Computer enhancement and nature photography

Many of you no doubt have read recent articles about computer graphic/imaging technology and the ability to "enhance or alter" the truth of a nature photograph with PC technology, Impossible depth of field, angles of light, and improbable symmetry have begun to appear in published photographs. A recent convention of professional nature photographers failed to reach consensus on the sensitive issues of integrity raised by the new technology. One says that he is planning to use PC technology on a regular basis since he is by training an artist first, not just a nature photographer. Recently he acknowledged that he added a zebra with the PC to an African herd he photographed to make a stronger image.

Proponents argue that, after all, photographers have altered the truth of their subjects for years with filters, cropping, enlargers, etc. Isn't using PC enhancement tools tantamount to the same thing? That argument to me is the same as saying that armed robbery is no worse than a traffic ticket since they are both crimes. It's all a matter of degree. I'm certainly not smart enough to figure out where all this technology is going to take us eventually, but I am concerned that a couple of pretty important tenets of nature photography are threatened.

The first tenet is integrity. If the pros and amateurs out there think the public doesn't care if what they see in a published nature shot is real or not, they are kidding themselves. Nature photography is about the pursuit and accurate capture of outstanding natural beauty. In my mind the Creator is the ultimate artist, not the photographer. Galen Rowell states (Outdoor Photography, June 1995) "All nature photographers share that special responsibility to bring back images of the truths we witness or to disclose the altered content of images made in pursuit of less-enduring agendas that could betray that assumption of truth."

The second tenet is style. One goal most of us possess, regardless of our particular photographic interest, is to develop a distinctive style--to be accomplished enough that our view and portrayal of the world will be skillful enough that others will know and recognize our work. This is the basis of all successful professionals, from John Shaw to Joe McDonald. How will these guys compete with one another, or be recognized one from the other, when all their photographs are created/altered on a PC? One can even envision a day when they won't need to go into the field. With their existing stock files the combinations would be endless. Now that would be true "ecoporn"!

So what does that mean to those of us that are amateurs--the camera clubs and PSA? Whether you know it or not, computer enhanced nature photographs are likely already competing and winning in PSA Nature Salons. It is virtually impossible, if done skillfully, to detect and prove. Hopefully the integrity of most PSA nature photographers will keep this from becoming a growing problem since there is little that can be done to prevent it.

Finally, I am a nature photographer because I enjoy the places I go and the creatures I encounter. My goal is to portray the beauty of creation as closely as possible to the way my mind's eye saw it. Many times the pursuit of an outstanding image takes second place to just being out in the natural world, or interacting with a wild creature on his terms. Many times I'm not successful in getting the photography I want, but I take solace in the fact that I can continue to enjoy this pursuit, even if someday soon I am not able to successfully compete with those who significantly alter the beauty of the real world.

COPYRIGHT 1995 Photographic Society of America, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group