pano & motion control research & ramblings

Mark LaGrange , Mar 20, 2000; 09:51 p.m.

Hey gang . . . first timer. If the site is good enough for Morris and Graf, I must be in the right place.

Ahhhh, the the computer manipulation debate. This one will be with us for a while. While holding my nose I start to participate in the digital world of photography. … and I mean holding it tight! I suspect we nature photographers have such a hard time with this because our own personal history and heritage of nature photographers gone by. Ingrained in us is the respectful observance and sharing of what God has created naturally. This is quite different from our cousins of the portrait world who have now graduated to the studio groomed world of “Glamour Shots”. Surely those Sports Illustrated bikini touting models pout that lip an stare in your eyes…in the natural “real” world. The point is nature photographers are a breed that has a deep appreciation for that which exists in the nature/natural state. I expect that we will continue to have progressively more problems with this slippery slope area of digital manipulation. By definition of the word NATUR-AL, we SHOULD have a problem. If our goal is commercial, we will have to bend to compete. But to the non-commercial purist who I believe there are many, you don’t have to bend. Take heart and be proud of the moment you captured….no matter the imperfection. Indeed, God did not create us perfect. At least not me … in case you were wondering.

So to the point…my opinion…digital manipulation is here to stay. Holding my nose I will explore it. But my answer to the debate is in agreement with JEFF LOFFERT, NOVEMBER 14, 1999. If you manipulate, just say so. Tell your audience what you have done. Jeff is right: If you are ashamed to state what you have done, then what you have done is wrong. Yes it does seem that the excuses and compromises are being made by those who alter without being forthright about it. If your manipulation is art, stand up and sign your masterpiece.

Whew!!!! Mark LaGrange, March 20, 2000

via Image manipulation, ethics and all. – Photo.net Nature Forum.

Harry Arnold , Jan 13, 1999; 10:01 a.m.

In reading the mass of words generated by a question on ethics, it seems obvious that the photographer must be honest about the origins of a specific picture or group of pictures. This will allow the purists to concentrate on “unaltered” images and the changelings to seek out more “perfect” images. A famous nature photographer spends years living among wild animals until they become tame around him/her. A production company photographs wild animals almonst entirely in simulated or replicated habitat studio settings. Someone else takes a single image and makes 101 dogs out of it. Then there are the electronically generated dinosaurs and giant apes that never existed at all.

Artisticly, it doesn’t matter how the image is created. Sociologically, it matters whether we are able to know what is real and what is imagined. Ethically, it matters if someone deliberately tries to mislead or lies about the origins of a picture.

via Image manipulation, ethics and all. – Photo.net Nature Forum.

Frank asked: “That means, should both kinds of images be competing for the same market share? Is there more value to an unmanipulated image? Do editors have a right or duty to warn readers of manipulated images? “Lets suppose we are talking fine dining instead of photography. Should a restaurant inform its patrons that it used imitation crab meat made from bottom fish instead of real crab in its Crab Soufle sp???? Should they tell the patron that the turkey dinner is chopped,pressed turkey instead of freshly roasted turkey? And, for you vegitarians, should they state that the black berry cobler uses frozen berries instead of fresh berries? I think the answer is yes.

via Image manipulation, ethics and all. – Photo.net Nature Forum.

Scott Kelby’s Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More » Blog Archive » My Photo Editing “Code of Ethics”.

The US Department of Defense believes it needs to take a position on digital manipulation of photographs because:

Computer digital technology makes removing or adding elements to photographs or video images fairly simple-and usually undetectable. To guard against the potentially dangerous effects such manipulation can have on military leaders who use digital images to make decisions and to ensure the credibility of Department of Defense (DOD)-produced images, former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch issued a memorandum, dated 9 December 1994, to establish DOD guidelines regarding digital manipulation of official DOD photographic and video images. These include any images recorded or produced by persons acting on behalf of DOD activities, functions or missions.

via Marking manipulated photographs.

Dennis Dunleavy: The art of deception: Pictures can lie, but people lie a lot more.

The Ethics of Digital Photo Manipulation.

The Metafilter thread has some interesting comments and questions: “One difference between film and digital, before the darkroom, is that with a digital camera, you don’t have anywhere near the wide range of different films available. I’ve started to take into account the characteristics of the film I’m using, or, conversely, select film depending on what I’m going to be photographing. Since this variety of effects is not available to digital ‘film’, I believe digital photography should be given more latitude with after-effects.”

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/27971

via PhotoDude’s Weblog: Too Dark for Photojournalism.