In the Photography World, What is Allowed?
Over the past decade of my life, I’ve done a lot of backcountry camping. One of the main guidelines in camping is to leave no trace. There are 7 Leave No Trace principles to help a camper leave the natural area the same or better than they found it. I found this principle, or this concept of manipulating things in nature, to be relevant to many of the discussions we had in photography class. In fact, the idea of leaving no trace and photography fits perfectly with the saying take only pictures, leave only footprints.
So, when I set out to take my pictures for class, I lived by this rule. I didn’t move or manipulate a single thing in the photo. If there was something blocking the subject, I’d try to move to get around it rather than moving the subject itself. I found this idea important. We were photographing nature, after all. This meant photographing the nature we saw, unedited and raw, not the nature we wanted to see.
My third week of class, I did a presentation on shaggy mane mushrooms. I particularly liked these images and unfortunately didn’t have time to present them in class. However, as other students presented, I began to notice how often people pointed out “distractors” as things they didn’t like or that could be improved in the photo comparison pictures. There were comments like “if only you could have moved that piece of grass out of the way to get a clearer shot of the flower…”. Immediately I was perplexed. If there was a strand of grass in the way, were you just supposed to pull it out? What about not leaving a trace?
I examined my shaggy mane mushroom pictures a little closer. There was a big leaf on top of one of the mushrooms in focus. Had I had the chance to present these photo comparisons to the class, I know someone would have commented on it. In this instance, I know I wouldn’t have been harming nature by simply taking off the leaf from the mushroom for the photo, but I decided to leave everything untouched. To me, nature was meant to be untouched, and this is the way I photographed it. However, I could see the appeal of moving the leaf. These distractors and other small things were constantly at the top of the list of criticism students received on their photos, myself included. So was there something to this? Do people prefer the more perfect photo?
I finally reconciled these ideas in my mind, deciding that both were correct, since it was ultimately up to the photographer. Personally, I like to shoot things the way they are, even if it invokes a little more criticism on my final pictures. For me, it’s more natural and aligns with the Leave No Trace philosophy that has been ingrained in me from a young age. In terms of how I feel about other photographers doing it, as long as they aren’t physically altering the subject in some way to get a desired picture, I say go for it.
Instead of manipulating the subject and its surroundings to my liking for a picture, if I wanted a more “perfect” picture, I would search for the perfect plant or the perfect angle to minimize distractions. However, I found this rather time consuming, and almost impossible in instances where the subject naturally had a busier background. In one photo comparison of sumac, the red branch in the background took attention away from the subject, but no matter what angle I shot the sumac plant at, there were going to be distractions in the back. Since it was my own personal philosophy not to manipulate a plant to get a picture, I left it and took the picture as seen above. This is when the debate about photo editing comes into play.
Much of our discussion in class centered around whether or not we believed photo editing was “allowed”, or should be considered on the same playing field as unedited photos. I went back and forth on whether or not I thought people should edit nature pictures. On one hand, a few edits are harmless. Removing the red twig from this picture takes about 2 minutes in photoshop and leaves the image looking a lot cleaner. It also doesn’t necessarily detract from the story — a picture of a perfect sumac plant with no background distractions is certainly possible, I just didn’t have the time or will to search for it.
But, if we edit the natural subject itself, can we consider it natural? Over the course of my class I have come to terms with people moving things out of the way to get a better picture as long as it doesn’t harm nature, even though I might not prefer to do it myself, but only recently have I come to terms with photo editing. In my opinion, if it could exist in nature, it’s okay to edit it to make it more pleasing. My issue with editing is when the picture becomes so far from the original that the plant could no longer occur in nature, like enhanced or artificial colors that essentially make the picture unrealistically perfect, perpetuating unrealistic expectations about nature. Of course there is a time and place for editing pictures, but for my amateur purposes, I prefer the unedited versions.
I’ve always liked things the way they occur naturally, and this philosophy has influenced my photography. My own personal Leave No Trace beliefs will lead me to never manipulate a subject, and aside from minor editing to eliminate distractions, I think nature is beautiful enough to not require editing. To me, the most beautiful nature is the nature I see, well, naturally, and through my photography, I want others to see it this way too.
