The Ethics of Photography

[markdphotography]

Came across this article on the web the other day and although it was specifically about landscape, it does have a wider discussion area. Some interesting points made in it and like most articles - some I agree with and some I disagree with. I certainly agree we should not damage the environment or the landscape that we capture in any way although removing/moving a dead branch or fallen leaf, litter is not damaging it but is it ethical?
http://www.markd.photography/the-ethics-of-landscape-photography/

I don't agree with concept that adding a leaf or removing a dead branch is deceiving my viewers. It is no different to choosing the right lens or aperture as some photographers have already pointed out in the comments after the original post. Photography is art and whether it is nature, landscape, bird, portrait or tabletop photography, the artist (photographer) applies his artistic interpretation of the scene. With the ready availability of post production editing, I believe that most landscape photographs are "not real" - after all what is real? On saying that I would never go as far as cutting down a tree to improve the captured image. Most landscapes that I have seen are not the pristine perfectly composed images are mother nature has no concept of composition. IN the film days you either removed these items before exposure or they were cast in emulsion for the life of the negative/slide.


If Spencer's article intention was to create some thought and discussion about the subject - it has certainly achieved that and it made me think which can only be a good thing. Thought I would pass it on for other togs to think about and comment.

[jim]

Interesting article. I agree with every word, while at the same time think he's pretty much pissing in the wind.

[ricktas]

He kinda lost me at the 'do no harm' rule. If you are in a wilderness you can do harm simply by walking there. Underfoot at often tiny creatures (insects), and small plants (eg moss), that treading on can leave them either dead or close to it.

The 'do no harm' is part of the Hippocratic oath, that doctors no longer have to swear.

He talks about moving leaves or ice into a position for a good composition, but then says he does not do that anymore. So somewhere along the way, his moral view changed and suddenly he expects everyone else to do the same? You can bet that 20 years ago a photographer was lamenting the same, yet Mr Cox saw no reason twenty years ago to change his then view. But suddenly, because he has changed his view, he thinks everyone else should too? Oh the arrogance and grandiose self-importance you display Mr Cox.

What next ?? He will be lamenting his complete ignorance of abstract photography and how everyone should give up doing abstracts as he does not understand them!

Calling out other photographers for their choices, when he himself has admitted to doing the same things 'in the past'.

He makes good points, but he lost me with his opinion that his moral view is better than mine, or anyone elses. If he wants to 'not deceive his viewers' all well and good, but how dare he assume that I or my viewers see it as a deception in the first place. I am happy to admit that I have placed driftwood on a beach, removed a leaf, removed human garbage from a scene before I shot it.

My Cox would do well to remember he doth not create the rules!

[jim]

The only things he suggests others should do are "don’t cause lasting damage to the landscape, and don’t wilfully deceive your viewers." By which he appears to mean you should be willing to tell people what changes you've made to a scene in order to create your photo. I find it hard to see anything much wrong with these suggestions.

All that stuff about not moving leaves and so on are presented as personal choices he has made about his own photography, and effectively defended on that level.

[markdphotography]

Interesting article. I agree with every word, while at the same time think he's pretty much pissing in the wind.

Not sure that I agree with every word but some valid points were made. I think his objective was to get some photographers to adjust their moral compass, some will and some will not, some will need their ethics adjusted and some will not.

The part that is interesting (even reading the info in the replies) is that so many read the article and formed different opinions after reading the same article and we wonder why people see photography is different ways when it is less literal or defined.

- - - Updated - - -


He kinda lost me at the 'do no harm' rule. If you are in a wilderness you can do harm simply by walking there. Underfoot at often tiny creatures (insects), and small plants (eg moss), that treading on can leave them either dead or close to it.

...................................................

My Cox would do well to remember he doth not create the rules!

I respect your opinion and your views on the article Rick but see it differently. On saying that I also accept that just living on the planet is destroying it. I prefer the approach of most things in moderation, so I do my bit here and there and that applies to both photography and life. I certainly have moved leaves and dead branches as I stated, even walked of a defined track if I have seen some fungi but watched where I walk.

The two thiings I get out of this are:

1: the pursuit of the perfect image with no flaws and perfect composition - a product of digital photography I feel
2: the popularity of the super saturated pristine landscape that some need to blow up to hang on their walls in a city

Certainly an interesting point of view - like most images.

- - - Updated - - -


The only things he suggests others should do are "don’t cause lasting damage to the landscape, and don’t wilfully deceive your viewers." By which he appears to mean you should be willing to tell people what changes you've made to a scene in order to create your photo. I find it hard to see anything much wrong with these suggestions.

All that stuff about not moving leaves and so on are presented as personal choices he has made about his own photography, and effectively defended on that level.

I do have a tendency to read, assess and decide so for me I tend to agree with you jim :2encou:

[ricktas]

I respect your opinion and your views on the article Rick but see it differently.

I was hoping someone would post something like that.

I agree, respect others views. The issue I have with Mr Cox is that he is saying we should all tell viewers if we removed something, or added something. That is not respecting others views. He is telling us what we should do, like it is some rule.

I am not disagreeing with his opinions, but on his belief that we should all adhere to his requirement that we tell everyone what we might have removed or added to a scene. As photographers we are each quite capable of doing whatever we want, we do not need Mr Cox telling us what is acceptable.

[markdphotography]

I was hoping someone would post something like that.

I agree, respect others views. The issue I have with Mr Cox is that he is saying we should all tell viewers if we removed something, or added something. That is not respecting others views. He is telling us what we should do, like it is some rule.

I am not disagreeing with his opinions, but on his belief that we should all adhere to his requirement that we tell everyone what we might have removed or added to a scene. As photographers we are each quite capable of doing whatever we want, we do not need Mr Cox telling us what is acceptable.

That certainly is not practical to add that sort of information to each photo and most viewers would not be interested. That may be Mr Cox's intention although if you read some of his replies to the post he does not seem to be promoting that POV. It did make me think if I have crossed the line and I have no doubt it depends on who draws the line but it did make when reading it and it will make me think when taking images in the future.

It also made me think about the many times when a photographer was asked about the image and the replies comes "little or no post processing" but no mention of the pre exposure setting up.

In some instances I have made comment about that strategically placed leaf moved from another spot in the stream when it appears obvious and especially if someone asks - I guess another point is people don't ask that just make assumptions..

I am always amazed by these photographs of pristine perfectly composed landscapes that do not have one thing out of place and have tags about "no post exposure editing" and must be captured by a new style of camera.

[Tannin]

I think you can see this as akin to literature. Imagine that instead of a camera your tool of choice was a typewriter. Given the choice, would you be writing fact or fiction?

The writer takes the view that photography (at its best) is as factual as possible. Others take the view that it's a form of fiction. That's fine, we all have different views, and a good thing too.

Me, I don't mind fictional photography at all. It's a perfectly valid thing to do, though I seldom not care for it either to look at or to make. I don't much care for rugby or chess or wine or many kinds of music either, but that's OK too. We all have different likes and interests. But I have an intense dislike of photography which sets out to tell lies about the natural world by pretending fiction is fact so as to delude people. Fiction is fine but I hate lies. They are completely different things.

But it's very hard to tell the difference sometimes, and it is often a matter of degree. It is so, so easy to bend things a little bit: to place a leaf, to clone out a stick, saturate a sunset, air-brush away a blemish, whiten someone's teeth ..... where do you stop? There is no golden rule, you just have to make the best judgments you can according to your own conscience. The key it seems to me is to be true to the spirit of the truth of your subject.

This is why I have never been able to take decent pictures of a place which is strange to me. Until I've been in a district for long enough to have some understanding of it - this can be days or much much longer depending on how different it is to places I know already - I can't photograph it. It's disrespectful, and the results are never any good. I imagine portrait painters (even ones as bad at portraits as I am at landscapes) don't pick up a brush until they have got to know their subject either.

Would I sneer at someone who produces technically perfect, airbrushed, filtered, saturated, visually faultless photographs which glamourise the subject unrealistically and leave me cold?

Certainly not! I wouldn't dream of it.

(I usually just laugh and point.)

[ricktas]

Agree Tony, though rarely do you see an author attempt to pass their fiction off as non-fiction. Which I guess is the gist of what Mr Cox is saying.

But I also do not think Mr Cox gets to set the rules that the rest of us have to play by. And that is my concern with his approach. He wants all photographers to do as he says. Which makes me wonder who died and made him the photography rule god. And truly they are not really rules anyway, more a personal moral or ethical decision, that each of us is quite capable of making, without Mr Cox telling us where we should stand on editing and disclosure.

[Mark L]

I'm glad the article was about landscape photography.:)
I hope Mr Cox doesn't take up bird photography. He will just end up being disappointed and going back to landscapes.

I will know go and remove all the perches I have placed around our local wetlands that weren't placed there by nature. The birds use them now though, which is why I did it. :)

[Hamster]

Oh my goodness. He moved a leaf in his misspent youth and now repents. Most of the time it's the viewers own assumptions that lead them to feel mislead when something different turns out to be the case. Unless the photographer has said, this scene is exactly as found and is presented as such (and here are another 50 of varying angles to you can see I haven't missed anything important out), then don't assume that is the case, and you won't have to feel misled.
For the record, don't assume any of my photos document your reality.

[markdphotography]

Mark L

It could well have been about bird photography. I remember the case of a local bird of prey photographer up here that had some fantastic shots of sea eagles with fish in their tallons, water drops splashing, wings fully stretched, clean backgrounds. Everyone marvelled at the work and how spectacular it was and he was asked to show more of his work. After a while people started to ask questions on the web and at functions where he did presentations. He did not give much away but stories came out that he used a canoe to row out on a local lake with his camera and captured the bird in flight. The tog was not very forthcoming on the other detail of that he threw dead fish in the lake and positioned himsellf to catch the action until someone noticed that one image the fish was upside down indicating it was dead when taken by the bird. Photography is such a visual art and good photographers try to make the image look natural and realistic.

In essence the same rules could apply to bird photography?

The part that is not told in most photographs is the planning, research, time and effort to get an image and the perfection that some togs go to get that 1 image. I had a freind (who introduced me to photography that has now passed away) and one of his passions was bird photography (probably why I don't take many bird shots). He was a large person (around 130 kgs) and would walk through the forest looking for bird nest after studying the habitat of the bird. Find a nest, set up a ladder with guy wires and a dummy wood camera at the top so the bird got used to it. He would also set up a hide using a wool bale and 4 star pickets. Once the bird got used to the dummy camera he would replace it with his Pentax LX, sit in the hide for hours with binoculars and with a cable release capture the images on slide film (well before digital). He was very good and entered amateur comps and was rated in the top 10 in the world based on his results. Unfortunately on one of those outings he was bitten by a white spider which curtailed his bird photography due to the septic bite sight.

The reason for the long story is that no one questioned his process as they could see the results on a slide (impossible to edit easily) but the digital evolution has changed all that and people still treat a photograph as an accurate record of a place and time.

Alex
All valid pooints and not anissue for you and me but perception is reality to a lot of people. They still believe that what they see is real. I don't think there is a solution to this but it is something to be mindful about as ethics is only generally discussed when it has been broken. Talking about this may help others with personal ethical dilemmas.

[Lance B]

Hmm. I disagree about the Sea Eagle and the dead fish being staged and therefore wrong and that he needed to admit that he planted the fish. The fact is, the Eagle still got the fish and the photos were still the action of the Eagle getting the fish, regardless of whether the fish was planted or not. Don't forget, Sea Eagles will also grab a dead fish in the wild as well so, it's not out of the ordinary that this would happen. So, I see no problem with what the guy did at all and he does not need to admit to anything in this case as it's about capturing the action and capturing the Eagle, not whether the fish was dead or not. At the end of the day, Sea Eagles capture fish all the time and how that was achieved for the photo is irrelevant. Basically, you are saying that unless the guy stakes out an area for days if not weeks on end to hopefully be in the right place at the right time to get a Sea Eagle capturing a fish then it can't be acceptable? The chances of being at the right place at the right time/right light/right angle/close enough to get that action would have to be measured in the thousands to one. All he is doing is speeding up the process, I see no issue with that. It is the end result that is important, not how it was done.

Throwing a few seeds to attract some seed eating birds is OK with me as well. It's just hurrying up the process of getting a photo that may have taken months to get in the natural environment. I think you'll find that many of the best photographs of many birds have used enticements of some sort or whatever. Even the fact of using a bird hide could be construed as introducing an unnatural way of getting the photo if you want to take it to the nth degree. Again, it's the result that matters, not how you got there.

I think the problem is that some seem to want photography to be purely about a completely factual record as if it is some sort of forensic proof of the scene or event and some think that photography is completely all about art. If it is about a crime or proof of an event, then yes it needs to be an unaltered photo, but isn't that for police forensics, surveillance and journalism etc? On the other side of the coin, I see no problem with altering a landscape to make it look good because, at the end of the day, isn't that what we are trying to achieve, a great *photo*, not necessarily a forensic record of a scene? I also see no need to have to admit to what you did to achieve that photo because that is part of the photographers ability. I also do not think that actual taking of the photo is the be-all-and-end-all of photography, as the digital "dark room" is also just as important as the film dark room was in the days of film. Some would be surprised as to how much manipulation went on by the top photographers in the dark room in the days of film. However, we must remember that they had to "get it right" in the camera in the film days as they had less ability to do it in the dark room compared to the digital era. Whatever the case, it is the end result that is the most important thing not how it was done and that applies in film as it does in digital photography.

As for affecting nature whilst taking photos. My personal view is to avoid any destruction or harm of flora and fauna as best you can. Unfortunately, much of the time you cannot avoid treading on plants etc when traversing certain areas, but I think we just need to be cautious and do as little harm as possible. Let's not forget that larger animals also go about their day treading on plants etc. Not only that, but they eat plants and other animals and thus have an impact on the landscape - kangaroos etc defoliating complete areas of vegetation etc. Humans are part of the system, we are not aliens.

[feathers]

Agree with your thoughts Lance:nod: Cheers.

[ricktas]

They still believe that what they see is real. I don't think there is a solution to this but it is something to be mindful about as ethics is only generally discussed when it has been broken. Talking about this may help others with personal ethical dilemmas.

The problem with this is that ethics and morals are not a set standard that apply to everyone, or often even a small group of people. Everyone has their own personal moral beliefs and ethical principles. In many cases they can align with others, but when they do not, one view is not necessarily the right one, simply because more people believe it, or the dominant group, or individual hold that belief.

People should be free to express their moral or ethical belief. The issue happens when people like Mr Cox, start telling everyone else that their viewpoint is wrong and they should do as he says. This attempted suppression of others beliefs is not beneficial and can actually be harmful.

As Lance B; stated above, this is not forensics. This is photography as Art. Tell me another form of Art where illusion and manipulation do not come into play, to affect the audience or viewer? Mr Cox is of the wrong opinion.. in my opinion.

[John King]

Thanks for this link, Mark.

While I tend to agree with the author, how long did it take him to come to some understanding of our ethical and moral responsibility towards the planet, our fellow denizens and his audience?

Most of us have these things worked out before we leave our twenties IMO.

His reasoning is why I only very rarely edit my photographs, but reserve the right to arrange myself around the subject and choose my lens (etc) to represent my view of it. Visual communication ...

We should all treat each other, and our entire environment, with dignity, courtesy and respect - and ethically, of course.

[jim]

It's kind of interesting how different people will read the same passage and see entirely different things.

I read the article as almost bending over backwards not to be prescriptive (except about things like not doing lasting harm to the environment in pursuit of a photograph, which I would have guessed would be mostly uncontroversial) and not to offend people who see things differently. In fact I even thought he might have been more vigorous in defending his personal approach, which I think is grounded in an attempt to capture, rather more than to create, and which I personally tend to share.

I honestly didn't see any attempt to suppress anyone else's beliefs, nor to tell everyone else that their viewpoint is wrong.

I figure writing about this stuff is tricky. Having read quite a bit by Spencer Cox, I've generally perceived him as a reasonable and pleasant fellow. Is this colouring my perception of what he wrote?

[Tannin]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

[ricktas]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

There is no correct thing... it is whatever the photographer decides. What Mr Cox might decide to do, is place a leaf over Miranda's bits.. and then tell everyone he did it. But that does not make his way the only way.

[Tannin]

But there is a correct thing! It's f/8 at 1/500th!

[John King]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

Take a photo of both, then ponder the moral dilemma as to your legal position of not being required to throw a life preserver to a drowning man, but having an ethical but unenforceable duty to do so ...

Perhaps read John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill's essay "On Liberty" to further inform your thoughts about navigating this moral dilemma ... ;) :rolleyes:.

[richtbw]

Cheers Rick. But who says it's not forensics? That's just an opinion. Others may (and in fact do) disagree. It is every bit as much an attempted suppression of beliefs to say "anything goes and that's the way it should be" as it is to say what Mr Cox says.

Put it this way:

Donald Trump meets up with Miranda Kerr to open a new luxury marina. They tour it in a small boat. Just at the wrong moment, a freak wave comes along. Trump is washed overboard, soaking his expensive suit and rinsing the orange dye out of his hair. He will probably drown if you don't jump in to rescue him. Meanwhile, Miranda Kerr manages to keep her feet but suffers an unexpected and very revealing wardrobe malfunction. You are the only photographer there. What is the correct thing in this circumstance?

Hope the battery is fully charged, there is enough space on the memory card and you got the right lens fitted. :tog:

[feathers]

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't take any pics:)

[Mark L]

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't take any pics:)

I don't mind if people take photos of me??

[markdphotography]

I have been offline for a few days setting up a new PC and modem and this discussion seems to be evolving and a couple of comments

Lance B - Hmm. I disagree about the Sea Eagle and the dead fish being staged and therefore wrong and that he needed to admit that he planted the fish. I was not making a decision one way or the other but justy giving an example of ethics and bird photography. On saying that it depends on the context but generally nature and bird photography are seen as natural images and one of those images would not be accepted in a "Nature" competition/exhibition. Mind you he was showing it in a pictorial context but when asked about the process, indicating the circumstances is being truthful/ethical. You do not have to go into in depth detail but if someone asks? This can also be assocaiated with the recent political discussion and the "pub test" scenario. Most of the MP did not think what they did was wrong, they deserved these privileges for all the work they do and the low pay they get - just that the public did not agree. Sometimes justice has to be seen to be done. I remember being taught ethics in my uni degree and the teacher said - if the true story appeared on the front page of the paper, what would the average person think after they read the story. Photographer captures stunning images of sea eagle catching fish in the wild OR Photographer uses canoe and dead fish to capture stunning images of eagle?

Jim - "It's kind of interesting how different people will read the same passage and see entirely different things." Agree with you I did not think he was telling people this is the new law - just quoting from his self learning and hoping that others would agree.

Rick - "There is no correct thing... it is whatever the photographer decides." I disagree and there are lots of examples of the the wrong thing. One that always comes to mind is the great photographer Frank Hurley (albeit a news photographer) but the same point needs to be asked - how far do you go to get that shot.

I am not on a moral crusade here but just discussing the subject is a good thing. If you would like to read more about this subject have a look at https://photographylife.com/the-importance-of-ethics-in-photography . Although ethics is very personal it does have a group/global expectation that we should consider.

[ameerat42]

The only things he suggests others should do are "don’t cause lasting damage to the landscape, and don’t wilfully deceive your viewers." By which he appears to mean you should be willing to tell people what changes you've made to a scene in order to create your photo. I find it hard to see anything much wrong with these suggestions.

All that stuff about not moving leaves and so on are presented as personal choices he has made about his own photography, and effectively defended on that level.

This is about the nub of it.

[Steve Axford]

"wilfully deceiving your viewers" takes a bit of thought. It very much depends on your viewers. With eagles catching fish it depends on whether the audience thinks the eagle is catching live fish in the wild or doesn't care. If it was in the cinema, then belief would probably be suspended, but not always. With nature docos it is a fine line. I have heard of cinematographers tieing fish to a plank, so they stay upright, so the audience can't see that it is a dead fish. That can, of course, be found out and then there is a fuss and the filmer can never do that again and probably loses business becausye of it. in an area as obscure as fungi time lapse (my own specialty), almost anything goes. Not because there is any attempt to deceive, but in an attempt to make it look as real as possible. Much of it is real, but you can't take a two week time lapse in a real forest because in reality things change to much. I think you need to look to your audience and ask, " would the audience be upset if they knew what I did?" If you feel you need to keep things secret, then the answer to that is probably yes. That's not to say there is anything wrong with what you do, just that your audience thinks, rightly or wrongly that it is "unethical".

[markdphotography]

"wilfully deceiving your viewers" takes a bit of thought. It very much depends on your viewers. With eagles catching fish it depends on whether the audience thinks the eagle is catching live fish in the wild or doesn't care. If it was in the cinema, then belief would probably be suspended, but not always. With nature docos it is a fine line. I have heard of cinematographers tieing fish to a plank, so they stay upright, so the audience can't see that it is a dead fish. That can, of course, be found out and then there is a fuss and the filmer can never do that again and probably loses business becausye of it. in an area as obscure as fungi time lapse (my own specialty), almost anything goes. Not because there is any attempt to deceive, but in an attempt to make it look as real as possible. Much of it is real, but you can't take a two week time lapse in a real forest because in reality things change to much. I think you need to look to your audience and ask, " would the audience be upset if they knew what I did?" If you feel you need to keep things secret, then the answer to that is probably yes. That's not to say there is anything wrong with what you do, just that your audience thinks, rightly or wrongly that it is "unethical".

All valid points Steve and a difficult dilemma which there is no simple answer but worth thinking about. The article stopped and made me think, review and assess. I certainly have removed fungi from the rainforest location and propped them up on a log or even a table to get a better POV and make the photography easier. You try to amke the subject look like it is in the natural environment and to some that would be unethical but for me it is more practical and shows the subject off better visually.

The eagle scenario is still a great picture, bird in flight, fish in tallons, high degree of difficulty but not telling the viewer about the general details when asked is "wilfully decieving the viewers". Presented in a pictorial manner without any supporting detail and letting the viewer form an opinion is probably not unethical from the photographer's perspective but some viewers may have a different opinion.

Sometimes I refer to a dictionary to better clarify the subject - one site suggests - "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity. " But the challenging is determining what action is ethical/unethical and that is where it is very individual.

Another site has a bigger picture at http://www.ethics.org.au/about/what-is-ethics - How should I live?

"Ethical beliefs shape the way we live – what we do, what we make and the world we create through our choices. Ethical questions explore what Aristotle called 'a life well-lived'.

Ethics isn't just an exercise for philosophers or intellectuals. It is at the core of everyday life.

We ask ethical questions whenever we think about how we should act. Being ethical is a part of what defines us as human beings. We are rational, thinking, choosing creatures. We all have the capacity to make conscious choices – although we often act out of habit or in line with the views of the crowd. We could all make conscious and conscientious ethical choices if we wanted to."

All this reading has helped me assess what I personally consider is ethical in mt actions but it has come no closer to clarifying the ethical beliefs of others.

[John King]

Mark, the most succinct definition that I have come across of what ethics is would be "Ethics is the systematic study of what we ought to do".

[Steve Axford]

Mark, Ill just stick to ethics in photography as the wider subject can get a bit big for online conversation. In photography, as in life, you get a reputation for what you do. That reputation will depend on A- you, and B- the people you interact with (your audience). What repution do you want and what do your audience expect? Sometimes a photographer is just about producing beautiful pictures and there is no attempt to be "real". I have seen some photographers produce some stunning images like this. Usually there is no attempt to hide that the images are creations. Why would you?
Sometimes someone like Frank Hurley will make composite images where they could not find a way to take a "real" image. I don't have a problem with that either, as there was probably no other way and his photos carried a lot of meaning. i usually don't like it when people post photos that are assumed to be real and are not. I feel that I have been lied to, but that's just me.
I am currently on the Atherton Tableland at a place called Chambers Wildlife Lodge. It's a great spot that has night viewing of Sugar Gliders, etc. I have some good shots and I could post them with a variety of captions. Some would imply nothing other than it was a Sugar Glider (could be in a zoo), some might say wild Sugar Glider in Atherton rainforest (implying she was truly wild) and some could say Sugar Glider at Chambers Wildlife viewing platform. Which should I use? The Gliders are habituated to people and are fed with syrup. Does that matter? Probably not as few people would assume that you stumbled across a wild Glider in the forest who then sat around to have her photo taken. Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people. I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals, but it probably doesn't matter too much as most people don't assume that photos are of truly wild animals anyway, just not captive ones.
If you sell photos that is different and the audience becomes much more important. In general it is wise not to try to deceive your audience, at least not in areas where they do not want to be deceived. That could cost you your business.

[Mark L]

Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people. I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals, but it probably doesn't matter too much as most people don't assume that photos are of truly wild animals anyway, just not captive ones.

Don't count me in there.
I can hand feeds some king parrots, some red-rumps let me get close because of supplied food and it's just not a challenge to take photos of them.
I do enjoy their company over a cuppa though.

[Tannin]

Top post, Steve, I agree fully. All except for this bit ....


Many, even most, bird photos are of birds that are fed or at least live close to people.

... which is complete nonsense. Most bird photographers will, of course, pick up the easy money (so to speak) when a tame bird presents itself. But the vast majority of my bird photographs - and I'm willing to be real money, also the vast majority of the photographs presented by other serious bird photographers here and elsewhere - are wild creatures captured by our own hard work and skill. We all have our own views on what is "fair play" and what is not. For example, I do not use artificial call playback. I'm happy to attract a bird with sound, but only if I can make that sound myself, with my own skill. I don't use recordings or machines for it. On the other hand, there are doubtless other things I do from time to time that another bird photographer would not do. We each make our own judgments about what's ethical and (I hope) mostly stick to them. I defy anyone to accumulate pictures of .... oh I don't know .... maybe 400-odd species of Australian bird (I don't keep count, but that seems a reasonable estimate) just by frequenting campgrounds and feeding the backyard sparrows.


I know that it is much more difficult to photograph truly wild animals

Indeed it is. But it is also much more rewarding. That's why we do it.

Edit: Laughter! Steve's post has sat there unloved for days, and then, at the very same moment, Mark and I both reply to it. :lol: (I started writing my reply before Mark posted, but I type slowly, so a genuine cross-post.)

[J.davis]

I use two methods of bird photography,
wait and hope, and,
stroll and hope.
Some days are better than others.

[Steve Axford]

Sorry. I seemed to have stirred up a birds nest. :) Maybe with birds it is different, but for animals it is certainly true. There are very few photographs of truly wild gorillas. If you go to Rwanda or Uganda, you see habituated gorillas (habituated to people that is, and that doesn't mean fed by people). The wild ones would never let a person get close enough for a cute photo or any photo. I suspect that photographing truly wild eagles is just as difficult. Almost all are habituated to people and some rely on people for food, even if it is road kill. I think we kid ourselves that we photograph truly wild things when we probably don't. But I really don't know, so .... it probably doesn't matter.

[markdphotography]

Sorry. I seemed to have stirred up a birds nest. :)

They are a sensitive flock the birders are for sure and you know what they say "birds of a feathers stick together" ;)

[Mark L]

They are a sensitive flock the birders are for sure and you know what they say "birds of a feathers stick together" ;)

That's actually not true.
I know birders on AP that use mince meat to attract bird of prey and use calls on their phones to bring birds closer for photos. Where are they sticking together here Mark? They haven't commented regarding ethics??

[markdphotography]

That's actually not true.
I know birders on AP that use mince meat to attract bird of prey and use calls on their phones to bring birds closer for photos. Where are they sticking together here Mark? They haven't commented regarding ethics??

They are a different flock and are sticking toegether by not getting involved.:lol:

[ameerat42]

Birds getting unsolicited calls on mobiles, eh?!!!

Boy, that's a bit much:rolleyes: If you ask me, they should complain to the
Telecommunications Ombirdsman:nod:

[Mark L]

They are a different flock and are sticking toegether by not getting involved.:lol:

And now for you comment on the ethics of this.;):p

[markdphotography]

And now for your comment on the ethics of this.;):p

John King stated earlier - Mark, the most succinct definition that I have come across of what ethics is would be "Ethics is the systematic study of what we ought to do".

As I said earlier I am not on a moral crusade here just discussing the subject. Although ethics is very personal it does have a group/global expectation. As birder, you are more qualifed to make comment on this :th3:.

[Tannin]

Actually, eagles are amongst the easiest of birds to photograph, simply because they are so big. They have predictable habits and you don't have to get very close. Presumably elephants are easier than shrews, too. I'm not saying eagles are easy, just that they are easier than many of the smaller species.

As a matter of interest, it is quite extraordinary how many well-meaning bystanders insist on telling you at length and in detail of some place where an eagle hangs out, apparently convinced that a photograph of an eagle must be the ultimate unreachable Holy Grail of bird photography. It isn't. (Possibly you get people helpfully explaining where you can find Amanita muscaria instead, imagining that you just can't wait to see such a rare and special thing.) One generally picks up photographs of eagles as accidental byproducts while looking for something else. (However, this is not to neglect the outstanding specialised raptor work of people like David Hollands, which is the result of extraordinary patience and effort and anything but accidental.) These friendly time-wasters seem to imagine that people like me want to drive all the way across a continent in order to look at a common species more easily found in one's own back yard. But they are nice people and they mean well, so you just stand there nodding and making polite noises at random until they stop.

I'm reminded of a day in South-west Western Australia years ago. I was walking along a track which follows the shore of a large artificial lake, on my way back from a little spot a short distance upstream where interesting small birds liked to drink and bathe. (Small birds dislike large bodies of water; they don't feel safe drinking from anything large enough to contain a snake. And they like nearby cover because in open areas they are vulnerable to raptors.) I'd been after a number of Western Australian specials, small things you don't see every day. As I walked back, carrying my tripod and lenses, the lake was on my right: a big, uninteresting expanse of open water, largely deserted except for a few common ducks and two or three swans, all a very long way away and in harsh, unpleasant light. Along came a pair of cyclists, father and son. As they went past me, Dad sung out "Did you get the Black Swan?!", speaking as if a long-distance shot in harsh, flat light of possibly the most easily photographed bird in Australia would be something very special for me. What can you say? "Yes" would be a lie. "No" would simply encourage him to stop and point it out to me. "Well, no, but I'm actually interested in something else more interesting, such as Red-eared Firetails and White-breasted Robins" was a bit too complicated under the circumstances, but he deserved a friendly answer and I was stuck for words for a moment. (Yes, me.) By the time I'd thought of something to say, the two of them were passing out of earshot. As they disappeared around a corner I heard dad remark to son "Hmmph. Doesn't speak English."


I think we kid ourselves that we photograph truly wild things when we probably don't.

You need to get out somewhere with a good bird phototographer. And not to the sort of place one usually takes beginners to. On this, you are simply wrong.

There are essentially two ways to get close to birds. One is to hide yourself so well that the bird does not know that you are there. This is a technique one uses, but generally speaking not all that often.

The other (more common) method is to accept that the birds always know that you are there, so you have to persuade them that you are unimportant and can be ignored. This is called fieldcraft. It's all about being inconspicuous, unobtrusive, non-threatening, boring, safe. It varies with the species, the terrain, the vegetation, the light, even the time of day. If you want to take good bird pictures, you must become good at it. Hint: it's a bit harder than sneaking up on a mushroom.

[Steve Axford]

I was probably a little harsh in my judgement as there are many cases where the birds are actually wild. I did say that "many, if not most" bird photos are not of wild birds and I still think that is likely to be true. But, as you point out, there is a sizeable minority of people who pride themselves of finding wild and elusive birds to photograph. I even do it myself at times, though fungi usually gets priority. One thing that muddies the water with bird photography some people's tendency to hide how they got the picture. I remember a case where someone used a fish tank with fish in it, set up in a stream to attract kingfishers which were then photographed, apparently in the wild. Others have, apparently, really done this in the wild. I think this gets back to the ethics question. It is not whether you do these clever things like set up fish tanks, but whether you admit to it. It degrades the efforts of the "ethical" bird photographer, like yourself. Nothing we can do about this unfortunately. We live in a world where lying is sanctioned at the highest levels.
Fungi photography is easy in the respect that they don't move. The challenge is, as with bird photography, getting a clear shot, of a good specimen, in good light.

[markdphotography]

Bird photography is not easy and no more is fungi as both of them can creep up an you and you will go straight past either of them without you even knowing.

From my experience they both have their own idiosyncracies and passionate photographers from either fungi or bird photography will protect the Art & Craft of their style.

Speaking of Art & Craft of photography, that reminds me of an article I read recently that I will post soon for discussion now that we have the ethics of photography sorted :lol::lol::lol: