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.