SportsShooter.com - The other kind of photo manipulation

	Somerset \| PA \| USA \| Posted: 12:14 PM on 03.17.10
	->> I don't think that's the "other kind of manipulation" in Nick's elephant dusting itself shot. It's dramatic, but it looks like good old-fashioned "Hand of God" burning.

Robert Scheer, Photographer

	Indianapolis \| IN \| USA \| Posted: 12:15 PM on 03.17.10
	->> Junk like this has been going on for a long time. The late/great Galen Rowell used to rail against it in his Mountain Light days. At least it's not high fence hunting.

Tom Davenport, Photographer

Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 03.17.10

->> "I fear it won't be long before this kind of photo staging becomes prevalent in photojournalism."

Are you saying that it is not prevelent in photojournalism?
You want a picture of the governor, you go to where he is, as he is. You know in a suit and tie at his office or if you are lucky you can get a picture of him riled up at a meeting, not at home in his boxers watching television.
You want a picture of a cowboy? Go to the open range and you might find one, or a rodeo where cowboys are not really cowboys at all.
You want a picture of an artic fox? Go to the arctic and maybe see one off in the distance. Or, go to a game farm and show people what one looks like.

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Jackson \| WY \| USA \| Posted: 3:57 PM on 03.17.10
	->> @ Tom D. - I don't even know where to start...

Tom Davenport, Photographer

	Hayden \| ID \| USA \| Posted: 4:02 PM on 03.17.10
	->> Brad B. Yes, I can see that .... td

Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Kansas City \| Mo. \| USA \| Posted: 8:28 PM on 03.17.10
	->> Passing off a captive animal as being in the wild is flagrantly unethical and would be a fireable offense (as in do not pass go, do not collect $200 get your butt the hell out of this building NOW) at any publication I have ever worked at. It is a blatant LIE and when it happens it harms the credibility of every photojournalist.

Allen Hubbard, Photographer

Spokane | WA | USA | Posted: 1:11 AM on 03.18.10

->> From Tom D.: "You want a picture of a cowboy? Go to the open range and you might find one, or a rodeo where cowboys are not really cowboys at all."

WOW!!!

Obviously you have never been to a rodeo then.
Most competitors at a rodeo have something to do with ranching, farming, horses, cattle etc. which are all related to being a cowboy. Your mind must be warped from watching old westerns and you think the only person who is a "cowboy" lives out on the open range with his herd.

Tom Davenport, Photographer

Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 03.18.10

->> Yeah Allen, that was very poorly worded.
Most every rodeo I have been to, the competitors are professional rodeo cowboys, and although they both ride horses, are somewhat different than what I think of as cowboys, who work all day, sometimes on the back of a horse, for a living. Not taking anything away from rodeo cowboys at all because if you want to see a real athlete in action, go see a rodeo. Of course, you can also see some faux cowboys there in the stands. Especially if I’m there!
As far as wildlife goes, a bobcat is a bobcat, it doesn't really matter whether you photograph it with a 16 mm lens or a 600mm lens, which both distort the animal. It also doesn’t matter to me if the animal is at a game farm, or in your neighborhood. Or at a national park or a national forest.
To me, photography is about, among other things, angles. If you want your photo to illustrate the bobcat was in a neighborhood, you find an angle to tell that story. If you want a photo of a bobcat, you find the best angle for that. Can captions help? Absolutely. But just as your choice of lens doesn’t belong in most captions, either does where the animal was photographed unless that is what the story is about.
Help me understand this further.

Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Central Jersey \| NJ \| USA \| Posted: 11:43 AM on 03.18.10
	->> On a related tangent, I've heard rumors that some of the creatures on those Discovery Channel documentaries are actually CGI renderings and not real dinosaurs.

Matthew Ginn, Photographer

	Portland \| OR \| USA \| Posted: 12:07 PM on 03.18.10
	->> Tom, You're basically confusing photojournalism with stock photography. If you were working on a story about a crime spree, would you go to the local prison for a photo of a criminal? I hope not. (And, btw, real cowboys aren't that hard to find in certain parts of the country.)

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor

Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:24 PM on 03.18.10

->> Tom - I suppose it comes down the the approach of the publication and the photographer, and where they draw their ethical lines. Some might rationalize that, since they're dealing with animals and not people, that it's OK to use captive animals and manipulate the scene with a trainer to get the exact shot you're looking for. Others might think "a bobcat is a bobcat" and it doesn't matter where or how you photograph the animal. Again, the publication Wyoming Wildlife sometimes takes this approach because they would rather run a fantastic photo of a captive lynx that's "representative" of those in Wyoming than a mediocre image of one in the wild - it's typically much harder to get nice, tight photos of elusive animals.

Wyoming Wildlife will also contend that photographing captive animals is sometimes a better alternative to photographing actual wild animals because it's less disruptive to the wildlife - a wild cougar likely will know you're staking out her den even though you're a couple hundred yards away and using a 600mm with a 2x. Getting close enough to get tight shots of elk, pronghorn or bighorn sheep in the winter can be especially dangerous to the animal; if they feel the need to run away from you through deep snow they're using valuable energy reserves they need to survive the winter.

Personally, when I'm looking for photography for Jackson Hole Magazine, I won't use photographs from game farms, because I know there's several talented shooters in the region with excellent photographs of wild critters in the wild. I also believe that, since Wyoming citizens have voiced their opposition to game farms and the state legislature has banned them in the state, that we should respect that in our magazine. But most importantly, I think, is that if we're doing a story on Yellowstone wolves we should show photographs of Yellowstone wolves, not captive wolves at the Wolf Discovery Center. Maybe it's just my background as a photojournalist but I'd rather run a medium-quality photograph of a wild animal than a stunning photo of a captive one. Besides, great photos of wild animals are out there; there just more difficult to find.

On another note, we did a story on the de-listing of the grizzly bear in Greater Yellowstone from the endangered species list, and I had a lot of awesome photos of Alaska grizzlies submitted. Even though, genetically, they're pretty much the same animal, I couldn't bring myself to use any of them, because they weren't photos of bears in our ecosystem that were being delisted.

Tom Davenport, Photographer

Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 03.18.10

->> Brad B. THANK YOU for such an insightful post. Your stance on photography, “I'd rather run a medium-quality photograph of a wild animal than a stunning photo of a captive one” has to be admired regardless of one’s position on the matter. To the Audubon article, it is disturbing to me and seems to have an agenda beyond “exposing” captive animal photos behind it, what I’m not sure. Much of William’s point seems to center on the treatment of animals in captivity. Yet on the last page of the article, an example of an arctic fox that is much too healthy to be wild is used.
Personally, I have no use of a photograph of a famous animal, which these captives apparently are. Why would you want the same shot as other photogs? I think the answer is that someone asked you for it. Which means someone is willing to pay you for it. But even then, I can not see how you make enough money based on most space rates vs the cost to photograph the animal.
However, I think there are constructive uses for images of captive animals. Especially for conservation minded publications which seems counter intuitive. But, if you are talking about a rare or difficult animal, I would rather put out a spectacular image to raise awareness among other reasons.
Matt G – I don’t think I am confusing the issue of stock vs. photoj and if I am I apologize. Certainly no newspaper would use a stock photo, would they? Conservation magazines do all the time. Seems it is a different medium. Should the same rules for news photographers apply? I don’t think so. I recognize there are those that disagree.
Jack H – I don’t drink, but for some reason feel like I owe you a beer!

Return to --> Message Board Main Index