< deep rolling chuckle > Thanks. I never even noticed. I guess I better be a lot more careful if I do this much.
With only three articles published in model railroad magazines, I can't speak with any real knowledge. But I've had many articles and photos published elsewhere, mostly in military and corporate publications. Some art directors will Photoshop out distractions like power lines; others just leave them in. If I know an editor wants them out, I'll save his publication some time and take them out myself. I've been around printers (and art directors) for 42 years now, and been an art director myself for about 30 years, on and off. I guess I draw the line at digitally adding stuff that couldn't be put there by other means. I'm not going to add an image of a real ship alongside my model ships. Oh, I know I can do it, but it would be unethical. Is it unethical for me to have a harbor extension that I have to remove for operations? I could leave them there for "viewing" visits by guests, but would have to remove them to get up close and personal with trains during an ops session. Let's examine this one a little more closely. One of my design principals was that all switches could be manually thrown. With a harbor extension in place that's impossible. And a harbor extension for photography is a lot easier than Photoshopping in a non-existent extension. I think my harbor extension is a bit like having a removable mountain top for access in case of emergencies--I have one of those too, and it's pretty clever, if I do say so myself. I'll eventually write an article about it. Real railroads didn't have removable mountain tops, and real harbors didn't have removable parts of the harbor. So how far do we go in wanting to see a layout as it really is? Where do we draw the line? I draw it here: If I had the time and it was physically possible, then I might use Photoshop to do it. My back drop problem is not impossible; I just don't have the time to set it up right now. Maybe when I retire. On the other hand, if's it impossible, then I just don't take the shot. It take me about two hours to write an article. It probably takes me 120 hours to photograph an article--hey, that's less than the minimum wage! Maybe I'm a fast writer and slow photographer, but I just don't think so.
Here is an ethical dilemma. When a bear hears your camera noise, should you stop shooting? This big guy heard my camera noise and decided to check me out. I'm changing nature with my camera noise. While I got into the car real quick, I also took this shot: There's no digital enhancement here. But there is a disruption of nature. He wouldn't have checked me out unless he heard my clicking camera. Was it ethical to take these shots? I frankly disobeyed a rule for nature photographers in Alaska, which is not to intrude upon nature! I think they do not include the click of a camera. So what do you do? A click of a camera is certainly better than the roar of a big rifle, which leaves the magnificent beast dead. But it's against the rules to disturb animals in a National Park, even with a camera click. Should I have not shot these pictures?
You want to talk about manipulation? Ford put out these official "press" photos of their Interceptor concept car last January (I'm just posting one for discussion): The car was created in a computer aided drawing program, dumped into a 3D mesh and then rendered in a computer. Then that "digitally" created car was dropped into a heavily manipulated photo you see above. The whole thing is largely fake. Ford still showed a real car at the Detroit Auto Show, but prior to that they put these photos out and didn't say boo about them being fake unless you asked. Ford also mentioned this will become more and more frequent in the future as this technology improves. Just more food for the discussion... -jamie
But what do you do, besides retreat into the car and keep shooting? I'm a real bear mg: when I'm out in the wild and photographers or tourists are disturbing wildlife unnecessarily. I will really get into someone's face when he tries to startle a ptarmigan to show its plumage. So, is disturbing this big guy while he was fishing in a stream with his sow ethical?
I presume this is ethical: while this is not: His head is up, which means he/she notices me. So, do I not shoot it?
The "grey" in my name is not about hair color. It is because I feel there are very few black and white answers. Each person must establish and attempt to live by their own personal values. One of mine is to let other's decide for themselves. So Pete, what do _you_ think?
Shoot the bear if you want, the Seal is cute too,obviously a great picture. I suppose the only comment about the bear picture is how far from the bear were you? Certainly a 300 mm with camera expert like you would provide a lot more safety than my little brownie. Your words lead me to believe you were quite close, maybe even inches from his snout. But Hollywood does this all the time. Somehow, I never thought of you as a Marlin Perkins. We seem to have gone aways from putting fake backdrops into model railroad pictures.
I think I'll answer this tomorrow. I get too tired at this time of night to answer whether I've got black socks on with my black sneakers, or whites with my whites or some other combination that my wife finds hideous. Yep, it's only 9:30 here, but my brain is plain worn out on this ethical stuff. Catch you in the AM?
Concurrent post, Joe Daddy. He was about ten feet away--too close for comfort. What was I thinking about? Roll up the window! We've strayed a bit. But ethics is ethics, no? Time for some shut-eye for me.
I was just watching this and I was trying to follow how this was N Scale myself; unless N stood for Nature... :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:
Uh, put the pedal to the metal and drive the other way just as fast as you can? Okay, I'll be serious. Sort of. As a biologist (betcha didn't know that), I would never have gotten that close to begin with. If I discovered that I was closer than I thought I was and had inadvertently tipped the bear off as to my presence, I would have lowered the camera, retreated slowly, sideways, to my car with my head and eyes down, then driven slowly away. In regard to animals that are having a hard time just existing yet are popular with tourists, I stay away altogether so I don't add to their problems. Would I publish the one photo I did get before I knew the bear knew I was there? No. It would encourage others to try to get the same kind of photo. Well, you asked. :worried: It sounds to me, though, like you already understand what I'm saying, here.
This subject has gotten way off track from model train photos to weather it was ethical shooting the bear in his natural habitat. Pete you answered the Question about the bear it must be ok since you took the photo.
Yes and no. To me the issue is not about model trains. It is about personal decisions. Pete brought it to the ultimate point for no one else would ever know he invaded the bear's space: "If a tree crashes in the forest and there is no one around to hear it did it make any noise?". If that tree made noise then yes, Pete violated the animal's space. Some how I don't think he will bun in heaven for it but depending on your belief system he may have to pay somehow. Maybe he will come back as a bear in the next life. If you doctor a picture and no one else will ever know does it make a difference? Only you can make that decision for yourself. Was this picture doctored? If so was it wrong to so?
From this cheap seat, this is not a right nor wrong issue, but whether the picture is fiction or non-fiction. When it comes to looking at model railroads, I am interested in non-fiction. Because of photo manipulation, it is harder for me to discern the reality of a photo. When I learn the photographer photoshop's his or her work, it greatly impacts the value I place on that work. I'm personally not interested in what can be done, so much as what has been done. Why you might ask? I hope to be a 'fine' modeler someday. Outstanding modelers like Grant, Warren, Blackman, Widmark, Fugate and others are benchmarks I seek to emulate. I want my train set to look real, in the flesh. If it were photographers, Lisa Hadley is the absolute best I've ever seen. I seek not to be a virtual model railroader. My days of playing Railroad Tycoon have past. Only my twisted viewpoint, you are welcome to yours. I do suppose, though that it does explain, at least to me, some of my own values and perceptions about this hobby. my 2 cents, certainly worth no more. hi regards to all Joe
My days of playing Railroad Tycoon have not passed. Each to his own. The first time one runs one train on one section of track, one is playing at Railroad Tycoon. Just my few lira.
I think this discussion is pertinent to model railroading as we attempt to deal with completely new technology. In the course of discussing the ethics of the digital doctoring of model railroad photos, we have begun to re-evaluate the doctoring of photos that has gone on for years using traditional camera-and-film media. I think it's a good and a timely discussion. It's appropriate, in my view, to bring in analogous situations from all realms of photography in order to clarify our thoughts. Along those lines, I think of the remarks that several posters have made concerning photo manipulation in magazines. I have to say, I'm sick and tired of it. Magazine photos have been presenting us with illusions for decades. Millions of people have moved to places like Santa Fe and the Northwest--resulting in their being nearly completely paved over and the wildlife driven out--because they saw doctored photos in magazines. Women and girls starve themselves and subject themselves to plastic surgery because they look at doctored photos in magazines. When I think of just these two examples, I remember the comments of two of our posters here in this forum, who said that they would find photo-manipulation of layouts in magazines discouraging to their own modeling efforts. I feel the same way. Pete's issue with his bear is a good point. He could make more money off his close encounter with a bear that shouldn't have happened. In the same way, magazines can make more money off of photos of layouts and models (as well as landscapes and portraits) that don't actually exist in reality. Does that make it right???? I think it's time we put our collective foot down and tell magazine publishers "No, it doesn't add to the hobby." :no6qp: (I should add: I still think that photo manipulation has a place in photography-as-art). :money:
Just to clarify: the first bear shot was taken at quite some distance--probably sixty yards, from a backwoods road, or what passes for one in Alaska. The bear made no signs of being upset--no rising up, no noise, no clicking teeth. He just sauntered over. When he started toward me, I quickly got into the car. There are places in Alaska where brownies are accustomed to people--McNair State Reserve, for example. That does not mean that they raid campsites or wander through town uprooting trash. It just means they know people are around and go about their fishing. As this was on the Kenai, I presume this guy was accustomed. That doesn't mean I was going to take any chances. I've encountered bears a number of times, and most shots are with a 300 mm lens--if there is a shot at all. Moose pose a much greater danger, although it's usually pretty hard to stumble upon a moose. Back to the issue, and I'm sorry if I diverted the thread away from it with an ethics question about photography in the wild (although I wouldn't consider the Kenai wild). I respect anyone who goes through the publication process, especially in something like model railroading, where the rewards are more ego than monetary. It does boost the modeling budget. The same is true for nature photography, by the way--it helps offset the cost of the trip. You don't get rich publishing model railroad articles or nature books. You probably won't get rich editing or publishing the magazines, either. I like looking at some altered images--is it Bernard Kapinski?--because I'm a bit in awe of the techniques used to produce them. Many are very clever. And I suppose I could shoot my layout only at angles where I didn't have to fake the back drop. But does that give the viewer the best representation of my layout? Are there other views, requiring a lot of physical or digital "magic," that show different aspects? I think there are. I compose my shots carefully. I almost always take a shot, pull the card from the camera, and look at it on my computer. Just like the old film days, where you took a Polaroid, looked at it, then adjusted "stuff." Then I go back for the final shot(s). I'd love to shoot my layout with a 4 x 5 view camera, where f/128 is not a problem. If I get three sets on a Saturday morning, I consider that a good morning. I'll probably submit only one of them. Phone call. Back later to finish.
