I was just curious what people think about setting up nature shots, especially those of wildlife. I found this Gray Tree Frog but didn't like where he was at so I moved him to a much nicer place to get the shot. The only thing I did was move him to a new location, he posed on his own. I know some people are against moving debris or a twig here and there to help clean up an image so what about this?
I suppose I'm not a purist by nature. What is the difference between relocating a subject and adding a BG in PhotoShop? In the end its all about your vision anyway! What ever it takes to make an image, fill flash, reflectors, filters or any other devise you can conjure up. I carry a small pair of nippers and think nothing of removal of an object not to my liking I even deadhead spent blossoms to clear the way. It is all part of artistic creation and vision and thats my vote.
If you didn't harm the animal, then what ethical dillemmas are you worried about? Certain people have an issue with disclosure for professional purposes, but as for shooting the photos who's to say you can't shoot what pleases you?
I was once shooting some Bunch berry up in BC, Canada. I cleaned up the image, getting all the dead stuff surrounding the plant out of the frame. Another photog came up to me & chastised me for "altering" the image. I enplaned that probably I was not only making the image more photograph-able, but I was allowing the plant to grow better with out all of the choking dead debris surrounding it. He still let me have it. Upon his return from wherever he was, ( I was still there shooting) he the had the Gaul to ask if I minded if he shot an image of the plant. I looked at him like he had 3 eyes and asked why, if he felt so strongly would he want to shoot an "altered" image.
His answer was that as long as I "altered" it it was OK, but not him, since he didn't believe in doing it.
This will go in my forthcoming book of photographic weirdo's.
BOTTOM LINE PAUL: you did NOTHING wrong. Life's too short. If you didn't hurt the creature, or hurt the environment sleep easy. You have a great image!
JG
Posted by Robert Helms on July 7, 2006 at 12:27 AM
As long as one doesn't cause any harm to their subject I see no ethics issues. Relocating a tree frog to a more pleasing comp. is fine by me. However, if one were to relocate a subject by taking it home with them miles from it's original location I would have an issue with that.
I'd come to speculate that most images of insects, reptiles and just about any other creature one could move we see in magazines or books has been relocated to make photographing the subject easier as well as more pleasing for the viewer.
Discussion
5 repliesNikkor 105mm macro
f/11 @ 1/125s
I was just curious what people think about setting up nature shots, especially those of wildlife. I found this Gray Tree Frog but didn't like where he was at so I moved him to a much nicer place to get the shot. The only thing I did was move him to a new location, he posed on his own. I know some people are against moving debris or a twig here and there to help clean up an image so what about this?
Just curious,
Paul Wrobel
nice work Paul!
Jill :)
His answer was that as long as I "altered" it it was OK, but not him, since he didn't believe in doing it.
This will go in my forthcoming book of photographic weirdo's.
BOTTOM LINE PAUL: you did NOTHING wrong. Life's too short. If you didn't hurt the creature, or hurt the environment sleep easy. You have a great image!
JG
I'd come to speculate that most images of insects, reptiles and just about any other creature one could move we see in magazines or books has been relocated to make photographing the subject easier as well as more pleasing for the viewer.