creating an image wilt great detail. Everything was done to represent his view of that scene.
I do understand that a photograph can be altered easily with PhotoShop but if you have ever been involved in commercial photography and seen some images that had other images stripped into another for the purpose of creating the perfect image, was that OK. Not very much can be done with photoshop that couldn’t be done with film methods, it is just easier and makes it faster as well as allowing anyone who is willing to learn how able to do it.
I personally see nothing wrong with altering the image example for the purpose of making it a better image. I also don’t agree with the person who said it is bad photography. When shooting nature, you often have the opportunity for a shot with some thing silk this in it, there is so much man made pollution often because people do not respect rules these days that we have to live with it. I will not allow guilt or what someone else things is right or wrong, and especially good or bad determine what is right or wrong.
If the images are being used for legal purposes then they should be unaltered. For those photojournalist who are purest that think images should always be totally untouched, I suggest that you take a look at what is called journalism in the news today. We get it twisted, turned and only the point of view one side wants to tell. Removing a sign from a nature shot is way down on my list as far as being ethically wrong or even a bad thing. Just because someone will change a sign doesn’t make them commit fraud on their income taxes either.
I do agree, ethics and morality has changed and not for the better in the world today. If you change something to try to control the opinion of someone else or to take advantage of them then that is wrong and evil…removing a sign from this photo…NO WAY is it unethical or making the photographer unethical as a human being just because they did that or didn’t. Don’t let anyone make you feel guilty or as if you have committed the unpardonable sin against photography.
Sorry for going on about this but things have changed being correct is a personal thing for each of us and just the thought of someone taking that responsibility away from me or anyone else as an individual is the unethical one. Take responsibility by being honest for the reasons you do something and then there would be no problems. People would know why and then they could make their own decisions as to right or wrong.
[Reply]