WildPhotos Ethics Declaration

"Excuse me, can you tell me how to find the Royal Geographic Society?"

"Shouldn't you be asking them that?"

I would probably have found this a little funnier had I not spent the previous night poised over a relative's toilet bowl following an unfortunate reaction to a Chinese takeaway. My comedic advisor, however, probably assumed my dehydrated and tired appearance was the result of a late-night schmoozing session with a high-flying executive. I was, after all, in London.

I had ventured to the capitol to visit WildPhotos, an annual program of talks and debates where the Bence Mates of this world explain spending the last year blow-drying leaf cutter ants while Klaus Nigges justify dressing as a pelican and photographing urinating jet-skiers. If you are in any doubt that wildlife photographers are an odd bunch, this is the event for you.

Somewhere though between Chris Packham assaulting an Andy Rouse effigy with a super soaker and Stefano Untertheiner recalling his love for an albatross, the organisers somehow managed to find time to fit in a relatively sane debate on photographic ethics.

"Photographic Deceit: How far is too Far" was chaired by Mark Carwardine and began with a survey. The audience of professional and amateur photographers were asked to show their hands in response to a series of questions on baiting, captive subjects, editing, and captioning. The answers regarding baiting follow:

• 95% would leave food to attract birds.
• 70% would feed roadkill to a predator.
• 20% would feed a live mice to a wild owl.

The full results, which are available here, show starkly that everyone has an opinion on how far is too far but that everyone's opinion varies. Over the next hour, many valid points were raised and discussed but I think that wildlife cameraman Doug Allan summarised the mood best. He stated that photographers and cameramen should do only what they feel comfortable with and would be ready to defend, whilst being completely transparent.

Most delegates agreed that photographers are not necessarily the best people to judge their own actions but that they should make it possible for others to do so. This was included in a Ethics Declaration, available here,  which many delegates (including me) agreed to sign and have since done so.

I, as a developer and user of the Exposing The Wild Captioning System, believe that the system is the simplest and most complete way of doing this available. However, if it is not for me to judge my own photographic actions, perhaps it is not best for me to judge my own captioning system. I will simply be fully transparent about my reasons for creating and using it and let others judge whether it is for them.

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.

A Great Weekend at Donna Nook

I am afraid once again the promised Wollaton Park and Bradgate Park articles are going to have to wait. After a weekend with Sam Waldron and Lee Webb at Donna Nook my poor little mind is bursting with thoughts and tips just waiting to explode onto the page. As I am pretty tired after the weekends travel and photography I am just going to give you a sneak peak of what should be appearing in this (hopefully watched) space over the next few days.

I have visited Donna Nook three weekends over the last two years resulting in images like the two above. Although the seals have always behaved themselves, practicing perfect poses in front of my lens, the weather has ranged from "ten foot visibility fog" to "slightly overcast", never reaching the heady heights of "low-angle winter sunshine".

Not only was this the case this weekend, but the light somehow managed to be perfect in every direction in a way I never thought possible. Saturday was a full day of winter sunshine, and during Sunday morning I had a beautiful sunrise behind me, pink fluffy cumulus clouds to my left, spotless blue sky to my right, and a huge stormcloud flanked by a triple rainbow ahead of me.

With stunning light hitting my retinas from all angles, I tried my best to document as much as this as I could through my sensor. I will share how I attempted to deal with the different light types in the next few posts. In the meantime here a few images so you can judge whether I failed or succeeded.

Although they are approachable, photogenic, and extremely cute, Donna Nook is not only about the seals. The area's most approachable wader is the Sanderling. Photographing these birds is quite a challenge as they never stop for a second, constantly feeding to keep their plump physique. An article on Sanderling photography can be found here.

Unfortunately, I am afraid I am going to have to add another less upbeat article. The Grey Seals at Donna Nook are wild animals and deserve the respect due of any wild animal. I will be adding an article on how best to approach the seals to cause minimum disturbance as it appears not all photographers are doing so.

I seem to have promised a lot of articles here, but before getting around to writing them I really must get some sleep.

Until I blog again!