To manipulate or not to manipulate? Where do you stand on this topic?


UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,450
36
48
Singapore
#2
As someone told me: "take a photograph - especially a digital one - already not real." Of course, if it is a tamed wolf and you say it is wild, then you are just lying.
 

christeo

New Member
Sep 9, 2012
229
0
0
singapore
#5
actually by using a 50mm lens, you are already distorting the real human vision.

certainly by using iso 3200, you are defying what the eyes can and cannot see.

bottomline, a photo is supposed to jar you for life, not tell you what happened in atuality.
 

Last edited:

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,450
36
48
Singapore
#6
actually by using a 50mm lens, you are already distorting the real human vision.

certainly by using iso 3200, you are defying what the eyes can and cannot see.

bottomline, a photo is supposed to jar you for life, not tell you what happened in atuality.
I have friends who believe that off cam JPEG is "real" while post-processed RAW is not.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#9
It's the idea that you shouldn't be meddling with nature, which is a separate idea as to whether a photograph is realistic.

Let's look at it this way, if I shoot a wolf in beautiful light feasting on a carcass, it's a nice photograph but the light isn't going to be wonderful all the time and the woods are nowhere as beautiful as that single primitive moment. That relates to the idea that photographs are not exactly representative of reality (you can of course take this further as you wish).

That's quite different from baiting animals to come out into the light, which they might not have done without the bait. So for example if I lay 10 beautiful succulent fish on a rock bathed in sunlight to entice a kingfisher to stay perched so that I can shoot more conveniently, that's meddling with the animal's behaviour. Do fish normally bask in sunlight on rocks for the kingfisher? Nope, the kingfisher hunts it down and eats it. Some may even argue that prolonged exposure to this sort of thing leads to expectations that there will always be fish on the rock. That could lead to all sorts of warped consequences like the kingfisher being exposed to predators, risks that it would not normally take, long after the photographer has gotten his prize winning shot and moved on.

There are certain genres of photography which have written or unwritten codes. Photojournalism is one, and I would think nature/wildlife photography is another, especially when animals are involved. Portrayal of unrealistic behaviour such as frogs sitting upright, lizards dancing (read: http://petapixel.com/2013/08/20/pho...s-of-faking-cute-animal-images-in-cruel-ways/ ) are not only perceived as a betrayal to the excitement of the hunt of tracking down the animal and capturing it in the right moment, but also involve unnatural/cruel manipulation of the subject (how would you like it if I strung you up in a contorted position that you would not otherwise adopt?). There's also extensions of what the photograph may mean - if a frog sits upright and this is observed that has all sorts of scientific implications. If you move a soldier around or manipulate the resultant photograph to portray something different from reality political statements are made.

This is different from the arguments for and against composite photography that is linked in the article UncleFai has posted. That's totally different and for other genres such as fashion, conceptual, fine art, all sorts of manipulation is used. For example, I don't suppose anyone really believes that food materializes as it does in Carl Warner's beautiful foodscapes.
 

Last edited:
Likes: david 1233

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,450
36
48
Singapore
#10
This is different from the arguments for and against composite photography that is linked in the article UncleFai has posted. That's totally different and for other genres such as fashion, conceptual, fine art, all sorts of manipulation is used. For example, I don't suppose anyone really believes that food materializes as it does in Carl Warner's beautiful foodscapes.
True. But less black and white are those models on (say) GQ magazine front cover shoots.
 

christeo

New Member
Sep 9, 2012
229
0
0
singapore
#11
I guess all poses in front of a camera are against nature too. Usually people will just walk sit or sleep. Nobody stairs into thin air(read camera) by nature, and smiling at the same time...not to mention those who put on make-up just to do the same.
 

Last edited:

david 1233

New Member
Jun 19, 2012
501
6
0
Singapore
#12
I guess all poses in front of a camera are against nature too. Usually people will just walk sit or sleep. Nobody stairs into thin air(read camera) by nature, and smiling at the same time...not to mention those who put on make-up just to do the same.
This thread is about disturbing wildlife animals,birds etc.Nothing concern about human poses,landscape,sports or whatever.
Please read the title thread.
 

christeo

New Member
Sep 9, 2012
229
0
0
singapore
#13
This thread is about disturbing wildlife animals,birds etc.Nothing concern about human poses,landscape,sports or whatever.
Please read the title thread.
Man was wildlife once. We take baits too. No?
Do you consider taking zoo photos unethical, since animals aren't supposed to be caged in nature?
 

Last edited:

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,450
36
48
Singapore
#14
This thread is about disturbing wildlife animals,birds etc.Nothing concern about human poses,landscape,sports or whatever.
Please read the title thread.
Title never say that leh. Just say "manipulate". Never say manipulate what.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#16
I guess all poses in front of a camera are against nature too. Usually people will just walk sit or sleep. Nobody stairs into thin air(read camera) by nature, and smiling at the same time...not to mention those who put on make-up just to do the same.
I think a more appropriate analogy when it comes to humans is a photojournalist asking overworked workers in a sweatshop to smile and laugh and dance around their workstation for some money, take some pictures of them doing it, before publishing an article about how sweatshops aren't that bad after all.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,032
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#17
Title never say that leh. Just say "manipulate". Never say manipulate what.
UncleFai, you need to read his linked article to get the context. This is Kopitiam, by now you should know that people seldom treat it like a work report......

What makes one photographer a purist and another a shortcut-taker, in your mind?

For me, the passion for wildlife came way before the camera. The camera came into it as a way to make a living doing what I love to do, which is to be out in the wilderness. I think if the only reason you are out in the wild is to get the shot, you will fail miserably, and you are more likely to compromise your ethics. If you truly love being out there, shot or no shot, everything will come to you. There's no reason to cheat.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,450
36
48
Singapore
#18
UncleFai, you need to read his linked article to get the context. This is Kopitiam, by now you should know that people seldom treat it like a work report......
I did... but I took it to be an example of "manipulation". TS never made it explicit so that was how I interpreted it.
 

Shizuma

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2012
2,557
25
0
#19
So for example if I lay 10 beautiful succulent fish on a rock bathed in sunlight to entice a kingfisher to stay perched so that I can shoot more conveniently, that's meddling with the animal's behaviour.
Did somebody say, fish ?
 

#20
edutilos- said:
So for example if I lay 10 beautiful succulent fish on a rock bathed in sunlight to entice a kingfisher to stay perched so that I can shoot more conveniently, that's meddling with the animal's behaviour.
Cats will eat them fishes first before a kingfisher can smell it. :bsmilie:
 

Top Bottom