www.WILDNATUREPHOTOTRAVEL.com

There is a disturbing trend (at least, I find it disturbing) I have been witnessing over the last few years that seems to be spreading like a noxious weed, primarily across social media circles (AI image making has done absolutely nothing to help). A trend I have come to term ‘The Disingenuous Nature of Modern Nature photography’. There are photographers acting and behaving disingenuously with their imagery to outdo, outperform, and get more social media gratification (not to mention win competitions!) than the next person. Witnessing what occurred in the Sony WWPO Awards not too long ago, this is also happening on a viral scale across photographic competitions (and has been for some time).

I am seeing more composite photographs (and AI images) than ever before that are being presented and sold as accurate depictions of ‘Nature’. These photographs frequently comprise different captures that are highly manipulated and then combined and sold through Social media as ‘Nature’ photographs as if they were an accurate representation and an actual capture of the true world. There is almost always no disclosure by the photographer that the scene is not representative of what they photographed, and that leads me to the only logical conclusion that there has been a deliberate attempt to deceive the viewer.

For the record, I have no objection whatsoever to composite photographs, HDR (High Dynamic Range imagery) or heavy-handed digital manipulation that materially affects the photograph’s authenticity, provided such techniques are disclosed by the photographer when the image is published or shared. (As an aside, I don’t use any of these tools or techniques in my photography. You can read my Ethics statement online). What I am seeing, however, is photographers posting these manipulated images in a disingenuous fashion and then lapping up the ‘Likes’ and commentary. Even worse, I see these images utilised for marketing workshops to entice participants to sign up. Potential participants could sign up believing and hoping they, too, will be able to craft such an image in the field. Unbeknownst to them, the image is a fraud, and they stand no chance to capture that photograph in a single image capture.

Now, before anyone gets too bent out of shape, let me state for the record again that I have no issue with highly processed composite photographs. If that is your ‘thing’, then by all means, go right ahead and pursue your passion. Have at it and be happy and comfortable! But please don’t misrepresent them as accurate ‘captures or depictions of Nature’.

From the dawn of the darkroom, photographers have manipulated their images. Ansel Adams would have been the first to acknowledge that his Clearing Winter Storm or Moonrise over Hernandez photographs were manipulated in post-production (in his case, in the darkroom). Post-production is an integral part of the photographer’s photographic workflow, and it always will be. To my mind as a Nature photographer, the key to post-production is “Post-production that does not materially affect the authenticity of the image”. It is about enhancing the capture and not about creating something that wasn’t there. After all, a great capture doesn’t need much post-production; it’s already a great photograph!