Camera Labs

If you're going to judge the merit of an image based on its difficulty, then you'd surely need to consider more than just its setting. Is a low key portrait more impressive because it was taken at just the right time of day during a 20 minute window of opportunity before the sun gets too low, or is it just as reasonable to have been shot in a studio with controlled lighting? Should the studio shot clearly dictate "studio photo under controlled conditions", or should the natural light image perhaps boldly proclaim "natural sun light"?

I think it's entirely at the photographers discretion. They certainly shouldn't actively deceive, and if the image is in a contest with particular criteria, they need to adhere to it. But they should be able to present an image without having to provide its full story. If they wish to provide the story, then that's another level of presentation, and maybe it will give the image additional meaning to those who take an interest in that side.

If anything, this experience should tell you to not assume anything about an image. If the story behind it is important to you, then seek it out. If you can't find the story, then judge the image only at face value.

This topic is not really new, as this issue of misrepresentation has been around since US Civil war photographs being staged. Misrepresentation transcends any subdiscipline of photography and is part of a general thought process of the "ethics" of photography. Any "ethics" of photography competes against other free market principles. Moreover, these competing interests have been and will continue to remain a part of photography as long as people continue to be people.

well for wolfsong I would agree with your statement in the original posting. I see nothing wrong with your feeling/opinion on the matter as I would agree. I living in the burbs of a large city, unless I travel I guess I would fall under category 2 for mine not being total wildlife. I've been close to true, sat on the side of a river for 2 hrs near a common hunting area looking for birds, spotted an otter (pretty proud of that). But past that its just local bird sanctuaries, parks, or the zoo.

I go to to zoo to see exotic animals and to see them closer than I would ever get a chance and its exciting but, I do feel bad when seeing there cages and often when they seem board or sad/depressed. Some don't, and seem fairly happy I guess its not always bad. Many animals there I think are rescue animals. I also feel like these animals are real when I get to see them, not just something on TV. I think for many people its an out of site out of mind thing. If they never see them, and if they don't watch all the NatGeo or planet Earth shows, they kinda don't care or think the really exists. I think the cruel zoo's do play a role in helping some awareness for fund raising and such as wrong as it may seem. As far as photography goes. Pictures are worth a 1000 words yes, but the real story behind the shot attains much more respect and history in my book. I will still like the same shot as the shot, but knowing a story behind a shot changes the amount and type of respect I give. The diff. between a good photographer taking a picture well, or an adventure and capturing it on camera.

_________________
Canon 40D kit Lens 28-135mm IS, Canon 50mm F/1.8, 10-22mm, 100 2.8 macro, 580 Ex.