There’s an interesting discussion over at NPN about ”fixing” your subject, i.e. manipulation before pressing the shutter (as opposed to manipulation in post-processing). If any manipulation needs to be done, I prefer to do mine before I take the picture. I just like the idea of getting it right in the camera. But the dilemma is that if you love nature so much, why are you willing to sacrifice some plants for the benefit of your selfish pursuit? My take on the issue is that I am already damaging the plants just by being there. Say for example last night’s photo session with the lesser butterfly orchids. There was some tall grass creating distractions, so I carefully pulled out the grass until the subject was free. Then I set up the tripod in the middle of the forest undergrowth and kneeled down to look at the viewfinder. Just simply by doing that, I was also destroying grass and other plants (mind you, no orchids!). So how is it different that I pull out distractions around my subject, than trampling down grass while shooting? Goodness knows how many plants I kill just by walking in the forest. 

My guiding light whenever I need to do some gardening around my subject is that the subject itself is holy. If the subject is a common flower that grows plentiful, then I might use the plamp to bend it a little to suit my composition. The rarer the subject, the holier it is. When I was shooting the calypso orchids in May, I made sure not to even touch the flowers!

From the nature point of view, I think it would be almost hypocritical to condemn the gardening you do for your subject because one way or another, you will end up destroying something. The only question that remains is more photographic – whether you find it morally acceptable to manipulate your pictures at all. And that’s a totally different discussion so let’s leave it for some other time!