Cheating nature? ('suspect' imagery)

puzzledpaul

'Cheating Nature?
An investigation into suspect images in an international exhibition'

I recently came across the work of Richard Nicoll - a UK based wildlife photographer - and whilst checking out his site, (worth a look, imo) noticed this piece he'd written about ... how shall I put this ... wildlife images that have slightly convoluted pedigrees?

I thought others might be interested too ... it starts something less than halfway down the linked page.

http://www.richardnicollphotography.co.uk/publications#.VUeLyo5Viko

pp

Edit
I note that there's an update - written the following yr (2014) on this topic, available via the pdf link attached to the 'Iris magazine publishes ... ' post, 3 above the article previously mentioned.

Stumblebum

Paul, cat is out of the bag on that one. I feel that all future creative progress will come from mastering the processing or manipulation. It is NOT limited to just "nature" or wildlife. It is everything. The better job you can do to disguise your manipulation better the work.

I feel locked out of that "great image fraternity" due to my ignorance of such concepts. However, civilians or citizens or whatever you want to call them, LOVE THE LIE! Bigger the lie, more they love it, and it is not limited to photography but that is another story.

The dramatic composites are what are most cherished, praised and I am guessing if someone has a good marketing plan, most sold.

I keep seeing perfect sun stars and boats and fishermen in lakes when lake or ocean and taken with long exposure. Of course boat and fisherman can not be sharp and if you do long exposure with pointed light of source it will drill a hole in your photo. But they are out there and the overall affect is LOVE by citizens who view those images.

So I don't even know where to BEGIN quest for that knowledge......but if you do come across such an entity do point me to it......I want know.....with intentions of using it carefully!

Cheers!

puzzledpaul

Within the arenas RN was referring to, I would've thought that there's scope for starting sections that allow the degree of (and more?) manipulation mentioned.

Provided the guidelines are followed, and full disclosure requested of all material used is obtained, then it might suit all parties.

If some punters then want (or prefer) to buy the *really* awesome stuff, because ... well ,,. they prefer it over more realistic / natural imagery ...it's up to them, innit?

Whilst I realise that all manner of stuff is being done, in other genres than wildlife, we are talking here about situations where rules exist - the fact that the offenders weren't pulled over and given a ticket ... is another matter.

pp