This web page discusses what I consider ethical behavior and disclosure dealing with photography. I discuss what I will and will not do to my photographic images on my web page as well as what I feel must be disclosed. This has become a hot issue these days when digital alteration and enhancement are so readily available, affordable, and achieveable. If you browse through my computer art galleries, you will even see some photographs that I have digitally altered. But I will never place a digitally altered image (beyond what I explain below) in my photographic galleries. Now let me explain and demonstrate exactly what I consider to be digital alteration that produces a digital image and what I consider acceptable digital manipulation that doesn't change the essence of a photograph into a digital creation.

First, I believe anything I do to my camera, lenses, filters, and other photographic equipment to produce either an analog film image or digital sensor image is fair game. In other words, I'll gladly use a colored filter over the front of my lens to punch up or modify the color in a scene. I regularly change white balance settings on digital cameras as well to produce what I feel is the best image. I have no problem using colored gels over flash units, either, although up until now I have never done this. (I bought gels for this purpose but have yet to come up with some system for easily keeping them on the front of my flash.) Other unique actions I feel fall into this category include intentionally moving or bumping the lens during exposure, putting Vaseline or something else onto the front of the lens, and using a hand, a reflector, a flash, or some other object to block or change the light. If I use anything other than the camera, lens, and settings readily available on the camera to create a photograph, however, I will explain my actions to the best of my recollection in the description for the image. So if I have used any filter, gel, foreign substance, or even something as simple as a tripod I mention it alongside the description of a photograph. There are times when I don't remember exactly what filter, if any, or even which lens I used when making an image (applies to film; fortunately my digital camera saves lens information with the image). If I ever get into that situation I either state that I don't remember what was used or list, to my best recollection, what equipment I used.

With negatives or slides, the most scrutinized step I take comes from scanning them into the computer and preparing the digital file. This is now the only time I allow myself to make any changes or adjustments I feel are necessary with two exceptions which I will explain shortly. I use the red, green, and blue color controls of my scanning software before scanning to adjust the image so it most closely resembles either the slide or what I remember seeing when I took the photograph. I do this because the default color values provided by the scanning software most often do not resemble what I see looking at the slide on a light table. The same goes for the automatic color values generated by the scanning software. Refer to the scan comparison table (below) to see the difference in images produced with the default color settings, automatic color settings, and color settings I chose. I always scan at full size, too, then re-size and crop the resultant scan down to 800x600 pixels. I have even cropped a few images in the galleries from a vertical to horizontal format or vice-versa to get rid of extraneous clutter on the edges. All photographs in the galleries have been cropped at least a little because I had to get from the 2:3 ratio of the 35mm frame to a 3:4 ratio common to computer displays (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc.). The same thing is done in photo labs to produce unique, non-full frame sizes such as the 8x10 print. One change I make after scanning, cropping, and resizing the image is to frequently run a sharpen algorithm on it. Images tend to come out of resizing a little fuzzy. Thus, I sharpen them to get back the sharpness that is present in the original slide/negative. I could probably just change the output resolution at scan time to avoid having to do this but I archive my scans and don't want to waste time by having to scan each picture more than once. The final change I perform post-scan is to periodically increase either the contrast or saturation. I could do this with my scanning software just as easily but prefer the interface and control that Paint Shop Pro provides. When I change the saturation I again do so only to gain back the colors I see on the light table.

What do I do with my digital photographs produced with a digital camera? Well, the things I do in the field are the same as what I do with a film camera. But when I bring digital camera image files into the computer I crop them, just like I do with film, and also regularly tweak white balance and picture style with Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software. Occasionally, I also change brightness with digital exposure compensation in DPP. After resizing down from the full-size RAW file conversion, I always use unsharp mask to bring back sharpness. And on extremely rare occasions, I will change saturation, brightness, or contrast. Once done with all that, if I have any sensor dust visible, I'll clone it out. That is the only time I make a change to my photographs that doesn't affect the whole image and instead changes only one portion.

One thing that some people do to their files but I do not is modify image content to remove a bothersome leaf, shadow, gunk on an animal/bird, or other distracting element that is present in the original image. Some argue this is fine because they just as easily could have removed it before tripping the shutter. If that is so then I wonder why they didn't do so. In my opinion, digitally changing the content of an image changes that image from a photograph to digital art. I really see no problem in doing this as long as the image is properly represented as a digital modification of a photograph and is not passed off as an unmodified photograph. More value will be placed on an apparent natural image because, without disclosure, the viewer will assume the image content has not been modified. I could easily draw or composite some amazing modifications using my own photographs but they would then no longer be photographs! Can you imagine a mouse holding up an elephant? Give me a photograph of each and I'll make it happen!

Quick home blind made with curtains, a pillow, & safety pins

Another ethical consideration facing nature photographers deals with what can be changed in the natural world. Personally I have no problem cutting down trees, killing animals, or otherwise tearing up the landscape to mold it into the perfect composition. Just kidding! Of course all those things bother me! I actually drive my wife crazy with the number of complaints I have about people who throw their trash where they shouldn't, allow their children to bother helpless animals, or in some other way abuse the natural world. I stopped eating mammals and rarely eat poultry because of the mass ecological destruction caused by and occasional cruelty inflicted on animals raised for food (also to improve my diet). So, I don't do anything that I consider could have long lasting effects on the location. I don't feel that moving a rock, bending a plant out of the way, or breaking off or moving dead vegetation (unless the home of some creature) causes any damage. I do not, however, remove living vegetation or intentionally damage it to the point it may die to improve a composition. If I see a great field of flowers with one ugly weed in the middle I will move in to exclude the weed from the composition, bend the weed behind one of the flowers, work to include the weed in a visually appealing composition, or move on to another subject. Simply put I make my best effort not to disturb or damage anything that I come across but the possibility is always present that I may do so without even realizing it.

When it comes to captive animals, I have no problem using them for subjects and actually encourage it. The more that people photograph captive animals the less the chance that wild animals will be disturbed by well-meaning photographers trying to get a great shot. I just make sure that I specify, in the description, that it is a photograph of a captive animal. What if I were to take a photograph of a captive animal whose species is near extinction and then not disclose that it was a captive subject? Viewers of the photograph would assume it is a wild, free animal and thus erroneously place more value on the photograph. I believe this is being dishonest to your viewers just like selling a car with faulty brakes to an unsuspecting buyer is dishonest to that buyer.

One practice used by even some professional photographers that I abhor is the refrigerating or freezing of animal subjects. Some photographers do this to slow down insects, amphibians, and reptiles so that they can get better photos. This cannot be good for the creatures, however. I have heard herpetologists claim that this interferes with digestion and other internal systems. Imagine a portrait photographer confronted with an unruly child. Do you think the parents and society would find it acceptable if that photographer threw the kid in the freezer for an hour to calm him down? If not then how can it be considered acceptable to do the same to an animal?

In the descriptions for a few photographs in the galleries I mention they are degraded due to JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) compression. A friend of mine gave me the impression that he felt the softness present in these images was due to some error on my part or fault in my equipment and not due to the loss of information in the electronic .JPG file. Thus, I produced the compression comparison table (below) to illustrate how increased compression affects images. JPEG-compressed images are perfect for display of photographs on the web. This is due to the adjustable level of detail in relation to file size. Thus, one can produce a very detailed file with a large file size. The cost for this detail is the increased time it takes to download and view the file. One can also produce a small file with little detail. This file can then be quickly downloaded but will be of poorer quality. One always faces this compromise between detail and file size when using JPEG compression. What I strive to do in the galleries is include as much detail as possible while keeping file size below 100K. For some images with a lot of inherent detail this is simply impossible. By the way, I later found out that what my friend was referring to was actually a bright halo in my scans caused by a dirty mirror in my scanner, but this information is still valid and both explains and illustrates JPEG compression.

The two JPEG images shown in the table are from the exact same uncompressed file created from one slide. The difference is that the first one has high compression applied which made it only 19K in size. The second one has had low compression applied which kept more detail and thus made it almost three times as large (56K). Even so it has also lost some of the detail present in the original. But the detail lost is much less than that lost with the smaller file. Compare the detail in the forest, foreground shrubs, and tree bark. Which do you prefer? Is the increased detail worth the increased size and wait? This compromise between image detail and file size must always be considered when dealing with .JPG files. I use ULead SmartSaver which allows me to make a side by side comparison of the original image and the .JPG file that would be created with various compression levels and algorithms. The program lets me quickly decide how much compression I can apply to reduce file size while still maintaining an acceptable level of detail.