|
|
|
Ethics in nature photography
Ask any nature photographer
about ethics, and you'll get the same basic answer: Of course
I'm ethical in my work. I have a very strict code of ethics.
I'd never dream of doing anything unethical.
But if you dig a little deeper,
you'll find that we each have our own definition of "ethical."
To some, it means the old wilderness rule that we should "take
nothing but photographs; leave nothing but footprints."
Some photographers would extend that rule to include having a
deep understanding of ecology and animal behavior, in order to
ensure that we do nothing that will unduly stress any animal,
plant, or ecosystem. Others will argue that ethical nature photography
means being careful not to portray any situation or behavior
in our photographs that doesn't normally occur in nature. Or
they may say it's unethical to photograph a plant or animal anywhere
except its natural habitat, claiming that shooting in a studio
is not "real" nature photography. And still others
will maintain that ethical photography, regardless of its subject
matter, requires that we use only single exposures on "normal"
film, with no post-exposure manipulation of the images, whether
it's done digitally or using traditional darkroom techniques.
So, just for the record, here
are some of my thoughts on ethical nature photography:
First, do no harm
Nature magazines, beginning
with National Geographic and continuing through the incredible
variety available today, have been invaluable in raising public
awareness of environmental issues in fact, I don't believe
there would have been an environmental protection movement without
them. As part of that movement, it's important for photographers
to respect natural systems, and to minimize their own impact
on those systems.
We can start by recognizing that we do have an impact, whatever our intentions. When you see a beautiful photograph of a deer looking warily at the camera, you know that for at least a few seconds, and possibly quite a bit longer that deer's attention was distracted from foraging, and its stress level was elevated. From the deer's perspective, each photographer is another predator to be avoided.
The best way to avoid putting
too much stress on an animal or ecosystem is to learn as much
as we can about the lives of our chosen subjects. We need to
understand their needs, and know how to recognize when it's time
to leave them alone. That's a subjective judgement, of course,
but the more we know and observe, the easier that judgement will
be.
Manipulating behavior
But wait a minute. I specialize
in photographing small animals lizards, frogs, snakes,
bugs what does it mean to respect their needs? It's just
about impossible to approach a reptile or amphibian close enough
for a photograph without influencing its behavior. In some cases,
just putting a camera or reflector within shooting range has
the effect of trapping the animal, closing off its most obvious
escape route.
Fortunately, reptiles and amphibians
have an effective way of ensuring that photographers respect
their needs. If you try to approach a snake, frog, or lizard
without an understanding of how it reacts to other animals, it
won't stick around long enough to be photographed. And if you
corner one, you may get a photo but it won't look "natural."
So I try to approach my subjects
in a way that tells them I'm just another part of the landscape
bigger than they are, but essentially harmless. And the
only way to do that is to study and understand their behavior.
Still, I have to admit that I'm having some effect on them, and
I use that fact to my advantage when making a photo.
Captive animals
Sometimes the best way to get
a natural-looking photo is to use a captive animal. (As I'm writing
this, there are three bullfrogs in an aquarium on my kitchen
counter, getting ready for a starring role in my next production.)
When I photograph a captive animal, my goal is to portray its
natural behavior in a natural setting, with the appropriate plants,
rocks, and background. I don't think this is necessarily the
only ethical way to photograph animals, but it's the right one
for me especially because most of my clients are factual
publications such as textbooks and nature magazines. Occasionally
I'll shoot something that's obviously not natural, such as isolating
the animal against a plain background, to achieve a particular
design or visual effect.
Legal issues
It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Some plants and animals are protected by various state and federal laws, and it's illegal to capture or harm them or in some cases, to approach closer than a specified distance. It's important for photographers to know which species are protected, and to stay within the legal restrictions. (Those bullfrogs in my kitchen present an unusual situation. It's legal to catch bullfrogs in California, but, since they're not native here, it's illegal to release them.)
Digital manipulation
Manipulation of an image begins with the choice of which film to load in the camera (or which of a hundred settings to use in a digital camera) and includes decisions about the lens, filter, shutter speed, depth of field, and exposure and that's before you even get to the darkroom, where choices are made about chemicals, paper, exposure, and development. In Photoshop, we have a digital darkroom with an unprecedented variety of tools. Defining an ethical use of those tools can depend on how the photograph is used or presented. Some photos are obviously intended as jokes even if not everyone gets it. And in advertising photography, we really don't expect reality. On the other hand, some manipulated images can be misleading, and in the worst cases can be fraudulent.
The debate over appropriate
manipulation of nature photography will probably never be settled.
Sorry, I don't have any general answers. In my work, as I've
already stated, I try to show natural behavior and habitats,
even when the process of making the photo seems unnatural.
|