Peregrine [CA3, PC1]
Some time ago, aspiring professional wildlife photographer, Peter Moonlight, sent me his and Sam Waldron’s proposal for a clearer captioning system to give the user and viewer a better understanding of the circumstances behind the final picture. My feeling is that while the categories defining a creature’s status are helpful, those concerning picture editing may be a little precious. To coincide with Peter’s interesting article about disturbance to grey seals by photographers at Donna Nook in the October Outdoor Photography magazine, here is his proposal. Let’s hear your views, please!
© Peter Moonlight 2010.
Preserved Trade Secrets
We understand that photographers are highly reliant upon trade secrets to produce interesting and unusual images in their own distinctive styles, and that images are more powerful while they retain an air of mystery.
The Exposing The Wild Captioning System aims to allow photographers to retain these trade secrets while simply and unambiguously sharing potentially technical information with viewers.
Trade secrets preserved under the Exposing The Wild Captioning System include:
Locations
Locations are the most important asset of any wildlife photographer, and many photographers do not share their locations for good reason; for example, to protect venerable sites from damage.
While the Exposing The Wild system explains the situation in which each image was taken, the photographer need not disclose locations.
Camera, Flash, and Studio Technique
Exposing The Wild feel that it is right that any camera techniques, flash usage, or studio setups, to remain as a photographer’s trade secret if the photographer desires.
Edits
While we feel it is important that photographers are open about the level of editing applied to each image, we feel that that the exact workflow and editing procedures do not need to be disclosed.
For example, it is enough for a viewer to know that lens defects were removed without knowing what the original defects looked like and how they were removed.
Neither sharpening nor cropping are included in the Exposing The Wild Captioning System. These may be disclosed at the discretion of the photographer.
WA – Wild Animals
WA1 – Wild Animals As Found
Wild animals whose behaviour has not been deliberately altered.
WA2 – Baited Wild Animals
Wild organisms that have been attracted to a certain area.
Animals who have been attracted with live or dead bait, and any other resource (e.g. water baths, nest holes, fishing perches.)
WA3 – Habituated Wild Animals
Wild animals that are no longer concerned nor affected by the presence of humans (e.g. Grey Squirrels in an urban park and recently released captive bred animals.)
WA4 – Temporarily Captured Wild Animals
Wild organisms moved within their environment for photographic purposes.
Wild organisms temporarily removed from their environment (e.g. Field Studios.)
CA – Captive Animals
CA1 – Captive Animals Living as Wild
Animals that live and behave as wild, but whose range is deliberately constrained by large enclosures (e.g. deer park deer.)
This DOES NOT include other animals living in the same area, such as foxes in a deer park.
CA2 – Dependant Captive Animals
Confined animals that that rely upon humans for their survival (e.g. zoo animals and animals scheduled for wild release.)
CA3 – Controlled Captive Animals
Animals whose behaviour is controlled by humans (e.g. Pets, Trained Animals, and Falconry Birds.)
Captive animals temporarily released into the wild.
PC – Pixel Creation
Edits that result in the addition, removal, or relocation of pixels within an image.
Tools that cause this include: the clone tool, the heal tool, the patch tool, and transformation tools such as the warp tool.
PC1 – Removal of equipment defects.
Pixel creation edits used for the removal of equipment defects
Equipment defects include lens flare, lens dust, and backscatter.
PC2 – Removal and editing of minor subjects or backgrounds.
Pixel creation edits that affect neither the main subject matter nor the overall scene.
For example:
- the removal of a distant fencepost from landscape photographs.
- the removal of bright pieces of bokeh.
- the removal of stray pieces of grass from macro shots.
- the removal of jesses from birds of prey.
PC3 – Editing of major subjects and backgrounds.
Pixel creation edits that alter the main subject or the overall scene.
It is up to the discretion of the photographer to decide whether a pixel creation edit constitutes a major or minor edit.
PA – Pixel Alterations
Edits that alter the tone and colour of existing pixels.
Tools that cause this include: brightness, contrast, exposure, levels, curves, exposure, hue, saturation, black and white conversions, colour balance, channels, blacks, highlights, colour replacement, and red-eye reduction.
PA1 – Minor Global Pixel Alterations
Global pixel alterations are alterations that alter all pixels across the image equally.
A minor pixel alteration does not change the feel of the scene compared to the scene captured by the camera and envisaged by the photographer.
PA2 – Minor Local Pixel Alterations
Local pixel alterations are alterations applied specifically to parts of the image through the use of graduated filters, masks, or brush tools.
A minor pixel alteration does not change the feel of the scene compared to either that captured by the camera or seen by the photographer at the time.
PA3 – Major Pixel Alterations
Pixel alterations that significantly affect the look of the scene compared to the image captured by the camera and seen by the photographer.
It is up to the discretion of the photographer to decide whether an alteration constitutes a major or minor pixel alteration.
PM – Photomerges
An image may fulfil two definitions in the photomerge category; for example, an image may be an exposure composite and a stitched panorama. In this case the caption would be displayed as PM1/3.
PM1 – Stitched Panoramas
A series of images that have been stitched together, either manually or by specialist software.
PM2 – Focus Composites
A series of differently focused images of the same subject combined into one to produce an image with a wider depth of field. This may be done manually or automatically.
PM3 – Exposure Composites
A series of differently exposed images of the same subject combined into one to produce an image with a higher dynamic range. This may be done manually or automatically.
The system Peter Moonlight and Sam Waldron have proposed is a valuable attempt to impose some structural consistency within a vexed issue. Ultimately, whereas such a system might reduce misunderstandings over the ‘provenance’ of an image, one will never prick the consciences (if they exist that is) of those who, for monetary gain or perceived status, are dishonest.
The practice followed several times on this blog – ie overtly exposing frauds – might help: but then it might not when people are determined. They just get better at it…though now everyone knows they are crooks.
My question would be who needs this and is it going to change the way I work other than to become another burden? When preparing image files for agency submissions each agency I supply already wants different info (some want keywords other use their own). Captioning is a real chore when you take it seriously and try to provide something that is informative and interesting. Ticking yet more boxes might seem a small burden but with thousands of images that time spent is significant
Those who spend a great deal of time captioning learn to be informative in scientific terms without being too revealing (GPS coordinates are out!). Similarly, with exposure and other techniques one can indicate as much or as little as one sees fit. It is all in the EXIF date anyway – and that is so much better than those days when magazines and books demanded exposure and camera details (and so every pro I know made them up: no-one noted them down). In reality, there are few ‘trade secrets’ and often those who claim to have ‘invented’ a technique don’t realise how obvious what they have done is to others with experience…moreover, someone got there before them!
The categories used to define a subject’s status could be helpful – though why not use a carefully chosen word or four (as currently used in Lightroom 3)? Words are preferable to letters and numbers: I like them, at least. No concise system of categories ever covers all eventualities and those that attempt to do so risk becoming hopelessly unwieldy.
However, my main concern is that in such a system the categories for Pixel Creation (PC) and Pixel Alterations (PA) and Photomerge (PM) will generate unnecessary levels of pedantry…the proverbial ‘too much info’
Let’s face it, minor local or global pixel alterations (as defined) are of no more than academic interest when all a photographer has done in most cases is simply recreate the original impression they had at the taking stage – or just ‘slightly’ enhanced it. Major changes are another matter and agencies are quite specific about this. Most competitions now demand the original RAW files from those who are potential winners.
Few general editors or commercial picture users will be concerned about composites unless images are dishonest (eg rhinos in the arctic) and some will not even care then. Stitched panoramas are obvious anyway and, personally, I can spot HDR shots a mile away and dislike the visual artificiality – to me they have ‘that look’ and suggest that, generally, many people should learn a bit more about exposure. It is, one hopes, a fad…passing soon.
In short, would I employ such a system? Maybe under duress (agency pressure) but I cannot see how it would genuinely improve what conscientious, honest photographers (ie the majority) already do. Words still work best for me.
PaulHD
Agreed Paul. Keywording images isn’t too laborious but to add another level seems like moving into the realms of overkill. Any honest photographer would declare captive or controlled conditions in the image’s keywords. At the end of the day, they won’t be listed in a publication and unless the image is questionable (like your Rhinos in snow) the suggested ‘point’ of the image should remain in tact.
The subjectivity of minor and major alterations would be questioned and at the end of the day, people could just lie.
I like the idea of consistency but I would rather have trust in others’ honesty. Perhaps I’m a bit naive…
Chris
I also agree with Paul. The fundamental flaw with the proposed captioning is that it requires honesty from those taking the pictures. If these photographers have been trying to “hide” the true location and nature of the conditions of their images now, what chance is there of them labelling them correctly with the correct caption and disclosure information in the proposed system?
As in most professions there will always be a small group of individuals willing to bend the rules as much as possible for their own gain. A captioning system will not stop this; a way around it will be found by those who want to. I sometimes find with the arrival of digital a level of scepticisim about a lot of photographs anyway, and occasionally surprise that no excessive digital enhancement has been done with some images, as it is almost expected by some.
I wouldn’t be against a captioning system, but doubt it will have any real effect anyway.
Sorry for being so negative.
Nick
For me this barks up the tree of how we define ‘ethical photography’ and whether it has a market. Hand in hand with a strong brand – in the same vein as Fairtrade, I can see a niche. But…and this is a big but, it also smacks of green halos, something you often get little thanks for wearing…or aspiring to wear.
As Peter and Sam know, I’m generally supportive but need a bit more meat on the bones plus a commercial hook. Fwiw, I’m in!
Pete
Having corresponded with Peter and Sam on this topic before the following should be no surprise.
The intention is honourable but the delivery flawed simply because it’s to big a leap from the present. On UKNP we found (and still find) it hard enough to get photographers to place a captive (c) in a images title when the image is captive. In most cases the reason it isn’t applied is not deceit but laziness.
Historically, we have asked for 3 point system namely (c) for captive, (co) for controlled or baited and (h) for habituated – a step too far it would, retrospectively, seem. The above 16 point system, 16 points, is, well let’s call it ambious. (and there is nothing wrong with ambition)
Not withstanding the above for photographers to willing adopt a less pointed scheme there must be a positive reason or a benefit for it’s adoption. It must also be a universal adoption by all in a given commercial arena, otherwise it will fail simply because wild subjects are vogue, captive are not – you draw the inference.
Recently one of the large agencies requested that all it’s contributors came clean and labled their captive contributions as captive etc. Looking at the images on their file I, and others, have a feeling that this has been only adopted by some of the contributors.
And that’s the rub of any captive/wild indicator request; whilst you can put a captive image past an image editor or two, it is harder to put it past a mass collection of photographers as the WPOTY has shown; but that the potentially erroneous labeled image, when compared with a similar non-wild one, is more vogue in editorial eyes hence I think many still chance their luck – especially when it would be hard to prove the image, conclusively, otherwise.
In summary the answer is not simple, but it does rely on photographers – not editors – taking the lead, so in principle the idea is sound (as it has always been), the 16 points is a step to far to fast, but I am also struggling to see how, and who, would call those who are disingenuous with their indicators to account.
While the motives are clearly honourable, I have to agree with Paul and Tom that it would be an impossible system to implement. Not least because there is no unifying body of wildlife photographers worldwide to get behind the plan. Let alone any kind of consensus among editors. Some image users and distributors will care a lot about such things, but most won’t care a jot.
I back the self-policing option. After all, it was other photographers who exposed the lone wolf sham, and web forums such as this that help to keep us all on our toes. There is a growing number of photographers who have had to publicly eat humble pie as a result of such exposés, and clean up their act. However, if the end use is in advertising or gift stationery, I don’t think there’s any need for us to get on our high horse and call foul over an undeclared captive subject or a few patched pixels. Editorial is different, and here editors will impose their own criteria.
Jesus! Are we [nature photographers] seriously suggesting that we want to sign up to a Gordon Brown style, micro-managed, diktat driven profession? This is NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY. Hello!
Surely we are capable of captioning photographs with honesty and integrity without the need for some Brussels-esque mandate, signed in triplicate by a self-appointed governance committee? Please tell me we are! The relative ‘micro-environment’ in which nature photography functions dictates that most ‘transgressions’ come to light rapidly; only the stupid among us are naive enough to try and deceive. This fact alone (in most instances) acts as a regulator. So, if any of the above is true, perhaps there is a sub-plot here? Maybe it is all about the money (as Pete’s ‘commercial hook’ comment suggests it might be).
I’m paranoid, of course, but indulge me: there appears to be a growing trend towards cronyism in wildlife photography. Designed to keep the marauding hoards of wannabies at bay, some might want to move towards a ‘Nature photographer’s standards kite-mark award’ to ensure that only holders of such accreditation get their images used and paid for. Conformance to an ‘ISO123ABC captioning system’ (and an array of other self-serving edicts) might become the ‘ration-book’ to access the ever decreasing pot of money available to our industry. As I said, paranoia.
Okay, rant over. In the order of importance of issues we face, I personally feel that there are more pressing things than the semantics of captioning. Sure, standards, honesty and integrity are all very important but the use to which our collective effort is put, for the benefit of what we depict, is much more worthy of discussion. Just my humble opinion.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Money (or the lack of it) clearly is an issue in nature photography. So how about trying this: a moratorium on our images being sold by sub-agents for as little as 67 pence? How do such sales benefit us or the subject matter we depict? They don’t. They simply serve to devalue our ‘art’ and label the natural world as a cheap, exploitable commodity. How about we ALL get together and demand a ‘minimum sale threshold’ (for ALL) before we start endorsing ideas that divide us. (Naive and paranoid?)
Am I reading the Daily Mail here? So now the problems we face in nature photography are all down to the last Labour government and the EU! I think Chris O’Reilly needs to decide whether he most fears some sinister form of “closed shop” conspiring to exclude a sector of aspiring professionals, or the free market economy which leads to repro fees as low as 67p. The truth is, it’s never been easier to put your work in the public eye and offer it for sale. And the vast majority of picture buyers ONLY care about price. Even technical quality is not an issue for most, let alone artistic merit, ethical intergrity, and least of all, who took the picture. And the answer appears to be some form of industrial action? Well I think your self diagnosis is correct at least
But to get back to the original topic, a standardised captioning system (such as that proposed by Peter and Sam) doesn’t have a hope of widespread uptake in the commercial world. It might have a value among certain associations of nature photographers for their own internal interests, but I suspect even that would be a long hard battle.
“How about we ALL get together and demand a ‘minimum sale threshold’ (for ALL)”
Wouldn’t this be considered a cartel and be illegal under price fixing laws?
Terry
Thanks to Chris Gomersall for the Daily Telegraph view! In answer to your question, Chris, I fear neither a “closed shop” or a “free market” – my images are capable of selling whichever prevails. But self interest wasn’t really the point, the ‘health’ of nature photography was!
As for “industrial action”, you appear to have a short or selective memory – does a diagnosis of ‘amnesia’ cover either of those?
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
Cronyism, surely not? You will be suggesting nepotism next!
I must admit though that I was always amazed when I looked at the junior winners of WPOTY. How did these 9 year olds get to travel to such exotic locations? How did they manage to develop the fieldcraft skills so early? More to the point, how did they afford a 500mm lens? Then I looked at their surnames.
I think I will change my surname. Do you think the world is big enough for two Andy Rouses?
Andrew
This is straying well off topic now. Out of respect for Peter, Sam and Niall, please can I suggest we stick to the point? Lots of potential new threads in there – if you want to start your own blog!
For the record, Chris:
I don’t see anything disrespectful about expanding on a topic – it is simply debate. For my part, at least, this is not an attempt to personalise the discussion – especially with Peter and Sam (or Niall) – it is simply my observation about a situation, aired on a public forum.
I concur that the expanded topics have run their course here. Please contact me privately (same address as previous) if you’d like to continue an amicable discussion on the issues raised.
Cheers,
Chris
Well, I for one found some of that pretty illuminating. Here is what I wrote to Peter yesterday:
I hope you found the responses were constructive rather than demoralising. But something quite fundamental occurred to me at 5 am today: the system needs to be sold first and foremost to users so that THEY impose these standards on photographers. Don’t think self policing works.
Regarding post processing: from my own standpoint and given the sort of work I do now, I see it as potentially “isolating”. As all branches of photography evolve, nature photography is in danger of looking even more staid if the possibility for greater creative expression – in order that a story can be told more clearly – is denied. In other words, I create particular looks in many of my pictures because I want to say more than can be said in the straight picture. I don’t want to add anything that wasn’t there before (or normally take anything away other than a background) but I do want to be able to communicate better with the viewer be creating a different look- to say “old” or “stark” or “simple” or whatever.
I believe now that the public will look to the moving image ( as production of it is democratised) for veracity and generally expect the still image to be a confection. That being so, concerns about post production, depressingly, become irrelevant.