The Polar Bear controversy:
Frozen Planet: BBC denies misleading fans - BBC News I think it was something of a lie of omission, or at least not being as transparent as some viewers would have preferred.
Below is another type of composite image, this one of fireflies. I know many people get the impression that if they were standing right next to me when I made this, their eyes would have seen something similar, and they express amazement at not having seen so many fireflies since they were a kid 30 years ago. Fireflies are (at least anecdotally) on a heavy decline in my area. To avoid being misleading, I always point out that this image represents 25 minutes worth of firefly activity, and go on to describe what my eyes were actually seeing (it was still a pretty active field!).
One of the things I celebrate about photography is its ability to show us things our eyes can't - images like this are particularly fun for me. The composite aspect aside, does the fact that it is far from what our eyes could process disqualify it from falling under 'wildlife photography'?
If someone is interested I will also point out that it is a stack of 13 images, but I don't bother if they don't seem like they'd care. This kind of stack is standard in night time photography (star trails), so I figure it's somewhat expected and accepted (I even posted it to the 300mm club without mentioning this
). I'm sure some people might view this as a "photographic lie" since it wasn't done in camera, and couldn't be done with the multi-exposure blend modes in my camera (k5iis). However, it could be with the next generation (k3), so the in-camera benchmark is a constantly moving one.
I do consider it more 'photographically pure' than my bird example as I fired every frame into the program and it layered them for me. There was no selecting pieces of one frame or another like I did with the birds, I let chaos reign and every bit I captured got a say. I don't think there's an easy answer on what level of disclosure you opt for. A take away from this thread is no matter what you do, someone is bound to be offended
.
---------- Post added 12-15-16 at 03:25 PM ----------
Originally posted by clackers Today's audiences are expecting manipulation - check out Beautifuldestinations.com with the landscapes where orange, red and blue are suddenly in them, composited figures sitting on a ledge, etc. Or any posed picture of a celebrity that's ever been cleared by their PR agent.
Aaargh..auto-playing music. Literally "aaaaargh" - lap cats do not react well to auto playing music. In addition to getting your point, I also received several points in my leg for emphasis
.
Originally posted by clackers Even in your chosen world of macro, there are plenty of posed insects that are actually dead or flowers with a green card background or held in place by a wire or whatever.
Absolutely, many of these 'tricks' are well known among photographers. IMO the problem is when public trust is eroded when the tricks aren't transparent and everything is now credited to photoshop. Interesting chance encounters will have their credibility questioned (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, being critical is good!), and there can be a backlash towards "photographic purity". Even using flashes or other artificial light in nature photography can be seen as 'cheating' by some photographers. (You may guess that I have no problems with setting up lights
)
Here's a long but interesting article aboutsome of the crazy macro photos from recent years:
Pseudo-nature Photographers ? JW - Travel & Humanitarian Photographer Particularly awesome is the 'dragonfly in the rain' photo that placed high in a Nat Geo contest and the bold-faced lie about the making of the photo.
Originally posted by clackers Just assume any of my stuff may have been post processed beyond recognition. See my avatar? I'm actually a five-foot four albino woman, but that Instagram filter was a treat!
Man, I've got to get on board this instagram thing. That's potent stuff!