|
My Photographic Ethics and Philosophy
As much as possible, I approach animals in a natural setting; my subjects are
wild and unrestrained, unless labeled otherwise. I always try to minimize
disturbance to the plants and animals I photograph, as well as any others I may
encounter while making an image. I love the feeling I get when I approach a
wild bird, take intimate portraits and document its natural behaviors, then
slip away without ever disturbing the animal. This sometimes requires special
equipment, such as a blind, and other times simply requires a lot of patience.
The rewards for such encounters always make the effort worthwhile. I
occasionally take pictures of captive animals and cultivated plants; these
images will always be labeled as such.
Digital photography has changed the way I think about post-capture
manipulation. A certain amount of tweaking and massaging is necessary to bring
the most out of any digital image. I wouldn't call myself a "purist,"
because I am willing to take advantage of many tools available to the digital
photographer. That being said, there are some manipulations I do, and others I
do not.
Dust-spotting: A problem inherent in the digital medium is dust
accumulation on the image sensor. In the film days, you got a fresh "image
sensor" (i.e. piece of film) with every shot, and you didn't have to worry too
much about dust accumulating on the film from one shot to the next. A necessary
part of post-processing is removing dust specks that have accumulated on the
CCD, CMOS, or whatever sensor the camera uses.
Color, contrast, and saturation adjustment: Here is one of the great
advantages of shooting digitally. Especially when shooting RAW formats, the
photographer has a great deal of control over how to interpret images straight
out of the camera. In the realm of nature photography, I try to use these
adjustments to make the image on my monitor match the image I saw in my
viewfinder when I tripped the shutter. For me, a "match" does not necessarily
mean it looks exactly the same as it did through the lens, rather that it
invokes the same feeling. Film photographers make similar choices through their
selection of particular films, but digital photography allows the artist to
make these adjustments on a shot-by-shot basis.
Cropping: I think cropping is one of the nicest features of the
digital workflow. Cropping a digital image is easy, and even subtle changes in
composition can often increase the visual impact of an image dramatically.
Photoshop also makes it simple to level an image during cropping, enabling the
user to salvage a hastily-composed image taken in a fast action situation. I
usually stick to a 2:3 crop when I crop digital images, because I find the 2:3
aspect ratio pleasing and natural. I occasionally use different aspect
ratios, however, and sometimes these can create entirely new compositions with a
very different look and feeling.
Sharpening: Sharpening is another valuable tool for digital shooters.
Sharpening cannot turn a soft image into a sharp one. But a photographer can
use it to make his images look optimally sharp at any output size. For me,
sharpening is a totally acceptable form of digital manipulation. The process
starts with only the original data captured by the camera, then optimizes that
data for certain types of display (e.g. optimal sharpening for printing is very
different than optimal sharpening for web display). It is easy to tell when a
soft photograph has been sharpened digitally to the point of looking "sharp,"
so sharpening is a pretty honest form of manipulation.
Noise reduction: Digital noise can be objectionable in low light and/or
at high ISO. Modern noise reduction software can often do a great job of mitigating
this noise, and noise reduction is often part of my post-capture workflow when I need
to shoot in sub-optimal lighting conditions.
Adding canvas: For most types of photography, this technique is
probably unimportant. For birds and other fast-moving subjects, however, it can
occasionally be useful. If I'm photographing a bird in
flight against a clear blue sky and it gets ahead of me as I pan the camera to
follow it, I might end up with shots that depict interesting flight
behavior, but whose composition is unsatisfactory. Photoshop allows a
skilled user to change the placement of the bird in such a simple composition
by adding more of a relatively simple background on one side or
another. The photographer can usually be sure the end result is what the image
would have looked like, had he only been a little quicker in the field!
I don't rearrange canvas often, but I have used the technique to rescue a handful of images.
Red-eye removal: Once in a great while this tool is useful for
bird photography. In most cases, it is easy to avoid red-eye problems in the
field, but in a few situations (e.g. when shooting owls after dark, with their huge
eyes and dilated pupils), virtually any artificial light source will create
red-eye problems. In these cases, a simple Photoshop fix for red-eye can
save a great image from the Recycle Bin.
Cloning and other tools: Photoshop makes it relatively easy to remove
distracting elements, such as errant twigs and leaves, from the background, and
even from in front of the subject. If my objective were to shoot bird
photographs for field guides, I might use this technique to tidy up my images.
I photograph, however, to portray plants and animals in natural environments,
and I think the background is an important part of every image. By removing
bits of the natural context of the bird, I think one changes the content of the
image, so these are not manipulations I currently perform.
Similarly, Photoshop makes it relatively trivial to "reconstruct" bits of the
bird that might be cut off by the frame edges, as long as one has a suitable
template from which to reconstruct. Wingtips are frequently added to birds in
this fashion. This is another manipulation I do not use in my workflow. As with
cloning out background or foreground elements, I feel it changes the content of
an image.
I haven't described all the digital manipulations used in bird and nature
photography, but I have mentioned some of the most common. A few I use, others
I do not. I don't intend my own rules to govern any photographers besides
myself, and I certainly don't condemn photographers with different digital
practices from my own. Digital photography gives us unprecedented creative
power for altering our images, and some people harbor concerns that this may
undermine the artistic integrity of photography as a medium. I disagree, though
my reasoning may be idealistic. I think the vast majority of nature
photographers create their images to portray nature, not to create
it. I love nature, and I have enough respect for it to keep my images natural.
I believe most photographers feel the same way.
Photoshop and related products are an important set of tools for nature
photographers. I prefer to use them cautiously and with a priori goals in mind.
My ultimate objective is always to communicate the vision I experienced when I
captured the image.
I think that full disclosure of the digital techniques used in optimizing an
image is a good thing. Photography is art, and art grows when artists share
their techniques openly with one another. A good artist doesn't feel threatened
by another artist using his technique; instead, he knows that his work can't be
duplicated by technique alone.
In the case of published images, however, it is not practical to outline all the
digital manipulations used; there just isn't space. In the case of substantial
modifications, however, I think that a failure to disclose those changes is a
disservice to the viewer. Nature photographers and publishers of nature- and
conservation oriented media use photographs to educate people about the natural
world – the real natural world. Therefore, although there is no
easy answer to the question of disclosing digital manipulation in published images,
I think this is an issue that the photographic and editorial community needs to
consider very carefully. |