versão em português
Tools
( end of tools )
( end of site navigation )

Malabo News

Sign up and get in your e-mail, all the news from Malabo APD.

( end of malabo news )

Cynophilia Photography Ethics

We cannot forget that in cynophilia the market value of an animal is linked directly to its phenotype.

Famous breeders base their studies in genetics in pictures in magazines, yearbooks, books and the Web. After all, the challenge is to genetically sculpt specimens that are more and more in the standards for each breed.

It is obvious that everybody wants to have a perfect dog, and many people would like to see their dogs without that “little imperfection.”

With today digital resources, many photographers alter the phenotype of dogs, going as far as doing it before the breeder or owner have seen the original picture. This assures them that the picture will be sold and clients will be happy, but what about the market? And the genetic studies? And the breed’s improvement?

Thinking on these issues, I decided for putting the following subtitle in my ads: “Johnny – dog’s phenotype not altered”, and I invite my fellow animal photographers to do the same. After all, what references will future generations of breeders have when comes the time of studying breeding?? In what will they be able to believe?

I want to remember you that digital make ups in an animal’s phenotype are only valid when what is being advertised is not the dog’s genetic, but some good as shampoo, food, medicine, etc… In this case, not even the dog’s name should show (after all, the dog does not exist, for it was computer-made.)

Digital resources are valid in cynophilia pictures only when cleaning up or altering the backdrop, or to erase a strap, callus or some hair/fur acquired flaw, etc. In other words, an image treatment not to compromise the dogs own characteristics.

Our opinion is that this procedure should be made public. Whenever the dog’s phenotype is altered, the person in charge should add the subtitle “picture merely illustrative” (as in well-regulated publicity.)

After all, what were all those years of genetic improvement worth if any photographer with some digital knowledge can make an average dog look like an excellent specimen? Based on these principles, I ask you to think about the value of a picture like this. It would be interesting to all my fellows to think of photography as “an eternal document attesting the truth but that is now on behalf of lies.”