Is Photoshopping Ethical

[thunderdownunder]

I read this essay earlier and couldn't echo the sentiments any more accurately. I pride myself on being able to take decent livestock photos, that can go straight to promotional use without editing.
If you are digitally altering images to make them look better, then that's false advertising. It's only a matter of time before digitally altered photos start becoming the focus of lawsuits.
There is something to be said about a person who can admit their mistakes and then move forward with the integrity that BJ has.

 

[dang4113]

Personally i would rather buy the $1500 dollar calf that turns out;  thats why everyone should start looking at the show circuit upside down.  Just try it once; you are not looking at calves but pictures you will be shocked!

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

First thing I told BJ when he got here. "no photoshopping ". I've never understood how somebody can alter there calves. It's false advertisement.  Plain and simple. I will always stick to my guns on this topic. If you have to alter the calfs appearance a bunch maybe you should try a different bull.

 

[GONEWEST]

I think that is an excellent essay. But Hook's post was much more practical. It's really the ethics and integrity of the person who owns the cattle that needs to be brought into question. I can appreciate BJ's desire and preference for spotless, perfectly fitted calves, ideal picture pens, and lots of help that is needed for him to get that perfect pose he promises to capture. And I am all for all of that. That's great for an operation with lots of help, lots of time, and lots of money to spend on an ace photographer. It's not that way here.

The whole place slopes from North to south, this ain't Oklahoma or South Dakota where it's flat like a table. The pen can't be placed so that either there is a good background or the sun is at your back, it's one or the other. If you do get a shot with a good background, maybe dad left the baler beside the fence and there isn't a tractor to move it with for miles. Possibly the calf has a fence post growing out of the top of it's head because that's where he decided to stop for "the pose." If your calf is broke it takes LOTS less time to get the calf into "the pose" and that's important to me. Also you don't need to have a person stationed in each corner of the pen and one to get the ears. I never figured out where people get so much help. So taking the halter off via photoshopping it doesn't bother me.

Under no circumstance should an animals conformation be altered. No adding rib, depth or flank, no cleaning up the throat, etc. But I can't see anything wrong with taking a manure spot off or a fly or a halter, or a fence post or hay baler or a shadow in the background. It's all well and good to say the owner needs to work harder and take more of an active role in the success of the photo shoot, but like so many other things in life there is an ideal and a practicality. If it can be fixed with a scotch comb or clippers, I see mo problem with it. Again, the main thing is the integrity of the people involved, not the tools used to make a photograph.

 

[aj]

It is amazing when you learn of everything that goes into like a magazine ad and picture. The strategy, the centering of objects, the pychology and everything. I took a seminar from a professional photo guy(archeology seminar). With lighting and different exposures and what not....you can make the same subject look completely different. Thats why I get sick to my stomach when they do the worthless without pictures statement. If you have enough time and ingenuity you can make a light muscled calf calf look thick and and a shallow bodied calf look deep ribbed. Turn out in eastern Colorado for a month and then go look at them in person. Let God and Kit Pharo sort them out. jmo

 

[Freddy]

GONEWEST pretty well expressed my feeling,I'm no professional picture taker ,but do know that on one hand a poor picture can do you a lot of damage and try to have picture atleast on the better half side with out altering any part of the animal ....I love looking at still pictures that I think some rancher or farmer took ,but a lot of the pictures get to perfect to have any value .....A VIDEO is by far my best choice ,because as of now I don't think anyone can alter them much .....

 

[DL]

There needs to be ethical standards established for livestock photographers.  PS is a needed tool, but the extent in which it should be used in sale cattle, should be minimal.

You can't legislate morality or ethics - slime balls will PS whether there are "ethical standards" or not - bottom line -buy from breeders you trust and look at the cattle

chambero - fat butt is kinda scary

 

[jason]

I just wanted to bring this topic back to the top as we start getting inundated with fall calf photos.

 

[frostback]

Can a video be altered like the photo? If I like a photo I will open the video and see if they look the same.

 

[knabe]

Can a video be altered like the photo? If I like a photo I will open the video and see if they look the same.

yes.  just takes more time.  think of hollywood and cgi (computer generated graphics).  almost can't make a movie without it.  sort of like the club calf industry.  might as well throw modeling in there as well.  perhaps courtship as well.

 

[ShowmanQ]

Can a video be altered like the photo? If I like a photo I will open the video and see if they look the same.

yes.  just takes more time.  think of hollywood and cgi (computer generated graphics).  almost can't make a movie without it.  sort of like the club calf industry.  might as well throw modeling in there as well.  perhaps courtship as well.

While it "can be done" it is much more difficult (virtually impossible to justify on cattle videos) as I shoot at 6 fps (frames per second)...that means 6 frames (images) would have to be edited to "fix" something...30 second video x 6 fps = 180 edited frames....not to mention the time spent tearing apart and rebuilding video

 

[jason]

Can a video be altered like the photo? If I like a photo I will open the video and see if they look the same.

yes.  just takes more time.  think of hollywood and cgi (computer generated graphics).  almost can't make a movie without it.  sort of like the club calf industry.  might as well throw modeling in there as well.  perhaps courtship as well.

While it "can be done" it is much more difficult (virtually impossible to justify on cattle videos) as I shoot at 6 fps (frames per second)...that means 6 frames (images) would have to be edited to "fix" something...30 second video x 6 fps = 180 edited frames....not to mention the time spent tearing apart and rebuilding video

Yeah that would be a lot of work, you would also have to be to match your edits at different angles and positions with the camera.

 

[frostback]

Thanks, I guess i can still put some faith in the videos.

 

[leanbeef]

As a cattle breeder, an amatuer photographer, and a graphic designer, the answer is yes and no. And it's not a fine line between what makes it ethical and what makes it unethical. I don't see anything wrong with cleaning up a background, or even removing a fly, manure or a stray hair. As has been said here, if it can be done with clippers & a comb, I don't consider it unethical to use Photoshop to do the same thing, no moreso than most people consider those grooming & presentation practices unethical under any circatances. So in that sense, my answer is yes...Photoshopping IS ethical. When we start to deliberate whether or not it's ethical to misrepresent the animal and create a photo of an animal that doesn't exist, my answer changes. And there's no fine line. No slippery slope. There are lots of things you can do with grooming,  lighting, poses, etc. to help present an animal in a flattering way...we call that marketing. If you take a photo & alter it so as to build an animal--adding muscle, bone, depth, length; straightening a topline or trimming a brisket, you're changing the animal. We call that fraud.

I'm pretty naive when it comes to a lot of things. I want to assume the best in people, and I don't pretend to know or understand everybody's backgrounds, influences or circumstances. But we do have to draw a line. The best we can hope for is a level playing field. Dishonesty only slants it even more than it already is, creating even bigger obstacles for those who are already up against their own set of challenges. Why can't we all just
play fair?

I know only a little about some other livestock communities that are faced with this issue on a much more serious level. Have you looked at a dairy breed publication lately? Any Tennessee Walking Horse publicity photos?... The slippery slope comes when we decide the ethical delimma is not
an issue we want to address. Accepting the excuse that "everyone else does it" or "that's what you have to do to win" is a cop-out. No...no, they
don't. People who are willing to trade integrity for A CHANCE at noteriety are the people who cheat. I still want to believe that really isn't "everyone"
and I hope it's not what we have to do to win. If it gets to that point, I don't think I wanna play anymore.

 

[Mueller Show Cattle]

Anyone with a little time can get good with photoshop. My wife is an amateur photographer and I say that lightly as I have seen her take better photos than alot of professionals. Her friend is a professional photographer and has showed her how to use photoshop even though we prefer lightroom better. In a matter of 20 to 30 minuets if you know how to use the programs well, you can get the fat butt image that Jason posted. I buy nothing without video if I can not see the animal in person as far as club calves go, have bought cows off pictures in past from people I trust and have not been burned. We use the programs to take the halter and person out of the photo that sets the animal and maybe adjust the brightness of the photo, but nothing like what Jason showed with Fat Butt.