All in the mind - or - Is this a valid point of view?

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by John D

I thought the purpose of photographs on this 'site' was to illustrate various forms of 'wildlife' as they naturally are in the field and not to present/express images in a deliberate'artistic way'. Next thing we will see is a bat hanging from the head downwards. Where does realism end and deliberate artistic manipulation start. Should that type of photography not be kept for another type of site????????
Lets keep nature as it is!
Just MHO

John D

I wasn't on the offensive

How many images on the website do you honestly think show nature exactly as it is? Sure there are a few, but any editing is rendering the image 'different' to what it was before, unless of course you're editing the picture to look more like the subject did in the flesh- which I'm certain isn't always true.

When I was referring to the 'artistic', I didn't mean drastically artistic. If you refer back to Bruce's thread a while ago regarding composition vs. focus, it's clear that some people substitute technical for the slightly artistic, and I think the success of the image lies in the ratio of one to the other. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the 'bat hanging' scenario, but surely anything that drastic becomes obvious and loses lots of value as a technical image.

What do you think is subtracted from a site like this if slightly more artistic images are uploaded? I think that it should be a persons interpretation of nature that is the important factor, and is more than often the backbone of an image.

Having said that, I'm more of a 'textbook' photographer most of the time, but I like flitting between the two.

[ron1863]

No 3 for me, though they are all good shots and I wouldn't really be able to tell if they were the "correct" way up or not.

[ron1863]

Originally Posted by John D

I thought the purpose of photographs on this 'site' was to illustrate various forms of 'wildlife' as they naturally are in the field and not to present/express images in a deliberate'artistic way'. Next thing we will see is a bat hanging from the head downwards. Where does realism end and deliberate artistic manipulation start. Should that type of photography not be kept for another type of site????????
Lets keep nature as it is!
Just MHO

John D

I agree John but the bat analogy is taking it a bit far - even I know that a bat hangs upside down but most insects are different. If Bruce had posted his original shot upside down, I bet there wouldn't have been one WAB member who would have known apart from Bruce himself.

[John D]

Originally Posted by ron1863

I agree John but the bat analogy is taking it a bit far - even I know that a bat hangs upside down but most insects are different. If Bruce had posted his original shot upside down, I bet there wouldn't have been one WAB member who would have known apart from Bruce himself.

I agree Ron regarding my reference to the bat but unless we refrain from the manipulation of images which changes there natural habit or positioning we will eventually get near to such a situation. How far can manipulation be allowed before it borders on the rediculous.
Remember there are others including children who may look at this 'site' and believe it to illustrate nature in its 'true state'. Better the information given and images shown remain creditable and WAB is accepted as a 'TRUE REFERENCE' for those searching for information on nature etc.

Again just MHO.

John D

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by John D

I agree Ron regarding my reference to the bat but unless we refrain from the manipulation of images which changes there natural habit or positioning we will eventually get near to such a situation. How far can manipulation be allowed before it borders on the rediculous.
Remember there are others including children who may look at this 'site' and believe it to illustrate nature in its 'true state'. Better the information given and images shown remain creditable and WAB is accepted as a 'TRUE REFERENCE' for those searching for information on nature etc.

Again just MHO.

John D

Ah ok John, I understand you now, and I believe I have got the wrong end of the stick. Flipping an image cleverly does not in any way literally 'change' the form of an insect, rendering it a true image. It's the whole 'does a tree make a sound if it falls with no-one present' scenario. If an image is flipped and submitted, I'd like to think that he/she would be able to spot any imperfections and either decide not to upload, or revert to original position. Other manipulation such as adding limbs or subtracting eyes (for example ) I completely agree. I recently uploaded an image of a Soldier Beetle with a very shallow DoF and although it's not a shot that you'd find in Chinery, it's an image that can sit alongside the other images of Soldier Beetles of the same species. The image is more of a 'one on one' with the beetle with a little 'character' and eye contact rather than the zoological representation (i.e- all in focus, sharp, showing the whole beetle and habitat etc).

There are god knows how many images on the site, and to be perfectly honest, it's just good to see how the hundreds of photographers here (including yourself John) interpret the photography of wildlife.

Nick