It’s a shame that all of these photographic bodies can’t agree on a standard rule for all nature photographs. I can see us having a debate about what is a minor clone. Wallace has cloned the splash in his photo which took up a 19% of the photo. Is that minor? I was also confused when Ian Whiston informed us of a definition of nature photography and it was different from the definition of wild life photography.
Thanks Wallace and Peter. We can indeed keep to the RPS rules, since anything which satisfies those will also satisfy the PAGB. However, our true images will meet up with the tidied ones when we enter LCPU competitions, as they are bound to follow the PAGB.
Nature and Wildlife; well, wildlife means subjects which are wild and free. The Nature category was really invented to avoid endless discussion of what exactly that means, accepting that a lot of club pictures are of trained or captive organisms. Paradoxically, although “zoo shots” are allowed, they mustn’t appear to be! Hence netting, Jessies etc, etc should not appear in your nature pictures.
I agree that 19% replacement is not minor. Trouble is that if you allow any replacement where does it stop? Better say none.
We will find out more about this soon, as the LCPU AGM is taking place at the end of the month.