Based on a comment from one of my postings (not a gripe - just thought it would be a good topic) -as far as nature photography goes - to what degree is "adjusting" the image acceptable? in other words - finding the perfect fall leaf and "placing" it in the perfect composition to "create" the perfect shot - as opposed to "recording" what nature has to offer> ?!?

Personally, (contrary to some of the comments I've recieved), I DO NOT "set-up" photos - I enjoy finding what's out there and shooting it...kinda like an Easter-Egg hunt. (Don't get me wrong - I have no problems with a "set-up" shot, I just think there's enough out there to shoot without need of modification),

I Do, however, believe in selective gardening (i.e. - cutting the piece of grass that's in my field of view or removing the dead stick from my composition) - eliminating distracting elements from my composition - but I DON'T believe in "placing" elements to photograph them (i.e., placing he "perfect" leaf in the "perfect" environment)

I guess the question is, what's more important - the environment you're shooting or the image you want to present....?

Again - this is NOT a gripe about responces to my work (matter of fact, i pretty much took it as a compliment) - just thought it might be an interesting topic.

Hmmmm...sounds like a Poser discussion ("Is it fair to do postwork?) MHO: Of all the photography books and classes I've ever read or attended, I've never heard this debated. (that alone should say something). Personally, I would do whatever it took to get whatever photo I wanted. I will also say I feel much better IF I find a leaf just about the way I want it instead of arranging it. But that will not stop me from arranging what I want to "say".

I don't want to take a point of view here but add some stuff for pondering.

If you say "recording what you see", I'll go a bit further and ask, "what do one see"?
You can't see the world like a (still) camera because the image you believe to see
is a sort of an imagination, made out of a lot of single informations and fit together
in a kind of postwork process by your brain.

The brain adds informations from pictures you saw before, skip subjects,
visualize sounds and odour, correct colors temperature, lighting and even the perspective.

So even with the most realistic approach to photography you'll still have to abstract
and do changes to show how your eyes, or better your brain saw a certain view.

Now an example and a question:
You take a walk on a beach, you saw some perfect shells, parts of an old boat and so on
and then after some walking, there's a place that gives a perfect composition for a photo.

Now, if you add some of these perfect shells you picked before to the foreground,
do you change what you see, or do you just "summarize" the imagination that is "stored" in your mind
and associated with this very beach?

cheers
Thomas

Guess I would consider arranging a nature scene to be a non-issue. How much arranging can you actually do that is under your control? Think about it....you can't control much. The only thing I do take exception to is manipulating the wildlife...animals should not be arranged, or otherwise touched in order to get "the shot". Just my opinion..... :~)

I'd mostly agree with wolfsnap. I may take out something, but never add something that wasn't there, unless of course someone was paying me for a certain result (which so far hasn't happened!).

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=271298&Start=1&Artist=Misha883&ByArtist=Yes

Good lively discussion, but 'prolly no defining answer. Did any folks prior to the Neanderthals re-arrange their environment for purely aesthetic reasons? If you re-arranged bits of leaves, and called the result a "leaf sculpture," and photographed it, would that be wrong? What if you moved the leaf in photoshop? Ultimately is becomes an honesty and integrity issue; did you move the leaf to perpetrate a scam and represent a falsehood, or was no real scam intended, it just made a better picture? I've found that when I try to move the leaf, it crumbles, and I miss both the original and the manipulated opportunities.

LOL@Misha.....I guess that's pretty much what I was trying to say Misha....if I try to move things around or arrange...I pretty much screw everything up, but that doesn't mean I think it's cheating or anything.

IMO, there's only 1 criterium : the end result... If you achieved that "perfect" shot by "helping" nature a bit (e.g. rearranging a fallen leaf or moving that shell 10 inches to the right) then I won't think you're trying to cheat me. Now, I never felt the need to "arrange" a photo, but I wouldn't feel guilty about it. I find the pure "objective" approach really very restricting. Now, if we were discussing about extensive use of postprocessing techniques...

"what degree is "adjusting" the image acceptable?" as much as you damn well want. You could spend 40 hors doing some sick adjustments to an image, and it will look antirely natural, or you might be in the right place at the right time, and get a photo that looks impossible, do no post work on it, and it looks completely fake. anyone tells you something is unacceptable, point out to the that they neglected to remove the tomcat from their rectum when they woke up this morning.

As I have no qualms about telling my friends how to look when I take their photo, I don't have reservations on "telling" nature how to pose for the camera. LOL (*

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=276791&Start=145&Sectionid=8&WhatsNew=Yes

Just an image I saw recently that describes partly what is being discussed. NOW, I don't want to say this pepper didn't fall where it did, but I suspect it didn't. I like the photo and I had a certain feeling from it. I think it was "set up" and I'm glad it was. Now, it seems a bit, hmmmm, "unfair" to "tweak" a nature scene a bit, snap the photo, post it, and then proclaim, "Look what I stumbled across!"

I have no quams with adjusting aspects of a scene that I want to photograph. In fact, I will generally (unless I forget to bring it) take a small waistpack with me that I have made up for nature walks with the camera.

The kit includes...

One small brush for removing dirt and debris from a subject.
Small scissors for trimming whatever.
Tweezers for manipulating small delicate objects.
Several pieces of string for tying back larger things that might get in the way without harming them.
Three 1 oz. specimen cups for saving things (generally insects) I might want to bring back to the studio.
A small white reflector for for adding fill light to shadow areas.
Kleenex for a variety of things that might come up during a long walk.

Of couse if one is shooting a large vista this is not really important, but I find this kit indespensible for close up work.

Just attended a great lecture on Nature Photography. I asked the speaker his thoughts on posing his subjects and in tidying up the scene. His response was that this was fine but it was good practice to declare it when submitting pictures for exhibition or picture libraries. He gave a couple of examples the first being moths that he captures in his moth trap at night then poses god knows how. In the early morning to photograph. The second was a fox that visited his garden he set up a bin with food and put his camera inside with some form of trip. As a viewer I was not concerned he had setup and posed his subject the photography was fantastic. :O)

Interesting discussion- imo- i agree it shouldn't matter if it was set up or not as long as you get a pleasing end result- unless you're a news/journalist/csi photographer -then moving or adjusting any portion of the scene would most definately be unacceptable but we were talking about nature :) ....leave it to me to go off on a tangent!
Thanks for the "kit" ideal Alpha!