Is this acceptable
 

Just wondering what others think about the ethics of image editing like the attached - is this going to far ?.

Its acceptable to me Roy. You have only taken out clutter, not added anything. I am in the process of doing exactly the same thing with a LTT, the branches in the background are too distracting and spoil a lovely image.

I'm newly joined, just a new kid on the block and don't know much about digital photography. My photographic postings have been pretty rough and ready and I limit myself to cropping and recently a little noise reduction, sharpening and brightening.
I feel almost ashamed to post such images when I see the quality pictures on this site.
Now I'm learning that instead of capturing stunning images by using natural talent, patience and perhaps a little luck, some of it is done with the aid of commercial photographic enhancing programs.
Any and all extraneous material is removed artificially. leaving a pristine image. Instead of photographic skill, digital processing skill can be of prime importance. No one knows if it's talent in the field or talent on the computer.
I have to say I'm disapointed.

Bruce C

I will confess Roy it does look a bit too bare and unnatural. It is unlikely a bird would leave itself that exposed. As you say the original is too cluttered. Maybe add a branch.

It looks like too much effort for my liking.

Bruce.
Image editing goes back virtually to the start of photography only in a different form. Editing is not something new, computers have just made things a bit easier. It used to be done with film in just the same way, using scrapers on the negatives or a coloured pencil, filling in the areas that you didn't want to be seen on the exposed paper, or dodging and burning. It used to take a lot of time and effort to get it right and a lot of wasted paper. As far as I am concerned removing items that are distracting and of no importance is fine to remove, adding items to a photo is a different ball game, that is totally wrong in my eyes unless it is stipulated in the write up as being manipulated.
I wish I could be one of those photographers that gets it right every time, but thats not the case, occasionally I have to do some selective editing just to get rid of some of those annoyances

Rob.
You say that the image looks unnatural and a bird wouldn't leave itself vulnerable like that, I have lots of unedited photos with that sort of background, I try if I can get an angle so as to have no background just the sky as the backdrop, in my case the feeder is setup so I can have a plain green background, the conifers are 60yds behind the feeders so there is no clutter. I have attached twigs and branches to the feeder so they can perch before they go to feed. This is the same as editing accept I try and do it at source when I can.
I think Roy has done a fantastic job of removing the detractions, to leave a great image.

Opening a can of worms I see. Maybe to feed the birds. I too have wondered where the art really is, is it taking the picture or processing it? I guess I try and remain as close to the original shot as possible. So my work also has the rough look and I am happier with that version.

Bruce,

The images in your gallery are fine, nothing to be ashamed there. As for post pocessing on your pc, then noise reduction, and sharpening are a normal part of the digital process. Sensors create noise when the sensor signal is amplified, and the anti alaise filter by its very nature softens the image. A bit of cloning out of dust spots is the only solution to dust on the sensor, Cropping and brightening are what you could have done in the film days if you printed your own, so nothing new there.

Photographic skill is about getting as much as possible right at the time you press the shutter. Anything beyond that, done in the digital darkroom, is down to personal preference. You would have to be pretty smart in the post processing department to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Don

Bruce, I am not saying that this is acceptable and certainly would not post a image in the Gallery with this amount of material removed. I am just interested in people's views on this. If nothing else it has certainly made you aware of what could be done.

Guess this proves I can't type as fast as Christine. :rolleyes: :D :D

Don

I agree Rob, but it has achieved what I hoped it would - some response on the subject.

Roy,

I agree with Rob if all the branches are removed. The twig that crosses the bird yes, and possibly the distracting one to the left crossing at 45 deg.

Don

Roy, I apologize--my posting was certainly uncharitable.
I fully am aware that image enhancing has been on the books since the Daguerrotype and I know that it's so much easier now to do whatever it takes digitally to produce clean, bright and almost perfect pictures.
I just have a slightly queasy feeling when objects that were once in the picture are gone forever. The temptation is there and the means are easily available for all of us to become a Houdini of photography and I'm just not sure if that's for the good.
Anyway, you started the ball rolling and I gave it a kick on its way. That's for the good.

Bruce C

Bruce, Glad you are aware of why I started the thread. In Bird photographs it is common place to remove some distracting elements but not to this extent. Also it is well to remember as Don say's 'you can not make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear'.

I would say you've turned a mundane lack lustre snapshot into a useable photograph, and no, I don't think you've gone to far in this instance. If you were doctoring the image to make it appear as if it was taken somewhere where it would be a twitchers tick, (which does happen in the tickers fraternity from time to time), then yes it would be unethical and a step too far. Bird photographers wouldn't normally take a photo of a bird with so much clutter around it unless it was some sought after rarity or a particularly desirable species, however, if they did then I'm sure they would be pleased with the result you've obtained.

nirofo.

Roy C you have done a great work, no doubt.As for this debate of computer talent versus natural skill is being discussed for quite a long time(Ansel Adam too had been criticized during his time for manipulation)..Why infact me at one point of time,my standing was same as where Bruce stand now.But with time I have realized - to get the good end result ,one "Must " start with the best "Original" Image.Image editing software won't improve the badly composed or badly shot picture by any means.Why even in this forum if you will notice where the excellent images were ruined by editing softwere.
I would like to argue my point in this way:-If you write a story with a pen and paper,you make more subtle mistakes which is being rectified by computer(if you use computer).So you stay with your "original Idea" and give yourself more space to to do creative thinking than to be bothered about nitty gritty.
2nd Photography is a "multidisplinery action" It does not start with the camera and ends with the camera.One has to have a enough skill to handle all the stages of processing from "conception till the final stage that is print"

To remove - OK; to add - absolutely forbidden.
However, Bruce has opened a whole new debate: where does skill end and technology begin? Unless the photographer goes out with a basic camera and uses judgement for all settings, he is starting to rely on technology. It is, therefore just a matter of degree. As modern photographers using a digital site, we must accept that images will be manipulated.

Mike I am bit hazy about "to remove OK and to add is forbidden" As far as I remember manipulation of images were being done since ages i.e. before computer has come into being. Only the differance is, that time it was tedious ,you have to have mastery in darkroom processes beside knowing your camera. What is importent at this juncture ,the proper use of technology.A through professional knows the dividing line between legal and illegal act.He maintains that line respectfully.For he knows his images has to pass the information accuratly & effectively.A very fine balancing act.

Hi mcliu. I see nothing wrong with removing clutter - it's not always easy to get the shot (particularly branches when taking birds, but also objects like cars in landscapes) without such distractions. However, I do not think that it is acceptable to add something to the image that was not there in the first place. An example would be taking a sunset from one image and adding it to another and then presenting the altered image as an original capture.

In asking where does skill end and technology begin, I was trying to make the point that a photographer may claim not to use technology, but would still rely on auto focus, exposure and white balance, which is quite a lot of technology. Add in filters, and the technology is getting quite serious (it would be no argument that filters have been around a long time - they still use technology).

I agree with all that you say about photographers manipulating images and would even take it one step further: the skill of modern photographers can also include use of digital manipulation. In the end, it all depends on what gives the individual photographer pleasure.

Personally, I am such a poor photographer that I'll use anything that I can (apart from adding) to get an image that pleases me. It's up to others to determine what they use and do.

We've been down this road before. If it's acceptable to you then that should be the end of it. In my view, PP is part of the art of digital photography and anything goes. I don't understand why you would not post a picture like the one in question in your gallery. As I said it's all part of digital art. I don't particularly like the modified picture, it looks unreal but that's only a matter of personal preference.

Well said Mike & Dan , This discussion was recently a part of a reputed photography magazine .A quetion of similar nature too has been posted by one of the reader and I find it very interesting (as I said I too have undergone through the same dilemma).I was just wondering what other has to say about it. I think this is a phase of growth( painful one I would say for me).There was a time I was very much dependent on PS work.Now after a chance meeting with lello ,then Dan & Stephen fox(also an esteem members of this forum, and I am sure I going to meet many more) My whole mindset has been changed.Now for it has been long time since I done any PS work.I work hard to get a decent image.PS work only for resize till date.This must be my "second phase of learning" . I am experiencing something new inside me.As I said it is a "fine balancing act". Thanks to everyone to bear with me.Apologies if I have offended anyone by any means .

Another sentiment that I agree with. I look forward to the day when the image straight from the camera is satisfying. But, in the meantime......

I would not post in my Gallery for the same reason's that you state, it looks unreal and also I like my bird shots to show some of the habitat where possible.

Still a nice bit of cloning though.

I still think it depends what you want the photograph for, if it's for a record shot to show the birds distinctive plumage in order to easily identify it, then the doctored image is ideal and does just that. If it's to be a more photogenic picture then it needs to be just that, a picture! In my mind in order to be a picture it must be worthy of framing or sticking in your favourite photo album, or just to be proud of and show off on the web or where ever. A picture is in the eye of the beholder, but having said that there are a few basic rules to make it stand out from the crowd. Some thought needs to go into the composition, I know birds don't stay around too long, but with practice it's possible to frame a bird in the most photogenic position in the frame before it flies off, usually on the thirds. (where have we heard that before?) Unless the bird is a particular speciality or rarity that you must get at any cost, then don't bother clicking it unless it's in a favourable position. In my book, favourable position is against an uncluttered background that makes the bird stand out, (not against the light unless you're after arty farty shots). Many birds are great posers and readily perch on fenceposts, branches, walls etc, try not to shoot them against a bright sky unless you're using fill in flash, otherwise you'll just have a dark fronted bird with little detail that you can see. I do a lot of my bird photography from a hide or the car window, I always try to approach early morning or late afternoon with the sun over my left shoulder so that it lights the front of the bird with the best light of the day. With a little planning and knowing where the sun rises and sets in different parts of the world at different times of the year, you can tune the lighting conditions to suit your needs. It pays to plan ahead, it's not always possible to get the shot you want without putting in a lot of time and effort, (not to mention money and marrital status). Very often you wish you could just get out of the hide, car etc and move that frond that's popped up right in front of the bird. Unless the fronds across it's face, beak, eye etc, take the click, it may be quite simple to clone it out without going over the top. If it doesn't work you can always dump it later. Don't doctor your bird shots by putting in items that were never there in the first place, a well known twitcher was accused of submitting bird records with accompanying photo's that were taken abroad and doctored to appear local, he dropped out of the scene.

nirofo.

Absolutely! And what it is for will define how much manipulation is acceptable. I think we all take certain things for granted - levels/curves changes, cropping, sharpening. Add to that little tweaks such as cloning out contrails in clear skies, annoying twigs in corners of the photo, desaturation/converting to B&W. I dont think anyone would be too shocked by any of that. Then get to 'art' - could involve anything, depending on the intended result.
All that really matters is the personal satisfaction of the image-maker with
the end product, and honesty in declaring what was done.

Surely it all hinges on the photographer's goals. Is the photographer trying to faithfully record an event or object or is the photographer trying to create a piece of art? If the former then minimum manipulation should be done, perhaps some cropping, exposure adjustment and sharpening. Only those things that contribute to allowing the viewer to more easily see what the photographer is trying to record. Mind you even in that sort of situation, photgraphers like Brady frequently moved things around to create a more dramatic picture. In the latter case then anything goes that adds to the creator's vision. Need a better sky? Put one in. Move a tree from left to right. Why not? Remove a wart from a face. Certainly! It's the same process that paint artists have been going through for centuries. It's part of what makes photography art.

I think here you're talking about artistic licence which is something far removed from the original discussion and would warrant a thread of it's own! The gentle removal of a frond, or the lightening of the foreground with a slight amount of colour correction and sharpening is perfectly legitimate and has been used to good effect for years by all manner of bird and natural history photographers. The moving things around or adding things that were never there in the first place is in my opinion to be left to the arty farty brigade because it's suddenly become surreal and far removed from faithfull recording of a natural subject, or for that matter a beautifull and realistic piece of photographic art.

nirofo.

Bruce

I know this may not sit well with most, but.......

I encourage folks to work on their images - as much as is humanly possible - 'on location' - as some painters might do. Check the location - unmercifully - from top to bottom, side to side. - very slowly - whenever you can. Pull some weeds or wild grass or........... if the need arises to clean up an image. Try different lighting, image frames like trees, windows and all - anything - on location - to improve an image.

Use a piece of cardboard with a hole in it in front of your eye to see how much to put in your image. (Up close to your eye for wide angle and arm's length for tele work).

If you know of a strong painter's group in your community, ask questions of the members (if they will answer them) about light, composition, and everything you can think of about art. Study the work in major galleries to learn how to put an image together. The principles for composition are the same for painters as for a cam.

I suggest that you DO NOT use a P C art program any more than is absolutey necessary. it is not meant as a means of bailing one out of trouble for being lazy on location. You will learn far, far more, working o[ your image in the field and keep more pixels in your rimage(s) if you use the P C only for the smallest amount of image correction possible.

I for one have lost far too many irreplacable images in my time plalying around too much on here and in a darkroom in my early years.

Best of Luck, Mate.

Norm D

As Snowyowl said earlier we've been down this road before.

How and where does ethics come in to it removing bits, or adding bits, altering contrast, or white-balance, or levels, or colour saturation, sharpening, blurring, dodging, and burning, just what is the moral issue here?

It all sounds pretty pious and prissy, but about what I really don't know. Is there some dogma of the Church of Photography that is being violated?

I stand by what I said in Post #26. If the photographer is trying to portray a specific event etc for posterity, then accuracy is vital. That is where ethics do come in. Beyond that anything goes. I didn't use the term "artistic license" but obviously that's what it is and it comes into every picture that we decide to edit.

Agreed. Well put.

I recall saying in one of the other threads that it is a question of what is being claimed for the image, not the image itself.

Then there were the complaints about the images coming out of Lebanon last year, where some were saying that smoke had been darkened, flames brightened, toys placed in and amongst rubble.

I am following this thread with a great interest.So many views and perceptives,I amazed to know what other think about the issue..??.Now many questions which use to bother me a lot.Is being answered.Previously when I click a snap I do not bother ,I was havily dependent on PS.Now I am more restrained.I work hard on my picture.Change in mindset,isn't it?

Getting it right in-camera has always been time well-spent. It used to save film wastage and reshoots, now it saves time in front of the monitor!:)