Is this acceptable

[Birdsnapper]

Originally Posted by mcliu

... 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"....

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......

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

We've been down this road before. 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.

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.

[Fixer]

Still a nice bit of cloning though.

[nirofo]

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.

[gordon g]

I still think it depends what you want the photograph for

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.

[Snowyowl]

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.

[nirofo]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

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.

[nldunne]

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

[walwyn]

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?

[Snowyowl]

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.