A few years ago, when I saw a strong wildlife image, I rarely questioned it.
Maybe I thought about the light, or the timing, or the patience behind it. But the starting point was simple: this moment happened.
Now, that first reaction has changed.
Sometimes I pause, not because the image is especially powerful, but because I am not sure what I am looking at anymore.
This is not entirely new
Images have always been manipulated.
There have always been photographers whose desire to succeed has gone further than their willingness to stay honest. That part of photography is not new.
Most people in this field remember well-known cases where things went too far. Scenes that were presented as wild, but were not. Animals that were not where they were claimed to be.
In competitions, this becomes very concrete.
I have seen many images while judging — most of them are honest, but not all. And sometimes the problem is not obvious at first.
The Image That Didn’t Feel Right
In one competition, we selected an image among the winners.
It stood out. It was different. Strong in a quiet way. But something about it felt slightly off. Nothing clear at first. Just a small hesitation.
After looking at it long enough, the organiser finally saw it — just in time. The butterfly in the image was wrong.
Not upside down — but wrong in a more subtle way. The visible side of the wing was the bright upper side, in a position where it should have been the darker underside.
That is not how a living butterfly rests.
In the end, the explanation was simple.
The photographer had used a dead specimen, placed carefully into the scene with a needle and glue.
Technically, it was a photograph. But the moment itself had never existed.
This is not a grey area. It is deliberate manipulation.
And in competitions, the situation is not always straightforward — some things are strictly forbidden, while others are widely accepted, even when the difference is not always obvious.
I’ve written more about this in The Double Standards of Wildlife Photography Competitions.
What has changed
So manipulation is not new.
Images have been altered for as long as photography has existed.
Not only in the field — but also in the darkroom. Later in editing software.
But it required skill — and there was always a risk of being caught. When that happened, credibility was lost for years.
What has changed is how easy it has become — and how little it requires.
Now, similar results — or much more extreme ones — can be created in seconds. Sometimes with nothing more than a few prompts.
The process has shifted from working on an image
to describing what you want to see.
The barrier is no longer technical.
They were created in seconds with a simple prompt: “Create a realistic Great Grey Owl in a forest scene, natural light, so that it looks like a real wildlife photograph.” This second image was created using the same prompt, with the addition of a close-up perspective.
The photographer’s choice
There is nothing inherently wrong with processing an image.
How far a photograph is taken in editing is, in the end, a choice.
Some adjust lightly. Others go further.
That is not the real issue.
The problem begins when constructed images are presented as real moments — sometimes knowingly, to gain more attention, more visibility, more approval.
At that point, something important is lost.
If an image is built — if the background is replaced, if elements are added, if the scene is shaped beyond what was there —
then it should be said.
That is part of the same choice.
Not only how we process our images,
but what we tell about them.
Because in the end, the question is simple.
Is it honest to show a scene as real if it was never there in the first place?
How Advertising Platforms Shape the Image
In some cases, the pressure does not even come from the photographer.
When creating advertisements, AI-based versions of the image can be generated already during the process.
If you do not actively decline them, they become part of the workflow.
And it does not stop there.
Even after publishing, the platform suggests that performance could improve — sometimes by around 10% — if AI-generated visuals are used.
That is not a small difference.
It also tells something about the environment we are in.
Images that are cleaner, stronger, or more constructed often perform better.
And that raises a simple question.
What happens if we follow that direction?
If the background is replaced.
If the light is improved beyond what was there.
If the photographer is placed into the scene, closer than they ever were.
At that point, the image may perform better.
But is that what we want (wildlife) photography to become?
If It Looks Too Good to Be True
There is a phrase that comes up often now:
If an image looks too good to be true, it probably is.
There is truth in that.
But in wildlife photography, reality itself can sometimes look unlikely. Light, behaviour, timing — all aligning for a brief moment.
Those moments still exist.
The difference is that they no longer stand alone.
They exist alongside images that look just as convincing, but were never there to begin with.
Leave a Reply