Tern and its ripple

[Adhika Lie]

Shot this at Bolsa Chica two weeks ago: 400mm, f/10, ISO 1250, 1/2000 HH. Cropped from 24MP to 14.4MP from the UR corner; so not too big of a crop. The exposure on the whites were good in the raw, no highlight is clipped. So if you see that here, that would be unintentional and must be due to processing which I should correct. Highlights -60, shadows +18, Whites +39, Black -25. I did bring the blue and aqua luminance down in the HSL panel on LR to tone down a little bit those blue water.

I think what's interesting about this image is the water ripple created by the tern's dive. Judging from that ripple, it was quite a dive. But I am not too sure about the composition and crop selection. As always, I would love to hear your feedback on this image :)

162928

[Glennie Passier]

Adhika, Love the ripples. IMO it is an awkward frame. I am up for a bit of moving the tern to the left.

[Adhika Lie]

Glennie, you are right, it's a very awkward frame. I have been trying to find the right sentence for it and you've got there before me. I think moving the tern to the left is a really great idea! How did you cut and paste it btw?

[Andrew Harrell]

Adhika: First of all, great capture of a bird behavior (diving into water, coming back up and out). The problem for me with the photo is that I'm as interested in the rippled water as I am the bird, my eyes keep jumping back and forth. Wish you could have caught this a few moments earlier (I know you do too!).

Glennie, with your repost, I would say that this kind of edit makes me feel uncomfortable, ethically speaking. While I know in PS we can do these kinds of things, I just feel that this crosses some kind of line with me on manipulating a nature/natural photo. I am NOT picking on you -- please do not take this personally!! It is just how I feel. And maybe I could be convinced otherwise -- would be happy to have a discussion on nature photo ethics (vs. say personal photos, landscape photos -- maybe different ethics involved?) and very curious what others think/feel.

So for me, crops, exposure, contrast, shadow, light, color changes -- all OK as we are trying to re-create what we saw in nature. Small edits/clean-up in PS are OK. NR is OK. But heavier edits than that and I start to feel uncomfortable with the process -- and not that the end process might not be beautiful. I know that a well-done job would be indistinguishable from a natural one. But if I knew it was not real .... I would feel uncomfortable.

But I remain open to other's thoughts on the subject. Hope others will chime in ..........

AP








AP

[Adhika Lie]

AP, I know what you mean about capturing this a second earlier. These birds are so amazingly fast in their maneuvers but that makes it so fun to catch. Not to mention exposure is difficult with white small birds. So, of course when I catch one with perfect focus and exposure, I think of it as a trophy. But you are absolutely right that this is just a split second too late. Time to go shoot again! Haha.

I know what you mean about altering your digital image. For me, it's always a fine line. My ethics on landscape is actually more strict than with bird (at least for now) until I am so fed up with my mediocre shots that I could alter in post and strive to capture everything perfect on camera. That said, moving the bird might be a little too much for me as well. I am okay with BG clean up because I *think* I am merely playing with presentation and I do not alter the bird as it is. Capturing the bird with a certain pose is elusive enough for me right now that if I have to select a BG as well, I would go frustrated and not move forward at all in this genre. I am getting better in getting the scene set up right in camera though. I predict this will continue to get better as my archive grows

I have a different standard for landscape photography though. Since landscape is all about light and timing for me, I feel it is extremely unethical to edit away the scene to fit your vision like by adding clouds to the sky or what not. I do not depict the scene as I see it with my eyes but I do not alter the compositional element in the picture either. It's not like a certain mountain will go away in ten years time or what not. So I have time to keep on refining my vision of that place.

But that's just me, People may see it differently. I try my best to be truthful about the edits I made in the picture though.

[Andrew Harrell]

I debated about posting what I did, but I do want to see where this discussion could go. I think Glennie was not passing off her RP as a true composition, but more in line with "here's how the picture could be better". But you know what? If this made her happy, and it was for her (not for sale, not fooling anyone with how it was rendered), then .... what's the harm there?

But I understand what you are saying about your landscapes. I've noticed you really like b/w renditions; that's not reality as there is almost always color. But, b/w can sometimes give out such a strong feelings that it's a better choice for a photo rendering. In that case I KNOW you deliberately chose b/w to try a create a feeling. And that's different than, as you said, removing a mountain peak from the background .....

Arrgh. I should just shut-up and go take pics .............

[Glennie Passier]

Interesting threads here. Firstly Adhika; I moved the bird with one giant clone stamp. 2 seconds of work. AP; My number one focus for my photography is to try and get it right in capture. We know how hard this can be. But I would still rather spend the time in the field than on my computer in my dingy office. I moved the bird to give, maybe, a better option. I don't find this unethical. I remember when Jim Keener was posting here. He had the most OOTB compositions, and it was so refreshing to see someone breaking the rules. I have seen images where whole wings have been recreated, canvas added to top, bottom and sides, eyes brightened, BG's re-jigged. Not unethical in my eyes. I agree with Adhika on the landscape side of manipulation, but I would not hesitate taking out a misplaced stone or piece of seaweed.

[Adhika Lie]

Ah clone stamp, that makes sense! Haha. I am gonna play around with different crops for this one maybe even take out the ripple a little bit so it's not too strong of an element in the picture. Thanks for the suggestions you two! I really appreciate it.

[Adhika Lie]

If there is anything, I have IQ for this one. Let's see which of these two crops work:

162958

24 MP cropped to 12.8MP


162959
24 MP cropped to 8.5 MP

[Jim Keener]

Hmm. Thanks for the image. I hadn't known about the ripple until I saw your photograph. I struggle with the composition, crop dilemma a lot. One of my biggest problems, and I don't know if there's an ideal solution with this one. I think it tells a story, but might be difficult to turn into art. For my eyes, the first post is the shot. The subject being the bird and the ripple. If the bird is behind the ripple . . . . Oh well.

As far as the ethics of changes, chacon a son gout. For me, what we're working on here is not archival images, but birds as art. There are limits to how much one might want to change things, but it's a personal decision, not a community based standard. That's my take, and I could very well be wrong, as I often miss the point about these things. The ethical dilemma for me would be a lie or lack of disclosure: claiming accuracy when modifications had been made. And as Glennie wrote I also know great bird photographers who will move feathers and make other significant changes. And as far as I know they disclose it each time they do it. Others at the same level choose not to do that.

I keep going back to Ansel Adams who spent far more time in the darkroom than behind the lens. Image modification isn't a post Photoshop phenomenon.

And I'm so glad to read I make OOTB changes. I hadn't realized it. Good observation, Glennie.

Good thread.

[Glennie Passier]

Adhika, I do like the first one. Mainly because of more room for the wonderful ripple on the bottom.

Jim, I did mean my comment most respectfully and know you would have taken it that way. Where are your images!?

[Jim Keener]

I know and trust you did. It is not a problem. I was flattered to have been mentioned. Honest.

My images? I expected to have some for review before now. I don't. My current work isn't good enough for presentation. The easy shots are gone and I don't have enough experience to find others. In my defense, I do look, often using eBird to locate hotspots and checking lists of sightings. But the knowledge that birds are in the area and finding them to photograph are distant things for me. Meanwhile I'm gearing up and practicing to prepare for the migration season, when the birds are BIG and easy to find. Thanks for the question.

[Diane Miller]

Wonderful and difficult catch, Adhika! And excellent processing.

Unfortunately not every image can conform to an ideal graceful composition. In this case, the action provides the excuse. I'd go with the OP and maybe *** back a bit to the right. Or crop tight on the bird, as IQ permits, and let the splash be very secondary. Of someone doesn't know the behavior of this bird, it might not read that the bird has just emerged from the water. That's a great shot to try for -- keep at it!

Great discussion above. On the line between photojournalism and art, I lean more toward art. Degree of manipulation should depend on the intended audience or use, of course, and should be revealed up front.

I got word of a recent incident in the Kamera Klub I stomped out of a few years ago: there was a picture in Nature competition, following restrictive PSA rules, where a major change had been made. It was defended on the grounds that the original image was in the layer underneath!!!! This is a choice group.

[Jim Keener]

Dear Diane, I wish I could have seen you stomp.

[Diane Miller]

Thanks, Jim! You've heard the saying, leaving footprints in the concrete... The petty ignorance and corruption in that organization made modern political campaigns look benign.