Photography Fake

[KeenTeen17]

Originally Posted by Steve S

Whatever you do to photograph kingfishers, don't do what this guy did.

www.naturephoto.hu/home/index_eng.html

Steve.

I found this on another thread and didn't want to hijack it. The post is actually from last year but I found it quite interesting.

|t turns out that a photographer faked a photo using a dead kingfisher and a dead mayfly.

I personally don't see whats wrong with using stuffed specimens as its not always possible to get an amazing photo without expensive gear. Any views?
Although I wouldn't condone killing a bird and then photographing it in a pose

[squishy]

what? you think it's ok for him to use a stuffed bird then claim it was real? whats wrong with it is that it can steal work from people who do have the experience and the equipment, and it is lying to everyone who views it

[agrumpycow]

I don't like it! For me the thrill of photography (and I not that good, just a wanderer who sometimes gets lucky) is when I see something amazing and manage to get a decent photo to top it. It's a great feeling
By all means use staged scenes & props but be very open about how the scene was set up.

[Meta menardi]

I have some Bird books from my grandfather, they must date from 1920 or so, full of photos, with the odd colour illustration. The photos are dire, they must have all been done with stuffed birds. They must have been so very good in contrast to the illustrations available at the time that they were used for a quite flashy 2 volume book, probably published as a part work and then bound. I would vote no to the use of models and stuffed stuff.

[Connor7]

Well the fact remains that he lied, whether or not photographing stuffed animals is good he still lied

[Jason Green]

Wow... imagine the feeling if you'd taken that for real! The situation is that the photos appeared in the National Geographic magazine in a nature section and people have all said they're fake/studio set-ups. I'm just trying to find the bit that says the photographer actually said both the mayfly and kingfisher are live specimens taken in the wild... or whether his interpretation of nature photos can include stuffed subjects.

It would be good to see the original article to fully guage the context, for me anyway! I mean, nature photos can include a lot. Was the section set out specifically as wild-caught photos? I'm of course strictly against it if he claims they're real when they are not!!!

I agree with Claire's last point on this.

[KeenTeen17]

I've added a poll, so feel free to add your opinions

[Jason Green]

Good addition Jack. These stuffed animals... can I be a bit technical and wonder if they were killed to be stuffed or if they died naturally beforehand? I'm strictly against the former!

[Hedge Witch]

I think it's fine if the photographer says it is stuffed. There are differences between a live subject and its dead counterpart. If the use of a dead subject is not acknowledged, this smacks of deception, in my opinion.

[Hedge Witch]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Good addition Jack. These stuffed animals... can I be a bit technical and wonder if they were killed to be stuffed or if they died naturally beforehand? I'm strictly against the former!

I'm assuming the latter, or it's not OK at all