Only 4 responses despite 379 hits to this thread! I am wondering why so few responses on this topic? Are we shy of discussing because one individual has been identified? Or are we not concerned about this ethical issue?
In this forums we have discussed whether to disclose cloning or not. Link to one such discussion is given below:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ranch+eternity
So I was definitely expecting a discussion on this issue.
Unfortunately this issue is going to impact the perception about photographers, which anyway was never great. There have been a few unethical photographers in all era; however, their numbers seems to have increased with the availability of digital tools. It has become easier to manipulate as each indiviudual has got the equivalent of a darkroom in their workstation as opposed to the film era. The proclivity to cheat is perhaps increased due to the ease. I know atleast two people who have won on the basis of digital wizardry in photography competitions that allow prints.
However, I am not suggesting that only ease of digital alterations is the reason for people violating rules. It is a question of ethics as well. Often photographers have been blamed, at times rightly, for unethical practices.
It is often said that photographers who love their subjects won’t try to harm their subjects. Unfortunately, it is not practiced by the majority of the photographers. The Washington Times header for the related news is damning "The urge to cheat can be overpowering for some". In the body of that article the author writes "Since there were no big prizes promised to the photo winners, why try to pull a con?" It appears to point out that some people are kind of habitual offenders. In this case, there would have been some recognition of winning a prize.
The expectation to produce superb images and share in the online forums at rapid frequence becomes taxing on a few individuals and they resort to unethical means. People know of instances where a photographer photographed a rare animal in a zoo and passed it off as a wild one. In the NWRA case, one or few images by the photographer are not from the state location. Does that mean images of some captive subjects have been labeled as that from a National Refuge? Any idea?
I believe acquiring skills at digital alterations is fine as long as one uses it for personal use and not enter into competitions, or send it to magazines etc thereby violating their policy. It is a good practice to disclose if any addition or deletion of elements from the scene were done.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra
