The Exposing The Wild Captioning System

If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times; images are powerful. However, there is one sure-fire way of sucking the power out of an image leaving little more than shapes and colours. That is to question its integrity.

Integrity is the wildlife photography buzzword of the day. It is questioned as much as claimed, but there is no real way of measuring it. A photographer's reputation is the sum of their honesty, their ethical practice, their photograph's integrity, and any perceived breaches of these. A photograph's integrity is based upon the not only on the photographer's reputation, but also the circumstances in which it was taken, how much it has been processed, and whether this is declared.

Currently, there is no standard way for photographers to declare how photographs were taken. Many photographers commendably state that image were "taken under controlled conditions", but what exactly are controlled conditions? I am sure everyone agrees that a falconry bird flown over a photographer's head certainly constitutes controlled conditions, but how about Stags in deer parks, or baited animals? Both are certainly controlled to some extent but it is debatable whether this is enough to constitute controlled conditions.

Other photographers add the world "captive" or a capitol C to their images as they think appropriate. This is just as commendable but just as ambiguous as adding "taken under controlled conditions". Is an Elephant left to behave as wild in an enclosure the size of an English county captive or wild? I can see both sides of the coin. Unlike the mice it undoubtedly lives with, the Elephant's huge natural territory means its movements are still constrained by humans, but this makes it no easier to photograph.

Similar ambiguities exist in the world of Digital Manipulation. Some maintain digital manipulation includes all "photoshopping", others state that global exposure and colour edits do not count whereas local edits do, while others believe that a subject or background has to be moved, removed, or added to count.

Ambiguities such as these can lead to the integrity of photographers and their photographs being unfairly questioned over simple misunderstandings. It is impossible for photographers to write detailed captions for all of their photographs containing all relevant information, yet they can easily be caught out when they do not.

Because of these worries, I have devised a quick and easy coding system for Exposing The Wild with the aid of Samuel Waldron that uses a code to summarise all relevant information. The system does not aim to judge, it simply categorises images to minimize their potential to mislead viewers unintentionally.

Post Processing

Images are split into one of four categories depending upon how much they have been edited:

PP0 - photographs that have undergone no post processing.
PP1 - photographs that have been subjected to global edits*.
PP2 - photographs that have been subjected to local edits**.
PP3 - photographs where subjects or backgrounds have been added moved or removed.

*Any edits that affect the entirety of the image, e.g. colour balance, curves, or contrast.
**Any edits affecting only part of an image, e.g. graduated filters, dodging and burning.

Captive Animals

Captive animals (including captured wild animals) are split into three categories:

CA1 - Captive animals that behave as wild in large enclosures.
CA2 - Captive animals whose behaviour is partially controlled.
CA3 - Captive animals whose behaviour is completely controlled*.

*e.g. trained animal models, falconry birds, and studio animals.

Wild Animals

Wild animals are also split into three categories:

WA1 - Wild animals whose behaviour is not affected by humans.
WA2 - Wild animals baited or attracted by humans.
WA3 - Wild animals habituated to the presence of humans.

The relevant codes are simply added to the end of captions to furnish the viewer with as much information as possible. For example, an image of a wild Blue Tit attracted to a Oxfordshire bird feeder where the exposure, colour balance, and contrast had been globally edited would be captioned as:

"Blue Tit, Oxfordshire, WA2, PP1."

Even if all photographers immediately adopted the Exposing The Wild captioning system and all images were correctly labelled, I am sure there would still be just enough ambiguity left to spark the occasional controversy. However, this will not put me off from promoting the system and adopting it on all of my own images. I am simply not prepared to do nothing.

---

Edit: My Exposing The Wild colleague Samuel Waldron has also discussed this topic but has looked at it in a slightly different way. His enlightening discussion can be found here.