Blurred Lines in the Audubon Magazine Photo Awards

Blurred Lines in the Audubon Magazine Photo Awards

An owl, a photographer, a contest, and a conundrum.

I'll be very curious to hear what you think. Drop me a line atmarkjannot@audubon.org, and find all sorts of fascinating fuel for the conversation here, including an opportunity to tell us whether, and how, you think our contest rules should be altered.

BY MARK JANNOT

Published: January-February 2014

This crazy thing happened on the way to the anointing of our annual Photo Awards winners. We received an image of a statuesque great horned owl, perched on an autumnal branch in a Spanish-mossy wood, vamping a self-possessed stare over its right shoulder. It was a calendar shot for the ages, ordinary beauty rendered extraordinary. The judges swooned. "The colors and composition were just perfect," Kenn Kaufman told me. "The image captured the character, or 'feel,' of a great horned owl, but it went beyond that." The image sailed onto the short list and, as part of the standard vetting, its creator, Matthew Studebaker, was asked to send in the original file. Upon inspection, the file revealed the same forest primeval, except here the branch was occupied by a hunched, squinty version of the regal owl the judges had fallen for--same bird, different pose. The image was clearly a composite. And thus, our presumptive Grand Prize honoree got slapped with a DQ.

Photograph by Owen Deutsch

From stitching together images to baiting wildlife subjects, what's acceptable when it comes to nature photography? Vote on these 12 images.

Our contest rules are clear: "All photographs must . . . accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Photos that have been digitally or otherwise altered beyond standard optimization (including but not limited to removal of dust, cropping, and/or adjustments to color and contrast) will be disqualified." And can we even quibble with this? Here, after all, is what all photographic ethics, as it relates to manipulation, comes down to: What is your contract with your audience? What are they expecting? And based on that, are you deceiving them? "I think our readers take it for granted that all our photography is a real representation of nature," said Creative Director Kevin Fisher, who oversees the photo awards and has no qualms about the disqualification of Matthew Studebaker.

Nor, for that matter, does Matthew Studebaker. He was, in fact, genuinely apologetic when I caught up with him by phone. Sorry, he said, to have wasted the judges' time--though he wasn't sorry to have manipulated the photo in the first place. Would you be? What happened, he said, was that he'd captured that majestic pose in one of his earliest shots, in vertical orientation with the owl crowding the frame. Later he decided his horizontal compositions were more powerful. But the owl had only harrumphed at full height that once, when Studebaker had it suboptimally framed. (The red line on the photo below roughly marks the invisible boundary where the two images were joined into one.) "That's just using the tools you have available to help depict what you saw," Studebaker said. "And tools continue to evolve."

Photograph by Matthew Studebaker

And, as they do, maybe the "rules" for what's acceptable need to evolve, too. Or maybe not--I'll be very curious to hear what you think. Drop me a line atmarkjannot@audubon.org, and find all sorts of fascinating fuel for the conversation here, including an opportunity to tell us whether, and how, you think our contest rules should be altered.

I'll leave the last word, for now, to the ever-thoughtful Kenn Kaufman, who surprised me with his tolerance for Studebaker's deception. "I have to say," he said, "that even though it was rightly disqualified from the contest--and even though I'd be more impressed if it were an unaltered photo--I would still frame it and put it up on the wall. This is a different kind of image, and we as a community haven't yet figured out how to think about it."

From the official rules: 

All Photographs must depict "birdlife" and must therefore contain at least one bird, and accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Photos that have been digitally or otherwise altered beyond standard optimization (including but not limited to removal of dust, cropping, and/or adjustments to color and contrast) will be disqualified. Normal processing of RAW image files or minor adjustments to color and contrast are acceptable, as is minimal cropping. Stitched panoramas may be entered in any division.

AUTHOR PROFILE

Mark Jannot

Mark Jannot is Audubon's Vice President for Content.

READ MORE

Lisa here...

I find it ironic. We all manipulate the photograph, whther by the lens/camera/fstop/shutter speed we choose or in the dark room or in the digital darkroom. Silky waterfalls are considered nature and yet the human eye cannot see them because those photos are achieved via a long exposure. i think it is time to change the rules. This photographer did not take a bird from a different day/different place and clone it in, he merged tow images taken at the same time and place. 

what did Audubon do?

"He used several birds in a drawing to present all views of anatomy and wings. "

"Audubon developed his own methods for drawing birds. First, he killed them using fine shot. He then used wires to prop them into a natural position, unlike the common method of many ornithologists, who prepared and stuffed the specimens into a rigid pose."

"In addition to faithful renderings of anatomy, Audubon also employed carefully constructed composition, drama, and slightly exaggerated poses to achieve artistic as well as scientific effects."

"All species were drawn life size which accounts for the contorted poses of the larger birds as Audubon strove to fit them within the page size. Smaller species were usually placed on branches with berries, fruit, and flowers. 

"Larger birds were often placed in their ground habitat or perching on stumps. At times, as with woodpeckers, he combined several species on one page to offer contrasting features. He frequently depicted the birds' nests and eggs, and occasionally natural predators, such as snakes. He usually illustrated male and female variations, and sometimes juveniles. In later drawings, Audubon used assistants to render the habitat for him. In addition to faithful renderings of anatomy, Audubon also employed carefully constructed composition, drama, and slightly exaggerated poses to achieve artistic as well as scientific effects."

I do not think that this photographer added what was not there, he made a composite from two existing frames. 

I like Art Morris' rules...

They have a Captive/Hand of Man category, as we as an artistic category. 

And they allow editing as long as " as the natural history of the scene at the moment of capture is preserved"

http://www.birdsasart.com/competition/baa-bird-photography-competition-rules/

Digital Restrictions: Entrants are permitted to remove both major and minor distracting elements from an image so long as the natural history of the scene at the moment of capture is preserved. You may add canvas, a wing-tip, or a tail-tip. Compositional elements that were not present at the moment of capture may not be added. Dust-spotting is of course permitted as are adjustments to color, contrast, and tonality. You may crop your images. Cropping shall not exceed more than 50% of the width and/or the height of the original RAW image. This is quite liberal as you can use as little as 25% of the original image.

The contest categories will be as follows:
Bird Portraits (Whole bird, head shots, or body part close-ups)
Flight (Dramatic images of birds in flight)
Environmental/Small in the frame (Images of a bird or a flock of birds in their natural habitat)
Pleasing Blurs (Pleasingly blurred images of a bird or a flock of birds; images in this category must be created in-camera.)
Action & Behaviour (Photographs of a bird or birds in action or exhibiting interesting behavior)
Hand of Man & Captive (Images may include man-made elements and may or may not feature captive, zoo, pet, or rehab birds.)
Digital Creations (Anything goes including the use of filters and effects as long as there is a bird or birds or the representation of a bird or birds in the image)