Audobon's magazine article -photography & reality check
Richard L. Fung
Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
Just wanted to pass on an important article in this month's Audobon magazine
entitled: Photogrphy - A Reality Check. The article discusses the latest
techniques and manipulations used by some of the best known photographers in
the business -Art Wolfe, Lanting, Rowell, etc. I was very distrurbed to learn
that in Art Wolfe's book called "Migrations", he digitized and manipulated at
least 30 of his photgraphs either by adding more animals to his photographs or
surgically removing obsticles that detracted to what he was attempting to
acheive in his head. The other issue is paying fees at some game reserve
to "shoot" animals not in their own habitat. This is NOT NATURE PHOTOGRAPHING
in my opinion. Where are the real photographers who have some repect for the
art?
Richard
rf...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Ken Smith
I don't remember where I read it, but I understand that Art Wolfe's
'corrections' put a dent in his credibility, and had some effect on his
career. Ken
Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6ciabr$bgt$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
>
Bob Flood
Richard L. Fung wrote:
>
> Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
>
> I was very distrurbed to learn
> that in Art Wolfe's book called "Migrations", he digitized and manipulated at
> least 30 of his photgraphs either by adding more animals to his photographs or
> surgically removing obsticles that detracted to what he was attempting to
> acheive in his head.
This issue hit another group not too long ago. Some described the
digital manipulation as no more a fabrication than Ansel Adams' dodging
and burning in to produce a print different from that obtainable from
unmodified printing of the negative.
Naturally, I disagree with that approach. Adams was trying to increase
the tonal range in the finished print to get closer to what the human
eye perceived at the site at the time the photograph was taken. Images
were not added or subtracted to produce a print of something that did
not (could not?) exist at the place and time of the photograph.
Digital photography and digital image manipulation are legitimate art
forms that can and will produce finished works that will be valued of
themselves. But there is an opportunity for here for a kind of
dishonesty that can damage photography forever! Because of the
technology of film and paper, photographs are accepted as realistic
images unless there has been some obvious manipulation (solarization
comes to mind). That's why a photo of crime scene is admissible as
evident in court. Digital pictures that may have been altered call this
concept into question, and may result in serious challenges to
photographic evidence in court and, ultimately, to what the average
viewer believes about photographs.
An average person viewing a painting will draw personal conclusions
about liking/disliking the work, but generally understands that the
image is the artist's interpretation of the original subject. No one
expects to encounter a woman on Main Street who really looks like one of
Picasso's models!
On the other hand, the average viewer of a photograph does expect that
the image represents a real place, a real person, etc, as it existed
when the photograph was taken. At the extreme, modified digital images
can teach the public to distrust any image not viewed in person -
brochures, advertising, everything could have been altered to deceive
the viewer, so nothing can be trusted, right?
Why not label digitally enhanced images as such? Only someone who wants
to hide this fact could object. Isn't it fair to represent an altered
image as such, and leave the interpretation to the viewer?
--
Bob Flood
bfl...@slac.stanford.edu
Ron Ginsberg
In my opinion there is room for both views. It depends upon the target
audience.
In a recent article in Feb Pop Photography, Tim Fitzharris is written up
using digital editing techniques for some of his work. He states that if
the resulting composition does not depart from what is found in nature,
it is OK. Combining multiple nature subjects in one photo that could
occur does not really modify reality.
So if the composition is for an art oriented audience it could very well
be OK just as the use of a warming filter to shoot flowers in shade to
make a more aestheticly (sp?) pleasing image.
If the target audience might be biologists or zoologists, then I would
say an unaltered composition would be appropriate.
I also have Fitzharris's Nature Photography Audabon Guide Book where all
is pictures appear "straight". This is the same guy going chest deep in
a pond putting down his tripod in the muck to shoot a frog head on. He
might have accomplished this more conveniently with digital imaging.
Ken Smith wrote:
>
> I don't remember where I read it, but I understand that Art Wolfe's
> 'corrections' put a dent in his credibility, and had some effect on his
> career. Ken
>
> Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6ciabr$bgt$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> >Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
> >
> I was very distrurbed to learn >that in Art Wolfe's book called
> "Migrations", he digitized and manipulated at >least 30 of his photgraphs
> either by adding more animals to his photographs or >surgically removing
> obsticles that detracted to what he was attempting to acheive in his head.
Eric Hocking
Richard L. Fung wrote:
> Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
>
> I was very distrurbed to learn that in Art Wolfe's book called "Migrations", he
> digitized and manipulated at least 30 of his photgraphs either by adding more
> animals to his photographs or surgically removing obsticles that detracted to
> what he was attempting to
> acheive in his head.
And I feel guilty about cropping my photos when I have them reproduced!!
--
Eric Hocking "A closed mouth gathers no feet."
Remove "nospam." from address to email.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking/
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
May I ask you (collectively) something? Is this 'news' some startling
revelation to you? If you have had your finger even remotely on the pulse of
what has been happening in the world of photography for the past 5 to 10
years, you would realize that:
This has been going on for DECADES to one extent or another. This
'discussion' is so OLD and TIRED already that it is disturbing that it is
still such a 'controversy.'
That Art Wolfe is an ARTIST, trained as painter, and Migrations was an ART
book. The whole issue of his digital adventures has become such a tempest in
a teacup, and he has taken so much crap over nothing. So much so that he
actually avoided doing his usual upbeat multimedia presentations for the
recent NANPA forum, and spent most of his time in a serious discussion of
his history and development as an artist, and how he developed the concepts
behind his projects, and how digital technology is little more than another
creative tool. It can be used by idiots and artists alike. His digital work
is but a tiny fraction of his millions of wonderful images and he has
contributed more to the world of art and nature photography and natural
history and cultural history photography than YOU or any other of his
uninformed detractors by a factor of MILLIONS. NO photography is totally
without some sort of 'manipulation.' That someone can truly be 'disturbed'
by something he does, but one part of an almost legendary legacy, is
basically ridiculous. 'Nuf said. GET OVER IT.
That Game farms and wildlife models, while obviously a controversial issue,
are nothing new either. Shocking, huh? Where do you think all those 'in your
face' shots of perfectly groomed animals, many of which most people will
never see in the wild in theirs or 10 other lifetimes, that have been so
popular for years, have come from? Also, while this may not be 'nature'
photography by some definitions, it does allow images to be produced of
animals, many so rare or threatened, whose lives in the wild would be
nothing less than totally endangered by harassment, if none could not be
bred, raised, studied, and photographed in captivity. There is a valid
purpose for the existence of these images. You don't like them? No one is
forcing you to buy any, shoot any, or do anything else with them.
That "This is NOT NATURE PHOTOGRAPHING" in your opinion is just that, your
opinion. So what? Again, just by way of example, Art Wolfe is an ARTIST who
happens to concentrate mainly on nature and natural history subjects.
Animals are 'nature' regardless of where they are photographed, but the
images may not necessarily be 'natural.' These kinds of distinctions are
only important to those of you who ignore the context in which the resultant
imagery is used.
What all this is saying, is that it not the responsibility of artists to put
up with derision as a result of their creative efforts, but it IS YOUR
responsibility to educate yourself about what is happening, to understand
ALL the tools and processes available to choose from, to be able to
distinguish the 'truth' from 'lies' by having thorough knowledge of the
natural world and being able to detect when a falsehood or fantasy has been
presented as truth, or understanding and recognizing when it has been
presented as art, versus when it has been presented as documentation. Stop
being so 'disturbed' and stop holding these artists and photographers
responsible and in contempt for YOUR own inability to understand the visual
vocabulary that they have been using for years or decades. It is your
responsibility to learn and understand it and to make yourself visually
literate, something they did long ago.
"Where are the real photographers who have some repect for the
art?" Same place as the ones you seem to have a problem with. If YOU choose
not to photograph in game farms, or create ART using all the great tools
available to you, that is fine. Do the best you can with what inspires you
and with whatever tools you feel are the best ones for the job, but to imply
that people like Art Wolf, Frans Lanting, and their peers are not 'real
photographers who have some respect for the art"...GIVE IT A REST. You are
merely showing the world that you are not really a very visually literate
person and that you have little understanding of their larger bodies of
works and of the visual languages used by the world-class photographers
whose works you find so disturbing. How about finding something more
significant to be concerned about, something real, like the questionable
field ethics of some people, or the threats to our natural environment that
are constantly looming? Being disturbed by some digital imagery or game
farm/wildlife model photos should surely pale in comparison to such issues.
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6ciabr$bgt$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>Hi nature and wildlife photographers,
>
>Just wanted to pass on an important article in this month's Audobon
magazine
>entitled: Photogrphy - A Reality Check. The article discusses the latest
>techniques and manipulations used by some of the best known photographers
in
>the business -Art Wolfe, Lanting, Rowell, etc. I was very distrurbed to
learn
>that in Art Wolfe's book called "Migrations", he digitized and manipulated
at
>least 30 of his photgraphs either by adding more animals to his photographs
or
>surgically removing obsticles that detracted to what he was attempting to
>acheive in his head. The other issue is paying fees at some game reserve
Roger Spencer
As in many controversies, the issue is neither black or white. While I do
not object to digital imaging, there is a vast difference between using a
polarizer or split neutral density filter, sometimes the use of which is to
simply to help film (which is vastly inferior to the human eye) to record an
image more closely to how we see it, and adding additional animals to an
image.
I think the middle ground is that digital alterations should be disclosed.
One good example of abuse was that of a mother animal (I can't remember what
it was) shown with two young (one digitally added), but that particular
animal only has one offspring. I do find myself, sadly, more skeptical when
I see a fantastic image.
Visit my site.
Roger Spencer
http://www.ovis.net/~rspencer/
Bob Flood
Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote:
>
> May I ask you (collectively) something? Is this 'news' some startling
> revelation to you? If you have had your finger even remotely on the pulse of
> what has been happening in the world of photography for the past 5 to 10
> years, you would realize that:
>
> This has been going on for DECADES to one extent or another. This
> 'discussion' is so OLD and TIRED already that it is disturbing that it is
> still such a 'controversy.'
>
monitor the pulse of all the variations of a technology like
photography.
Prior to the mid 1800's, paintings served 2 purposes - as a recording
medium for people and events, and as a form of artistic expression. When
photography came along, painters no longer needed to fill the need for
records of peeople and events, and began devoting themselves to
expression. This led to a move away from realism and gave rise to the
abstract art we know today (something that never developed while
painting as a medium was responsible for recording human history).
A consequence of this change is that very few people today regard
paintings from any era as literally accurate. By today's standards, a
painting is viewed as the artist's interpretation of the scene or event,
painted perhaps without even being at the location depicted. This
viewpoint is applied to all paintings, even those created at a time when
painting and drawing were the only means of recording important events.
Digital photography can do the same thing to all of photography, because
the viewer won't necessarily be able to determine if the image has been
digitally altered. If forced to try to make such an evaluation on every
image, the typical viewer won't - s/he will classify them all the same -
not necessarily the truth. That could render a photograph as
unacceptable for reliable evidence as a painting of a crime scene.
The point is that digital photography is now so widely available that
altered images will become much more common. The fact that they have the
same look as traditional film images will lead the average viewer to
think of them all (film and digital) as the same. Once trained by
experience not to trust those images, the trust will be gone forever.
--
Bob Flood
bfl...@slac.stanford.edu
Richard L. Fung
Jefferyln,
Is Art paying you to say all this nonsense? If Art Wolfe wants to be an
artist, then he should stick with painting where painting is accepted as
personal expressions not documenting nature "in the moment". Don't ask me to
"give it a rest" when I feel what he is doing is ruining wildlife photography
for the rest of us. Read the former postings where others say "who can you
trust". If you look at a digitized photograph of multiple tigers filling a
frame, would you not believe that this a wonderful place to photograph, when
in true reality, these animals are endanged species and someone added five
extra props just to sell his crap?
Don't get me wrong - digitized photograph has it's place in this industry -
just not when it is being used to "fool" viewers into thinking something seen
is better than actual reality. If you believe Art is on the right track, then
try and publish some of your work to Audobon magazine using his techniques!
Richard
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Greetings Bob
See below
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Bob Flood wrote in message <34EDD6...@slac.stanford.edu>...
>Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote:
>>
>> May I ask you (collectively) something? Is this 'news' some startling
>> revelation to you? If you have had your finger even remotely on the pulse
of
>> what has been happening in the world of photography for the past 5 to 10
>> years, you would realize that:
>>
>> This has been going on for DECADES to one extent or another. This
>> 'discussion' is so OLD and TIRED already that it is disturbing that it is
>> still such a 'controversy.'
>>
>I find this way beside the point. Not everyone wants to vigilantly
>monitor the pulse of all the variations of a technology like
>photography.
True, but this is not something that requires more than even a cursory
effort to be aware of the extent of.
>
>Prior to the mid 1800's, paintings served 2 purposes - as a recording
>medium for people and events, and as a form of artistic expression. When
>photography came along, painters no longer needed to fill the need for
>records of peeople and events, and began devoting themselves to
>expression. This led to a move away from realism and gave rise to the
>abstract art we know today (something that never developed while
>painting as a medium was responsible for recording human history).
>
>A consequence of this change is that very few people today regard
>paintings from any era as literally accurate. By today's standards, a
>painting is viewed as the artist's interpretation of the scene or event,
>painted perhaps without even being at the location depicted. This
>viewpoint is applied to all paintings, even those created at a time when
>painting and drawing were the only means of recording important events.
>Digital photography can do the same thing to all of photography, because
>the viewer won't necessarily be able to determine if the image has been
>digitally altered. If forced to try to make such an evaluation on every
>image, the typical viewer won't - s/he will classify them all the same -
>not necessarily the truth. That could render a photograph as
>unacceptable for reliable evidence as a painting of a crime scene.
>
>The point is that digital photography is now so widely available that
>altered images will become much more common. The fact that they have the
>same look as traditional film images will lead the average viewer to
>think of them all (film and digital) as the same. Once trained by
>experience not to trust those images, the trust will be gone forever.
You are actually quite probably right about this, however that does not
excuse anyone, in my not so humble opinion, from being responsible for their
own critical thinking, or lack thereof. There IS a decided need for the
entire imaging industry to preserve its integrity, but it is unlikely to
happen as there is no way that the use of every image of every photographer,
regardless of their own integrity and accuracy in designating composites and
other 'fantasy' imagery as such, to be controlled by them. They simply
cannot spend all their time on such matters- that is what they have stock
agencies and other such things for. Very few can have the kind of control
over the use of their imagery that would ensure total disclosure at all
times, to the viewing public.
It is unfortunate, or will be, when 'nature' photography no longer excites
veiwers as a result of the disbelief many will have if that 'trust' is lost.
Nonetheless, the particular individuals which the original poster finds so
disturbing are VERY aware of such things, and are not the ones whose
integrity needs to be examined. They have basically nothing to hide, and
have not hid anything from anyone. Art Wolfe fully disclosed his digital
tool use, but the unexpected firestorm which has prevailed unabated for
years now has made him, Lanting, and many others far more cautious and
outspoken about the realities of the use of digital imaging tools and the
need for responsibility for disclosure and the integrity of what is
presented to the public.
At any rate, especially for commercial and artistic uses, digital, in all
its disclosed or undisclosed, fantasic or real, integrity preserved forms or
not, is part of the world of visual communication, and it is not going to go
away or change simply because there is an issue of trust involved, or
because someone finds the art of a photographer, who did not present it as
anything else, disturbing.
>--
>Bob Flood
>bfl...@slac.stanford.edu
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
See below, although I don't really know why I am even bothering here.
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6cklue$aqd$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>Jefferyln,
>
>Is Art paying you to say all this nonsense?
No, and why would you think such a thing anyway? Just because I happen to
know what is on this guy's mind, and have taken the time to do so, along
with making myself familiar with his work? As it happens, I have met him
several times, seen many of his presentations, and have had some of my work
critiqued by him. Your comments below are completely off the wall, and
really show how little you know about Art and his work. Your feeling that
"what he is doing is ruining wildlife photography
for the rest of us" is of little concern to anyone, and has no basis in
reality, because he has done nothing of the sort. Do I detect a hint of
professional jealousy?? If YOU can do a BETTER job than him, no one is
stopping you from doing it, least of all Art, who is one of the most
supportive people, supportive of OTHERS in nature photography, art, and
related fields, that I have ever met.
If Art Wolfe wants to be an
>artist, then he should stick with painting where painting is accepted as
>personal expressions not documenting nature "in the moment".
Why in hell should he limit himself like that? Has he ever represented
himself exclusively as someone "documenting nature 'in the moment'"? I think
not. That is YOUR limited and uninformed understanding of his work and YOUR
label for him.
Don't ask me to
>"give it a rest" when Read the former postings where others say "who can
you
>trust". If you look at a digitized photograph of multiple tigers filling a
>frame, would you not believe that this a wonderful place to photograph,
when
>in true reality, these animals are endanged species and someone added five
>extra props just to sell his crap?
I am not that dumb. I take responsibilty for my ability to critically think.
You should be more concerned about doing so and about the general lack
thereof, which is far more responsible for something like someone making the
dumb assumptions you describe in your example, than anything a photographer
or anyone else does to make their livings. Again, crap it may be, but they
are selling it, and someone is buying it. If you can do better, go right
ahead.
>
>Don't get me wrong - digitized photograph has it's place in this industry -
>just not when it is being used to "fool" viewers into thinking something
seen
>is better than actual reality.
I have not gotten you wrong at all. Once again, stop deflecting the blame
for being fooled away from those being fooled to those who have done nothing
to fool anyone. Being fooled is something only those in a state of
foolishness can experience, not something that the actions of someone else
are responsible for. You are being unjustifiably accusatory of people who
have done nothing to fool anyone. Sorry to tell it like it probably is, but
too bad if you have been so unaware of what has been going on in front of
your eyes and that you find it such a disturbing revelation that you have
not been fully understanding of what you have been seeing for years. In
other words, aren't you really just upset that YOU have been fooled?
If you believe Art is on the right track, then
>try and publish some of your work to Audobon magazine using his techniques!
Why should I do what Art Wolfe does, and if I did, why do you think I would
I be so stupid or have so little integrity as to try marketing something to
someone who has no use for it?
Just for the record, I really have no great interest in creating composite
or 'fantasy' imagery, but nonetheless, I am learning how to do just that,
because knowing how to use such tools is a valuable talent, and it will also
make me more proficient in my use thereof for 'traditional' purposes-
retouching, web site use preparation, non-chemical 'darkroom' work, and so
on. I am taking responsibilty for my own abilities to understand what is
going on in the fields I have interests and passions for. If using digital
techniques will aid my endeavors, I'll use them. If they happen to not be
the best tools for a job, I won't. They possess no 'qualities' or abilities
of their own to do anything to or for anyone.
Why don't you just concentate on doing the best you can at what interests
you the most, instead of criticizing and making absurd and unsupportable
statements like "I feel what he is doing is ruining wildlife photography for
the rest of us" about other people, people who are millions of times more
creative and successful than you will probably ever be, for doing what they
do and doing it well?
>
>
>Richard
>
>
>
Richard L. Fung
In article <6clveg$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Jeffrey Nutkowitz" <Optiqu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>See below, although I don't really know why I am even bothering here.
Jeffrey,
I really don't know why you bother - it seems as if you are trying to convince
the world that Wolfe and others are fine in what they are doing - I'm only
expressing my opinion that I think he is ruining it for everyone else by his
technique of digitally manipulating images to gain $$$. This is the bottom
line kid.
I stand by my opinion that this is not nature photgraphy as what is
'"expected" by the untrained layman looking at a photograph. Are we all
suppose to be like you in thinking? Do you assume that everyone know how to
publish and format a web site?
I have not been FOOLED and really don't care about competing my work against
someone else. I have been a nature photographer for five years and can be
proud of my own work without having to "prove" myself. So get off your high
horse and quit attacking people talking about intergity.
Another words, look at dealing with your own insecurity if you can't
respect my opinions and quit trying to influence my way of thinking! I stand
by my original posting and nothing you say will change it.
Richard
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6cslss$9cb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>In article <6clveg$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Jeffrey Nutkowitz"
<Optiqu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>I really don't know why you bother - it seems as if you are trying to
convince
>the world that Wolfe and others are fine in what they are doing
Nope, just putting the facts before others so that they can make their own
informed decisions. You can ignore the fact if you choose, but it won't make
them go away.
- I'm only
>expressing my opinion that I think he is ruining it for everyone else by
his
>technique of digitally manipulating images to gain $$$. This is the bottom
>line kid.
First, don't call me kid, DUDE, and second, your opinion is just that, your
opinion, based on a self-limited set of facts, only those of which you
choose to include in your little world, and excluding 99.99% of the rest of
them. There is no evidence that Art or anyone else is or has ruined anything
for anyone. Plenty of people are still shooting 'pure' nature photography
and selling and publishing it. Once again, if you have a problem with what
is being done, go out and do it better. If you really have what it takes,
you'd soon realize how baseless your opinion really is, or then again, maybe
not. Oh, and you have a problem with people making a living?? Go live in a
cave somewhere, eating nuts and berries, I think the quote goes. Once again,
you deride a few people who have made more positive contributions to the
world of art, nature photography, natural and cultural history photography,
education, environmental concerns, and more, than you could probably ever do
in 10 lifetimes, simply because they do something- only a part of the bigger
picture- for money? Get a life.
>
>I stand by my opinion that this is not nature photgraphy as what is
>'"expected" by the untrained layman looking at a photograph.
Oh, so now you are the hero of the common man too? OK, you do have a point
here, that the general public does 'expect' NATURE photography to be
representative of events and scenes that do or did exist or occurred, but
once again, however, that simply does not excuse someone from blatantly
mistaking a book such as Migrations for anything but what it plainly
declares itself to be- ART. You can argue till the cows come home that doing
nature photography can only occur without digital manipulation, but it will
get you nowhere. Doing nature photography using a filter, a certain film
choice, lens choice, or any other 'manipulation' is no more or less valid.
It's a no-win argument. Bag it. It's old and tired already. If you want to
do something for the common man, teach him how to make his own decisions
about such things, instead of just inflicting your opinions on him.
Are we all
>suppose to be like you in thinking?
Only to the extent that I am responsible for making informed decisions by
gathering the needed facts and using the appropriate skills of critical
thinking combined with real world experience, when doing so, as opposed to
simply being swayed by uninformed opinionating based on limited or no real
world experience or verifiable and or observable facts.
Do you assume that everyone know how to
>publish and format a web site?
What does this have to do with anything? An attempt at deflecting readers
attentions from the real facts here?
>
>I have not been FOOLED and really don't care about competing my work
against
>someone else. I have been a nature photographer for five years and can be
>proud of my own work without having to "prove" myself. So get off your
high
>horse and quit attacking people talking about intergity.
Mighty big words from someone who next states: "I stand
by my original posting and nothing you say will change it." I am not
attacking anyone, but I am readily pointing out to others the gaping holes
of logic and fact present in your uninformed opinions, so that others, who
may not have already formed opinions or made decisions for themselves will
be able to avoid being unduly influenced by your opinions, which are totally
one-sided, void of important and relevant facts, and reek of some sort of
artistic elitism or purism.
>
>Another words, look at dealing with your own insecurity if you can't
>respect my opinions and quit trying to influence my way of thinking!
Tis hard to influence something that is sorely lacking to begin with. You
are making the all to often mistake of confusing and misidentifying your
opinions as thoughts.
I stand
>by my original posting and nothing you say will change it.
My point exactly. You stated an irrelevant, unsupportable opinion, and you
obviously feel that it is of some value, expect no one to question it, feel
highly insecure yourself when someone does question it with logic and fact,
nor will you acknowledge that it is based on incomplete information and
personal bias, therefore rendering it of little to no use other than to your
satisfy your own ego and your need to simply have your bias inflicted on
others. I am not expecting to change you, but rather just making sure that
others are aware of what it is that you are actually doing or saying, so
that they may be able to avoid having their way of thinking influenced by
you and your opinions. In fact, you should sort of take your own advice from
above and "look at dealing with your own insecurity if you can't
respect FACTS and quit trying to influence my [and others] way of thinking!"
Ken Smith
Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote in message <6ct947$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6cslss$9cb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>>In article <6clveg$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Jeffrey Nutkowitz"
><Optiqu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Nope, just putting the facts before others so that they can make their own
>informed decisions. You can ignore the fact if you choose, but it won't
make
>them go away.
I for one, didn't read your message as fact, but rather a long winded
expression of your views. Ken
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Sorry, Ken, but I am challenging the original poster's statements like "I
feel what he is doing is ruining wildlife photography
photographic history, education, and accomplishments and presenting the
documented FACTS of those individuals' journeymanships. That is something
necessary in order to present a complete and comprehensive overview in which
to examine and expose the unsupportability of statements such as "I feel
what he is doing is ruining wildlife photography for the rest of us." I did
not fabricate the history and documented facts I presented, and my
statements based on such have absolutely nothing to do with my views on
anything other than the need to challenge uninformed opinionating. If you
can intelligently dispute anything that I have presented, feel free to do
so. If not, then I can only assume that you chose to simply ignore the
readily verifiable facts as presented in several posts, or that you just
really have nothing to say.
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Ken Smith wrote in message <6cthrq$g6...@ns4.quik.com>...
>
>Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote in message
<6ct947$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Richard L. Fung wrote in message <6cslss$9cb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>>>In article <6clveg$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Jeffrey Nutkowitz"
>><Optiqu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Nope, just putting the facts before others so that they can make their own
>>informed decisions. You can ignore the fact if you choose, but it won't
>make
>>them go away.
>
>
Grover Larkins
Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote:
> May I ask you (collectively) something? Is this 'news' some startling
> revelation to you? If you have had your finger even remotely on the pulse of
> what has been happening in the world of photography for the past 5 to 10
> years, you would realize that:
>
> This has been going on for DECADES to one extent or another. This
> 'discussion' is so OLD and TIRED already that it is disturbing that it is
> still such a 'controversy.'
It is not disturbing Jeff, it IS healthy and useful as a discussion. Currently
the trend amongst "Nature Photographers" is to disclose, "Captive" for zoo or
trained tame game farm animal, "Controlled Conditions" for baited or otherwise
controlled photos (bird feeders are an example), "Wild" for an animal free in
habitat of it's own choosing (notice that this includes visitors to the local
dump....), and "Digitally Manipulated" or "Computer Enhanced" for altered
images. Collages are still just that.
The point is that the word "nature" has inherent meaning whereas the word "art"
has a different inherent meaning. What Art Wolfe did in "Migrations" was to
attempt to play on both sides of the street -- like many other critters he got
caught in the middle and became "road kill" -- he was wrong, he has admitted
that and his reputation has suffered tremendously for it. This is as it should
be since he knowingly misled the purchaser of his book and abused the trust of
his client(s). The result of his transgression has been general suspicion about
Nature Photographers in general, and a feeling of resentment by many pros over
the tar and feathers which they have been awarded by the consumer as a result of
Mr. Wolfe's abuse of their trust.
There are many fine Artists and many fine Photographers, there are many fine
Photographic Artists. Interpretation, and vision are shared by both Photographic
Artists and Nature Photographers, manipulation of images and elements of the
images either pre or post acquisition is the defining difference between the
two.
Enjoy,
Grover
--
For pictures and information check out
http://www.fiu.edu/~larkinsg/nature_gallery_index.htm
Jeffrey Nutkowitz
Grover, greetings
I agree- it CAN be a healthy discussion, if the participants do not just
shout "The sky is falling" but rather engage in an informed, logical
dialogue.
Thanks for your informed input.
--
Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery
Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place'
http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN
"If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already
going."
Grover Larkins wrote in message <34F459FA...@eng.fiu.edu>...
>
>
>Jeffrey Nutkowitz wrote:
>
>> May I ask you (collectively) something? Is this 'news' some startling
>> revelation to you? If you have had your finger even remotely on the pulse
of
>> what has been happening in the world of photography for the past 5 to 10
>> years, you would realize that:
>>
>> This has been going on for DECADES to one extent or another. This
>> 'discussion' is so OLD and TIRED already that it is disturbing that it is
>> still such a 'controversy.'
>
Ken Wyatt
Grover Larkins wrote:
SNIP
> The point is that the word "nature" has inherent meaning whereas the word "art"
> has a different inherent meaning. What Art Wolfe did in "Migrations" was to
> attempt to play on both sides of the street -- like many other critters he got
> caught in the middle and became "road kill" -- he was wrong, he has admitted
> that and his reputation has suffered tremendously for it. This is as it should
> be since he knowingly misled the purchaser of his book and abused the trust of
> his client(s). The result of his transgression has been general suspicion about
> Nature Photographers in general, and a feeling of resentment by many pros over
> the tar and feathers which they have been awarded by the consumer as a result of
> Mr. Wolfe's abuse of their trust.
>
> There are many fine Artists and many fine Photographers, there are many fine
> Photographic Artists. Interpretation, and vision are shared by both Photographic
> Artists and Nature Photographers, manipulation of images and elements of the
> images either pre or post acquisition is the defining difference between the
> two.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Grover
Hi Grover,
I've been following this topic with interest (waiting for things to tone
down a bit!). I was at the NANPA Forum and I listened to the
explanations from Art and Frans and others on this issue, and I couldn't
help feeling a bit dismayed and let down a little following Art's
presentation and description of the manipulations that were made. I
agree there's a difference between art and pure photography, and I guess
I'm still a bit old fashioned in that I feel real nature photography
should be more "natural" without the added artifacts. I realize there's
a gray area when one brings up the use of color-modifying filters, etc.
The correct path, in my view, is to caption photos accurately and avoid
changing the actual WYSIWYG scenic/wildlife view so radically as to
completely depart from reality.
Regards to all,
Ken
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Wyatt WA6TTY
Colorado Springs, CO ke...@col.hp.com
Web: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/KenWyatt/Nature.htm
Member - NANPA (http://www.nanpa.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLODEN
<<I think the middle ground is that digital alterations should be disclosed.
One good example of abuse was that of a mother animal (I can't remember what
it was) shown with two young (one digitally added), but that particular
animal only has one offspring. I do find myself, sadly, more skeptical when
I see a fantastic image.
Visit my site.
Roger Spencer
http://www.ovis.net/~rspencer/>>
Greetings Roger,
I agree with your above statement that digital alterations should be disclosed.
And Jeff, The sky IS Falling!
Susie L. Oden
http://members.aol.com/SLODEN/home.html
shooter dan
So Art Wolfe changed images. Eugene Smith did also. But that still does
not make it right, especially since both "report" on the world and
supposedly present those reports in the form of images.
shooter dan
MikeY
SLODEN wrote:
I agree whole heartedly that the distinction between photography as art and
photography as documentation is sometimes out of focus. I hope Audobon has (or will
have) a clear editorial policy on how they will screen and indicate this, how do
other publications handle it?
MikeY
Don Baccus
In article <6d2dvd$ml2$1...@nebo.vii.com>,
shooter dan <sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
My word, Dan's found Usenet! Look out, Dan, you're a real computer
junky now! And you thought photo.net's bad...
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Don Baccus
> I agree whole heartedly that the distinction between photography as art and
>photography as documentation is sometimes out of focus. I hope Audobon has (or will
>have) a clear editorial policy on how they will screen and indicate this, how do
>other publications handle it?
Natural History captions captive shots as being so, and have published their policy
regarding when captive animal are acceptable (has to do with risk to wild animals for
those which are either very rare, impossible to photograph without severe disruption,
or both).
I don't know about their digital comp policy, but I doubt they accept them. Don't
submit without asking, if I'm right you'll probably be blacklisted if you don't tell
them.
They may relax for non-compositional (in the Wolfe sense of adding extra animals, or
showing a redtail hawk hunting grouper underwater) things like removal of a stray
stem of vegetation, but I don't know.
Richard L. Fung
>I don't know about their digital comp policy, but I doubt they accept them.
> Don't
>submit without asking, if I'm right you'll probably be blacklisted if you don't
> tell
>them.
>
>They may relax for non-compositional (in the Wolfe sense of adding extra
> animals, or
>showing a redtail hawk hunting grouper underwater) things like removal of a
> stray
>stem of vegetation, but I don't know.
No, they will not accept "non-compositional" photographs as these pictures do
NOT REFLECT the true nature of the scene. How can you have 500 zebras crammed
into a space of a 6x7 frame and expect us to believe this is reality? This is
the whole point of the discussion!
Richard
Don Baccus
In article <6d6uj6$ses$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Richard L. Fung <rf...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>They may relax for non-compositional (in the Wolfe sense of adding extra
>> animals, or
>>showing a redtail hawk hunting grouper underwater) things like removal of a
>> stray
>>stem of vegetation, but I don't know.
>No, they will not accept "non-compositional" photographs as these pictures do
>NOT REFLECT the true nature of the scene. How can you have 500 zebras crammed
>into a space of a 6x7 frame and expect us to believe this is reality? This is
>the whole point of the discussion!
I didn't state myself clearly. I meant "compositional" in the Wolfe sense
of adding extra animals, in other words a digital composition. By
"non-compositional" I meant something like removing a stray stem of
veg.
I know for certain they don't take the former, but I don't know about the
latter. I don't know about the latter case, and simply said so.
kingsnake
I have been lurking, watching this thread, and gritting my teeth.
I got myself in hot water in r.p.t.p., so I'm not trying to start a
flame war here; but, enough is ENOUGH with the dissing! This is
getting to be ridiculous!
Before I know it , people will be slamming Cole Weston for burning-in
and dodging his dad's "Eggplant".
I have to agree with Jeffrey Nutkowitz. Listen!
Let's kill this thread before it explodes.
Come Monday,
I'm gonna be away from the NG's for a little while, anyway -
that ought to make a few people [like eric_s] happy :-)
shooter dan wrote:
>
> So Art Wolfe changed images. Eugene Smith did also. But that still does
> not make it right, especially since both "report" on the world and
> supposedly present those reports in the form of images.
--
-John S. Bond <kingsnake> WA6FRN/6
kingsnake photography; a division of Gyro Gearloose Productions
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gyrgrls/
ICQ uin:4604100