[WPRESTO]

I vividly recall the story of a photographer down on his belly photographing a rare little plant flowering in front of a retreating glacier, the only place where the species grows. When he stood up, he purposely stepped on the plant and crushed it to oblivion, twisting his foot as if stuffing out a cigarette to insure no one else could duplicate his picture. All kinds of people, and some can afford fine camera equipment.

[wombat2go]

I searched "photographer code of ethics"
There are a number of publications by the various bodies in USA, in the various fields including nature photography.

The British one is quite detailed and refers to the laws about it.
It also refers to "tidying up" a nature scene before photography . But I don't think I agree with that either.

[disord3r]

It also refers to "tidying up" a nature scene before photography . But I don't think I agree with that either.

If the "tidying up" part referred to potentially making a nature scene look less natural than it would have been without such tidying up, I have the same view when it comes to post-processing beyond simple sharpening and color correction. Nothing wrong with wanting your shots to look as good as they can be.

[WPRESTO]

I've argued with people about what can be and is done in PP. "Purists" want no PP. The picture must be perfect when the shutter button is pressed, and left absolutely untouched. I say nonsense. Look at the great masters of B&W photography. Do you really think that while transitioning from negative to print there was no cropping, burning, dodging, bleaching, no selection of different developers - both film and paper - to get different effects? No toning, vignetting? No selection of different enlarging papers for surface texture or tone or different contrast for pity sake? For some B&W masters, combining parts of multiple negatives into a single final image was routine and being good at such manipulation a sign of a skilled darkroom technician. The "Purist" attitude toward color images is really a leftover from the days of chrome/slide film, when doing anything with an image after the initial processing (most commonly by a commercial lab), even so elementary an adjustment as cropping, was extremely difficult or impossible. Now we can adjust anything - individual colors, even select out a background and blur it to the desired degree. And we should turn our backs on such easily available technology? Might as well advocate we should all sensitize our own glass plates.

[pathdoc]

Now we can adjust anything - individual colors, even select out a background and blur it to the desired degree. And we should turn our backs on such easily available technology?

We should be honest with ourselves and our audience as to when the resultant image stops being a photograph and starts becoming visual art.

[WPRESTO]

We should be honest with ourselves and our audience as to when the resultant image stops being a photograph and starts becoming visual art.

This could become a deep philosophical discussion. Photography may be seen as a record of reality as it is, no manipulation other that selecting what to photograph, what to include or exclude when framing. On the other hand, photography, like pencils, or oils, or pastels, is a means to an end, the end being an image worth seeing. If something can be done to make that image better, more striking, closer to the photographer's vision, why not? Essentially every image I post here has some manipulation, adjustments to cropping, saturation, contrast, exposure, sometimes even using a magical tool to eliminate something - an electrical wire, a blade of grass in front on an animal's face, a person in the background of a nature shot. Should I list all of these each time I post? Does an artist list on the back of a painting: there was a clothes line here that I did not include, the left side of the tree was actually withered but I made it look healthy, the horse was actually filthy with mud but I cleaned it up, the subject would not smile but I painted smile anyway, her hair was actually brunette but I preferred a redhead, the colors were far more muted, but I had this wonderful new blue paint, this is actually a composite of four different places, etc. etc. I remember looking at a huge canvas of a satyr being dragged into a pool by four nymphs (satyrs cannot swim - how do people know that?). Should the artist have stated openly: satyrs do not exist, that just my neighbor in a costume, and the four nymphs are actually all the same model (correct, easily seen in the painting), and they were painted at different times and a the satyr was also painted at a different time, and the forest and pool don't exist at all, they are just my imagination, so this scene as presented never actually happened. It's nonsense. If you want to be a purist and never change a thing after pressing the shutter release, great! More power to you, but I expect the same acceptance of both my pictures and those of all others photographers and have no use for "if you don't do it my way, or don't admit that you haven't, it's wrong."

[mohb]

so the next 18 year old photographer will feel he is just being
" rude and thoughtless and a bit stupid.

Are the rest of us absolved from any blame?

[swanlefitte]

There are plenty of threads on pp ethics. Let's let this be about some aspect of nature.
If that story about the glacial bloom is true it's heart breaking but I suspect it's fabricated. They now think the dodo was killed by rats being introduced and not so much by sailors themselves. Good story on that recently.

[mattb123]

If that story about the glacial bloom is true it's heart breaking but I suspect it's fabricated.

It does have all the makings of an urban legend designed to enrage. I also suspect it is either an embellishment or entirely made up.

[WPRESTO]

It does have all the makings of an urban legend designed to enrage. I also suspect it is either an embellishment or entirely made up.

Of course, I am not sure. I remember it from way back, maybe the 1970's, in some publication, probably a photo magazine.

[csa]

Sorry: the rest of your quote (below) was a bit inflammatory to me when I was trying to say such conduct by a photographer is "unacceptable" :
You added: "still it was rude and thoughtless and a bit stupid.", which I thought was out of line.

I feel you add it as an afterthought to your opinion that the park is undisturbed by such behaviour, so the next 18 year old photographer will feel he is just being
" rude and thoughtless and a bit stupid." which I think is an understatement of such conduct.

If you damage something in a park do you think you are just being " rude and thoughtless and a bit stupid." ?

I cannot see where "rude, thoughtless and a bit stupid", could be out of line in his reply. This act was all three of those, and to assume Uncle Vanya voiced an opinion "that the park is undisturbed by such behavior", is totally without merit. Some plants do recover from being stepped on; that's all Uncle was trying to say, when he suggested you return to check them out. I don't think any of us here condone such behavior, but also starting an argument here with a member that meant nothing like you interpreted, is also behavior we should keep in check. We're all on the same team here!