How much post processing/digital manipulation do you think is acceptable and why?

[Ofer Levy]

Hi all, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I guess this is quite a problematic topic which can create some drama and conflict but I would really love to hear what you all think.<o:p></o:p>
I have tried to participate in a few competitions lately and I must say I think their rules are a bit too strict.<o:p></o:p>
Because of these strict rules at least 95% of my images can’t qualify.
I think that these rules were created by people who don’t do wildlife photography as every one of us knows that it is almost impossible to get a perfect wildlife image straight out of the camera.<o:p></o:p>
It is especially true when it comes to action/behaviour shots.<o:p></o:p>
I will not change the image in a way that it will tell a different story than what was really captured. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc. <o:p></o:p>
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above.
Wonder what you all think?<o:p></o:p>
Your input is greatly appreciated,<o:p></o:p>
Cheers<o:p></o:p>

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Ofer,
This one is definitely going to go to hot topic! My simple answer is whatever you are comfortable with as long as you disclose it or follow the rules!
I've always wondered about the judging in major competitions.....and I often judge here in the state on both local and national competitions. Often I get a set of rules or certain topic that I am judging....and I may DQ an image even though I like it.....as it doesn't fit the topic or follow the "rules". After 10 or so years of judging....I know everyone doesn't leave happy! You would thing that judging would give me an advantage.....and I too often scratch my head when I see the winners......get 10 judges.....and you may get 10 different results!
I too think that some of the rules are strict and really short sighted.......but in a nature competition......do you really want to allow manipulation?......where would you draw the line? When is a certain amount of manipulation too much? This can open a whole new can of worms.....so just follow and read the rules of each contest......no issues then!

[Dan Brown]

Create art!
Disclose all!
Follow the rules or don't enter!

Oh, did I mention, Disclose all! or get in trouble!:S3:

[Ofer Levy]

...do you really want to allow manipulation?......where would you draw the line? When is a certain amount of manipulation too much? This can open a whole new can of worms.....
Thanks for your input Roman!
I actually do want to allow manipulation and the line is drawn very simply: any manipulation is allowed as long as it doesn't look significantly differnt to what the RAW file looks like. I would of course ask to see the RAW file.
I think that by applying common sense - judges should be able to easily tell which image is too manipulated.

[Ofer Levy]

...Create art...
Thanks Dan!
This is a great topic for a whole new discussion. I don't create any art - I just capture the art created by nature.....:w3

[Dan Brown]

Thanks Dan!
This is a great topic for a whole new discussion. I don't create any art - I just capture the art created by nature.....:w3

Ofey, you create art if you post process as you describe!:S3:

[Roman Kurywczak]

I'm 99% sure the early rounds of judging don't judge the RAW file alongside the jpeg submitted.......they may never get through the process! Most competitions allow dodging and burning.....so you can tame things that way. My question has always been.....what is the difference between dodging and burning.....and either a selective levels layer or selective brightness contrast layer? Nothing IMO......so part of me agrees with you.....but removing.....I wouldn't go that far.

[Ofer Levy]

.....but removing.....I wouldn't go that far.
Why? why removing a distracting branch which has nothing to do with the action is considered going too far..? :w3

[Ofer Levy]

Ofey, you create art if you post process as you describe!:S3:
I don't feel this way. I am not an artist. Applying some basic photoshop technique doesn't make me an artist...:w3

[Roman Kurywczak]

Why? why removing a distracting branch which has nothing to do with the action is considered going too far..? :w3
How big of a branch? Who decides? What about another bird that was in the BG? I think you open up too much to "interpretation" if you allow that. Besides.....that's what keeps me going as a photographer.....striving for that "perfect" one. While it may not actually exist.....keep looking and trying is what drives me as a nature photographer.
Philosophically I feel much the same way as you.....but I don't make the "rules". Get onto the board and change them.....or follow the rules. That simple.

[Jay Gould]

Hi, there was a major discussion on this topic in 2009; perhaps someone with more skills can find the thread.

The discussion raised this identical question, and as I recall the group divided between those that did not believe in digital manipulation and those that did with required disclosure.

For me, in a non-contest setting, i will not hesitate to remove anything that is either distracting, or even if not distracting, is not part of the story I am telling by my image.

Having moved my predominate interest from Avian to Landscape - of course I still love to shoot Wildlife and Avian - I will digitally manipulate and remove anything and everything. For example, I will remove just about all if not all Hand Of Man items from my landscapes. Fences, houses, people, telephone poles and wires in the distance are all removed unless I feel they are necessary for the story.

If and when I create a website for my images with the ability to possibly sell my images, I would not describe every item I have removed; I will simply state: "This image has been digitally manipulated; and, I have removed from the original scene items that I did not consider necessary for the image I am presenting."

[Greg Basco]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year (http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2010/07/raw-perfection-the-photoshop-disclosure-manifesto/). Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!). :S3:

Cheers,
Greg

[Ofer Levy]

How big of a branch? Who decides? What about another bird that was in the BG? I think you open up too much to "interpretation" if you allow that. Besides.....that's what keeps me going as a photographer.....striving for that "perfect" one. While it may not actually exist.....keep looking and trying is what drives me as a nature photographer.
Philosophically I feel much the same way as you.....but I don't make the "rules". Get onto the board and change them.....or follow the rules. That simple.

Thanks Roman, I realise you are right and this discussion will actually leads nowhere.:e3
Just a few more words:
What keeps me going as a photographer is to capture behaviour of wild animals in the most interesting and beautiful way I can.
Let's assume I got the most amazing image of a peregrine flying with prey - full frame, perfect techs, light etc. However, way behind the falcon a bloody crow decided to fly and it appears as a small but distracting out of focus dark area.
I will remove this totally irrelevant distraction without hesitation and I feel this kind of manipulation should be allowed in any competition....:2eyes2:

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year (http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2010/07/raw-perfection-the-photoshop-disclosure-manifesto/). Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!). :S3:

Cheers,
Greg
Thanks for your input Greg and Jay!
I guess this can go on forever and there will never be a consensus which I guess is fine...:w3

[arash_hazeghi]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year (http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2010/07/raw-perfection-the-photoshop-disclosure-manifesto/). Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!). :S3:

Cheers,
Greg

I agree with the first part, but I disagree with the 2nd part. Let me give you an example, you shoot an Avocet in flight, of course for handhold flight photography there is no such thing as composition. You just get unlucky and a small OOF duck appears somewhere in the background just when the wing position is best. It makes the image distracting and needs to be cloned out. This has nothing to do with photographer's skills it is just bad luck. If you had clipped the avocet's wings that was a different story. For people who shoot perched birds or setups this is a non-issue but for flight photographers the luck factor is a very big deal.

IMO digital manipulation has to be considered in the context of photo and there is no one answer.

[Greg Basco]

That's for sure, Ofer!

Cheers,
Greg

[Roman Kurywczak]

I need to get you in the judges chair Ofer!!! ......but given the size of some of these major competitions and the # of entries......you have multiple judges....and that is where not having strict rules can become a problem! Everyone has been in the scenearion that Arash describes and you do......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded? By allowing removal or addition of elements......we diminish those images where luck smiled on the prepared!:bg3:
I don't care what kind of manipulation you do here or for personal use......but I want the major competitions to be a bit stricter. Consider the person who got the 1 in a million shot.......should someone who manipulated be rewarded equally?

[Ofer Levy]

I need to get you in the judges chair Ofer!!! ......but given the size of some of these major competitions and the # of entries......you have multiple judges....and that is where not having strict rules can become a problem! Everyone has been in the scenearion that Arash describes and you do......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded? By allowing removal or addition of elements......we diminish those images where luck smiled on the prepared!:bg3:
I don't care what kind of manipulation you do here or for personal use......but I want the major competitions to be a bit stricter. Consider the person who got the 1 in a million shot.......should someone who manipulated be rewarded equally?
Thanks Roman, I am actually referring to THE 1 in a million shot! It is FAR BETTER than the one which won the competition only because the bloody out of focus crow was in the BG. (please refer to pan#13)
This simply doesn't make sense!:e3

[Roman Kurywczak]

Like I said before.......if I ever figure out judges:2eyes2:....I'll let you know!:w3

Off to shoot fireworks.....I'll check in tomorrow to see how they progress here.... as I am sure you will get a million different opinions.....very much like judging:eek:!

[arash_hazeghi]

......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded?

For what Roman? For being lucky or for having better skills? I think you missed the point :S3::w3

[Roman Kurywczak]

For what Roman? For being lucky or for having better skills? I think you missed the point :S3:

Nope....didn't miss the point. I have judged many, many photo competitions. Have you? Once you do, you will see that people will disagree with your opinion. What makes my, your, Ofer's judgement the final word? News flash it isn't. Different contes may have differetn results. I firmly believe someone who doesn't have the crow or duck in the BG should be rewarded. People....myslef include.....who have that happen to them.....should just keep trying. I will reverse the question......how would you feel if you had the "perfect" image......and they allowed removal of items and you lost to that. Consider the wolf in the game farm from last years BBC as you contemplate the answer.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Always a hot topic for sure! I remove elements often enough in my images, I have no problem at all with image manipulation. For contests I can apprecite why the rules were out there...where do you draw the line? It has to be an all-or-nothing decision.

My favorite landscape image that I took has a branch that bugs the heck out of me on the original raw file (there was no way to physically remove it on the field). That branch is long gone from my personal files...but I entered an unmanipulated version in a major Canadian contest a few years ago with the branch intact...and low and behold the image won! You never know...just keep an "intact" version for contests. If the subject matter is strong enough some judges may dig it anyhow:S3:

[Dan Brown]

I don't feel this way. I am not an artist. Applying some basic photoshop technique doesn't make me an artist...:w3
Ofer, I like this definition below (gleaned from wiki) for "Artist" and you definitely qualify. With the your attention to detail and high standards regarding image sharpness, comp, color, etc, I think you and many of the fine photographers here on BPN qualify. Now, the art that you and others produce is, of course "in the eye of the beholder" wink,wink!!

 A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice
 A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic
 One who makes their craft a fine art

Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art. An artist also may be defined unofficially as "a person who expresses him- or herself through a medium". The word is also used in a qualitative sense of, a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, an artistic practice.
Most often, the term describes those who create within a context of the fine arts or 'high culture', activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking, photography, and music—people who use imagination, talent, or skill to create works that may be judged to have an aesthetic value. Art historians and critics define artists as those who produce art within a recognized or recognizable discipline. Contrasting terms for highly-skilled workers in media in the applied arts or decorative arts include artisan, craftsman, and specialized terms such as potter, goldsmith or glassblower.

[Greg Basco]

Arash, while I understand your point about the challenges of flight photography, I agree with Roman that if another photographer had been lucky and/or skilled enough to get the shot without the crow, that image would rate higher.

Cheers,
Greg

[arash_hazeghi]

Nope....didn't miss the point. I have judged many, many photo competitions. Have you? Once you do, you will see that people will disagree with your opinion. What makes my, your, Ofer's judgement the final word? News flash it isn't. Different contes may have differetn results. I firmly believe someone who doesn't have the crow or duck in the BG should be rewarded. People....myslef include.....who have that happen to them.....should just keep trying. I will reverse the question......how would you feel if you had the "perfect" image......and they allowed removal of items and you lost to that. Consider the wolf in the game farm from last years BBC as you contemplate the answer.

Hi Roman,
I have judged some low-key local contests, not anything big and nothing makes my judgement the final word in anything, however as a humble and modest photographer my opinion is formed based on logic and numbers given some years experience in flight photography.

I still think you are missing the point by comparing apples and oranges, the photo of the wolf was not about digital manipulation at all but was about false disclosure, the photographer claimed the wolf was wild but it was trained. In what logic this is comparable to removing an OOF duck in the BG of a dynamic flight shot and disclosing it? That case is more similar in nature to photographing a captive falcon in flight and then presenting it as a wild falcon. I am with you that such image is inferior to an image of a wild falcon because it takes A LOT more skills to track and capture a wild falcon in flight so it is a higher level of technical skill in this case.

We have to disagree but such is life. Thanks for your input, it's great to hear what other photographers think :S3:

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, while I understand your point about the challenges of flight photography, I agree with Roman that if another photographer had been lucky and/or skilled enough to get the shot without the crow, that image would rate higher.

Cheers,
Greg

Greg this is where we differ, the OOF crow has nothing to do with photographer's skill it is just luck. Any ways, I feel like we all have different opinions and it's great to hear what other people think...

[Greg Basco]

Arash, yes, I understand your point, though it could be that one photographer timed it just a bit better but I'm getting a bit absurd now. I would still say that, all other things that are under the photographer's control (exposure, sharpness, etc.) being equal, the standout photo would be the one where skill combined with luck.

If we ever get invited to judge the BBC, we can hash it out in London:S3:

Cheers,
Greg

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, yes, I understand your point, though it could be that one photographer timed it just a bit better but I'm getting a bit absurd now. I would still say that, all other things that are under the photographer's control (exposure, sharpness, etc.) being equal, the standout photo would be the one where skill combined with luck.

If we ever get invited to judge the BBC, we can hash it out in London:S3:

Cheers,
Greg

Greg luck and skill is where we differ, like I said this might be hard for non-flight photographers to digest because they don't come across these circumstances often and I can understand why. I know that Doug Brown and Jim Neiger, both of whom I respect a lot also share a similar opinion. Doug captured an amazing image of a landing snail kite on our trip to Florida, 99.99% photographers do not have the skills to capture such an image from a boat hand-holding a 700mm rig in low light and get such a dramatic and sharp image, but there was a small weed or something he had to clone out. Now according to some rules that is manipulation and might disqualify the image to enter a contest :w3 IMHO that image deserves every award.

Hopefully I won't get invited because then I might get into a big fight with the non-flight photographers :bg3: I also do photography for fun, it isn't my profession and I don't care that much about winning contests or judging them, I just love looking at great photographs


Thanks for your input, I always enjoy your work too, hopefully we will get to meet some day and I can learn about hummer multi-flash photography

Happy 4th of July, I am signing off for today. will check back to see what other ideas are out there...

[Charles Glatzer]

Ofer,

These contests you speak of are not about the perfect image, but rather the story within.

Chas

[Tom Graham]

What if I snap the shutter with my camera. BUT the RAW processing and cropping and -rule allowed changes/processing- are done by someone else? Is it still my image, and to enter in contests?
Tom

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Arash. Yes, I actually have discussed this very thing with Doug, and I definitely do understand the viewpoint.

Cheers,
Greg

[Desmond Chan]

I guess this is quite a problematic topic which can create some drama and conflict...

Not at all. In fact, this or similar topic has been discussed numerous time. If you scroll down the page, you will see this thread started on May 27, 2011 by George Wilson:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/84463-Ethics-in-Digital-Photography


I have tried to participate in a few competitions lately and I must say I think their rules are a bit too strict.<o:p></o:p>
Because of these strict rules at least 95% of my images can’t qualify. Different standards.


I think that these rules were created by people who don’t do wildlife photography as every one of us knows that it is almost impossible to get a perfect wildlife image straight out of the camera.<o:p></o:p>Perfect? Hmm...what is perfect?

Moose Peterson may disagree with you.

Here's another discussion on "manipulation" among two Photoshop guys and Moose Peterson:

http://kelbytv.com/thegrid/2011/05/03/the-grid-episode-09/

Oh yeah, he would clone out stuff, too, when it comes to landscape and aviation photographs.


I will not change the image in a way that it will tell a different story than what was really captured. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc. <o:p></o:p>Well, it's called "Ethics".


I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been

I think that's based on your opinion?


as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above.If that is true, it seems to suggest that there has never been amazing photograph in the history of photography until digital manipulation came along. Could that be so?


Wonder what you all think?<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>Chas is right; you picked the wrong competitions. They are looking for something different than what you had in mind. Nothing's wrong with that. I don't see why you could then conclude that all those other photographs would be of lower standard than yours. It's like saying a pretty/fancy picture is of higher standard than a Pulitzer prize winning photograph, which, by the way, could be trashy in terms of technique according to Jay Maisel.

As for whether to "manipulate" or not, the answer to that question actually is very simple. You don't even need to disclose anything afterwards. As far as I know, Don McLean has never said what "American Pie" is all about.

[Ofer Levy]

Chas is right; you picked the wrong competitions. They are looking for something different than what you had in mind. Nothing's wrong with that. I don't see why you could then conclude that all those other photographs would be of lower standard than yours..
Dear Desmond, I have to admit your comments made me feel uncomfortable. How on earth you got this brilliant but completely wrong assumption?! Where have you seen me saying or implying that my standards are higher than others...:2
Cheers mate.

[Desmond Chan]

Dear Desmond, I have to admit your comments made me feel uncomfortable. How on earth you got this brilliant but completely wrong assumption?! Where have you seen me saying or implying that my standards are higher than others...:2
Cheers mate.

Here's what you wrote:

" However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above."

You believe all amazing images require digital manipulation. As a result, you conclude: " I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

Your images were "manipulated" (which is the reason they found your photographs not qualified); those photographs qualified for the competitions were not or at least much less "manipulated" than yours (that's why they were found qualified) and you concluded that their standard would be lower. Why? Because amazing images require manipulation, like yours. Meaning? Those other photographs could not be amazing. Yours can.

Again, you picked the wrong competitions. Just because they rejected your images does not qualify you to say:"I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

[Ofer Levy]

Here's what you wrote:

" However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above."

You believe all amazing images require digital manipulation. As a result, you conclude: " I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

Your images were "manipulated" (which is the reason they found your photographs not qualified); those photographs qualified for the competitions were not or at least much less "manipulated" than yours (that's why they were found qualified) and you concluded that their standard would be lower. Why? Because amazing images require manipulation, like yours. Meaning? Those other photographs could not be amazing. Yours can.

Again, you picked the wrong competitions. Just because they rejected your images does not qualify you to say:"I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."
Desmond, I think you should read the text a few more times as nowhere in it I mention myself or my standards of photography. Just a simple reading comprehension difficulty I guess…:w3<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, I think you should read the text a few more times as nowhere in it I mention myself or my standards of photography. Just a simple reading comprehension difficulty I guess…:w3<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p>

Haha...

Sour grapes, Ofer. That's what it is all along :t3:5

[John Chardine]

We must keep the discussion civil guys and gals and we really need to keep snide comments to ourselves.

OK, a dynamic discussion that has gone off the rails a few times. Ofer's original post was essentially about contest rules in particular those that strictly limit the kinds and amount of post-processing that can be done. It might be worthwhile to consider an alternative (and IMO quite valid) contest which allowed almost any manipulation so long as it was disclosed, and required the RAW image to be submitted along with the final image. This would certainly open up the contest and put the onus on the judges to decide which images were manipulated too much. The problem is that contests like this would be literally flooded with images and the sheer number of entrants and the extra work the judges would have to do would make the task impossible. Thus, you can think of these rules not so much as a set of ethical commandments as ways and means to make the competitions and the judging logistically feasible.

A couple of other items above that caught my attention. It might be worthwhile to read-up on the old and extensively discussed topic of what is an art and what is a craft. I found this summary useful:

http://www.denisdutton.com/rnz_craft.htm

and has got me thinking about nature photography and how it fits along the arts and crafts continuum. Haven't figured it out. When Ofer says he doesn't feel like an artist, maybe he does feel like a craftsman?

On the topic of photo judging, I don't know why people are surprised or are lamenting that 10 judges would give 10 different answers. We are dealing with a totally subjective subject, not an exact science, and this is to be completely expected. I am a scientist and have taught at university on and off for the past 25 years. I have never understood how student evaluation in the arts can ever be really fair and unbiased because typically there is just one judge- your lecturer/professor. Ask 5 other professors for a mark on your arts essay or painting and you would likely get 4-5 very different marks. This is the playing field (photo judging) that we are in and we just have to accept it.

[Mike Tracy]

I seldom enter competitions any more but did quite well on the local, state and international level when I did. I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks for your input John and Mike.
John, althoguh not relevant to this thread - I feel much more comfortable with the term CRAFTSMAN when it comes to wildlife photography. (Digital Creation wildlife photography definitly deserves the term ART IMO.)
The terms - ART, ARTIST, CREATING AN IMAGE etc - don't belong to documentary wildlife photography IMO. We all capture, we don't create anything IMO.

[Greg Basco]

I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

Well said, Mike!

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[John Chardine]

I seldom enter competitions any more but did quite well on the local, state and international level when I did. I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them. Both then and now, the complete photographer can both make the image and process it with finesse and aplomb, and I think this should be rewarded over being good at one or the other.

[Desmond Chan]

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them.

Still, as pointed out in the Grid episode linked above, although most "photographs" we see today are Photoshop'ed, many, like those used by magazines for example, call them "illustrations" instead of a photographs. Also, many "digital art/images" out there also started with a photograph or are based on it though they may look totally different from what you would have imagined a photograph looks like.

Perhaps it's back to the same old question: "what is a photograph?"

Or, does it matter what it is called?

[Valerio Tarone]

Ofer I've the same problem: I agree with you: i use only minimal saturation, hue, tunes,ecc. ..but our goal is to increase the beaty of nature, so eliminate a distracting branch could be , IMHO, tolerable.
Probably Roman not perfectly agrrees..

[Ofer Levy]

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them. Both then and now, the complete photographer can both make the image and process it with finesse and aplomb, and I think this should be rewarded over being good at one or the other.

Very well said John!!
I am certain that quite a few photographers who claim they don't process their images and brag about it simply don't have the skills required and can't be bothered to master this essential part of digital photography. :w3

[Danny J Brown]

Very well said John!!
I am certain that quite a few photographers who claim they don't process their images and brag about it simply don't have the skills required and can't be bothered to master this essential part of digital photography. :w3

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown

[Desmond Chan]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?"

Because amazing pictures require manipulation. No? :S3::5:cheers:

Whatever.

[Mike Fuhr]

This is a very intriguing topic for me, and one I have discussed with friends many times. For me, what we are doing as wildlife photographers is CAPTURING a moment in time in nature. One that we want to share with others to tell a story. We are not CREATING a moment in time. That is the essential difference. When we take a great photo, it is because of a combination of preparation and luck, like it or not. A photo with a bird or insect that is "imperfect" tells a story. That is why I take nature photos - to tell a story that will inspire people and garner their interest in nature. When we make a significant change (add feathers, repair a wing, clean a beak), we are altering the story to tell one which we wish we captured. That is not what a photo contest is about. Where do we draw the line?

I agree with Danny in that there is way too much interest in sterilizing nature. What's wrong with some dirt on a beak, or a missing feather??? That is nature. That is the story. There are many things that are perfect in nature, like the ability of the bumblebee to fly and the cryptic coloration of so many animals, but don't assume that our perception of perfect is actually that.

[Danny J Brown]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown

Ofer, you started this post so you are most responsible for keeping it civil, in my opinion. Using hot button words like "claim" and "brag" are not conducive to an intelligent debate.

DB

[Desmond Chan]

What if I snap the shutter with my camera. BUT the RAW processing and cropping and -rule allowed changes/processing- are done by someone else? Is it still my image, and to enter in contests?
Tom

Firstly, there are actually photographers who let other to post-process their images. Could be because they're busy with other aspects of their photography business or they just knew other could post-process better than they do more effectively and efficiently. In cases like that, the photographer hires some Photoshop professional to processes the images according to the photographer's instructions to get the results the photographer wants. It's still the photographer's image.

Secondly, take a look at this recent case:
http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

Andy Baio processed and used Jay Maisel's photo without consulting Jay. Jay sued Andy and won.

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer, you started this post so you are most responsible for keeping it civil, in my opinion. Using hot button words like "claim" and "brag" are not conducive to an intelligent debate.

DB
Danny, have I missed the news that you were nominated as a moderator lately...?:w3

[Don Lacy]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown
Advance processing does not have to include any of those things in fact some of the techniques are so subtle the viewer is never aware of them. They include but are not limited localize tonal correction and contrast enhancement along with selective color and density adjustments. You can also ad advance sharpening and noise reduction and a few more.

The fact that so many digital photographers neglect to learn the true power of PS to improve their images then try to justify that ignorance as being true to the image is beyond me. The Raw file is the first step in creating the image the true work is done in post processing thats were you make a good image sing and a great image fly.

[Ofer Levy]

(add feathers, repair a wing, clean a beak), we are altering the story to tell one which we wish we captured. .
How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

[Ofer Levy]

Advance processing does not have to include any of those things in fact some of the techniques are so subtle the viewer is never aware of them. They include but are not limited localize tonal correction and contrast enhancement along with selective color and density adjustments. You can also ad advance sharpening and noise reduction and a few more.

The fact that so many digital photographers neglect to learn the true power of PS to improve their images then try to justify that ignorance as being true to the image is beyond me. The Raw file is the first step in creating the image the true work is done in post processing thats were you make a good image sing and a great image fly.
Well said Don!!:cheers:

[Danny J Brown]

Danny, have I missed the news that you were nominated as a moderator lately...?:w3

No, but somebody needs to chime in when the insults start to fly, implied or otherwise.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey guys......will read through in a minute.....don't make me delete threads and keep it on topic. We were discussing "rules".

[june skywell]

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=108800&hilit=superb+fairy+wren

Wonderful photos everyone. I think there's a contest for Ofer somewhere. :)

[Mike Tracy]

I believe Ofer's initial post dealt with his consternation relating to certain contests rigid standards regarding the exclusion of images that have been manipulated. There is a distinct difference between utilizing the available tools at hand to post process a raw image and digital manipulation. Post processing in todays digital medium is no different then it was back when i spent countless hours in a dark room. The means to the end is the only difference. Manipulation on the other hand is what the name implies. Changing the scene either by removing or adding elements to change composition.

The contests which restrict all but the most basic of editing processes have to do so. A line has to be drawn in the sand so to speak. Human nature dictates that what is minor to one is major to another. By accepting only images that have been minimally processed it eliminates the wiggle room and ambiguity.

As Chas originally said ( to paraphrase) and how I view it is I would rather see a image that tells a story warts and all then view a sterile one that depicts what the photographer wishes he had seen.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK all,
Yep......moderator is here and I have read all the posts. Let's keep it on topic and leave the insults as this is an interesting thread. The topic was for contests.......not other venues. Please read carefully before making accusations or comments.....or I will close it down or remove threads.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Very well said Mike....and 100% on topic!

[Ofer Levy]

How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

[Harshad Barve]

My thoughts

If you are not happy or you don't find rules SUITABLE for you , Just save $$ and don't enter :S3:

[Don Lacy]

OK all,
Yep......moderator is here and I have read all the posts. Let's keep it on topic and leave the insults as this is an interesting thread. The topic was for contests.......not other venues. Please read carefully before making accusations or comments.....or I will close it down or remove threads.
Roman, Threads often evolve from the original topic and while Ofer's original comment related to contest rules the tittle of the post is a broader subject and at the heart the thread is about post processing and manipulation in general and something we never seem to tire of discussing.:S3: so I hope you allow the discussion to evolve naturally. Now I am all for the keeping it civil and if we do step out of line thats a different story.

[Mike Fuhr]

How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

No, you missed the opportunity to capture that shot. How many times have we all saw something and wished we had our camera? Should we be able to piece together other photos we have to recreate that missed moment? Where do we draw the line? Captureing the special moment (right exposure, in focus, etc.) is what makes a special photo special, not that you artificially created the special moment from fragments.

[Ofer Levy]

No, you missed the opportunity to capture that shot. How many times have we all saw something and wished we had our camera? Should we be able to piece together other photos we have to recreate that missed moment? Where do we draw the line?
What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing.....:e3 BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...:bg3:)

[John Chardine]

........ if we could get back to the topic at hand.

I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from the differing motives each of us has when we make images of nature. Some, like Mike F. are "capturing a moment in time"; essentially they are nature photo-journalists who record an event with little post-processing. This is a perfectly reasonable motive, however, it is no more or less noble a pursuit than nature photographers who create art and add wingtips or remove seeds from the bill. Maybe the best nature images are both art and photo-journalism and this overlap is what the contests are trying to identify. Regardless of your motives, I think we would all agree that we are thrilled when we produce an outstanding nature image that needs no post-processing other than the perhaps a bit of sharpening.

So we all agree then!

[Greg Basco]

John, I definitely think you've hit the nail on the head in that the top contests seem to look for a mix of art and photojournalism. I think it's entirely possible to capture a moment in nature that is artistic and to do so in-camera -- as shown by the winning images in the big international contests with clearly defined processing guidelines enforced.

I think the major contests would view things this way -- If art and story didn't come together in the field, the photo simply isn't one of those instances where photographic skill, preparation, and yes, a healthy dose of luck all combined in one instant to produce one of those special images these contests are seeking.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Roman Kurywczak]

Roman, Threads often evolve from the original topic and while Ofer's original comment related to contest rules the tittle of the post is a broader subject and at the heart the thread is about post processing and manipulation in general and something we never seem to tire of discussing.:S3: so I hope you allow the discussion to evolve naturally. Now I am all for the keeping it civil and if we do step out of line thats a different story.
No problem with evolution......just need to keep it civil as things were getting a bit out of hand for some:w3.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

I think there are two issues here. One is how much cloning etc. is right/wrong? Whenever the topic comes up, good valid arguments are always made on both sides. But one thing that is certain is that it is not a black & white scenario.

That brings us to the other issue....how the contests deal with it. Since there is so much grey area, the contests draw a strong line....I think that is pragmatic because otherwise, the officials will be on a very slippery slope.

If they were to accept images with "certain amount of cloning" and then go through RAW files, compare with JPGs to find out how much cloning was done...whether it fits within guidelines....that would be a huge can or worms and a lot of work.

[John Chardine]

Agree KD and reflected in my post above (pane 37).

[Charles Glatzer]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing.....:e3 BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...:bg3:)

It is simple ...you missed your so called perfect image. Frankly, if all those other factors above are included I doubt the lack of a wingtip would be of such concern to the judges of the contests you are referencing.

I do not call up Monopoly and tell them to change the rules to fit what I think the game should be.

Just be truthful in disclosure and hope for the best.

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

It is simple ...you missed your so called perfect image. Frankly, if all those other factors above are included I doubt the lack of a wingtip would be of such concern to the judges of the contests you are referencing.

I do not call up Monopoly and tell them to change the rules to fit what I think the game should be.

Just be truthful in disclosure and hope for the best.

Chas


Right on !!! Spoken straight to the heart of this thread, IMO.

[Mike Fuhr]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing.....:e3 BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...:bg3:)

I mean you missed capturing the whole image as it happens. Is it perfect if you missed the tip of the wing??? We've all been there.

I think Gregg summed it up quite nicely - thank you.

[Jay Gould]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing.....:e3 BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...:bg3:)


Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?

[Dan Brown]

Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?
HERE, HERE JAY! Well said!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Well said Chas and Jay and very good points made!

[George Wilson]

This is a hot topic for me and after reading the post for a bit felt like puting my opinion out there. I started a similar thread a couple of months ago and it had some good discussion. No matter what side of the fence your are on, the key to post processing manipulation is disclosure to your audience and let them decide what and how they feel.

I come from the editorial school of thought, which is my primary type of photography. Birds and wildlife are secondary. This being said, post processing beyond sharpening to compensate for the low pass sensor and some dodging/burning and color/contrast correction is strictly taboo.

There are degrees of changes that can be done electronically to a photograph. There are technical changes that deal only with the aspects of photography that make the photo more readable, such as a little dodging and burning, global color correction and contrast control. These are all part of the grammar of photography, just as there is a grammar associated with words (sentence structure, capital letters, paragraphs) that make it possible to read a story, so there is a grammar of photography that allows us to read a photograph. These changes (like their darkroom counterparts) are neither ethical nor unethical - they are merely technical. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Changes to content can be accidental or essential (this is an old Aristotelian distinction)- Essential changes change the meaning of the photograph and accidental changes change useless details but do not change the real meaning. Some changes are obviously more important than others. Accidental changes are not as important as essential changes, but both kinds are still changes. <o:p></o:p>
If you had a photograph of a bride and groom and removed the groom, this would constitute an essential change because it would change the meaning of the photograph. (In fact, there are companies that will provide this service if you get a divorce. I guess the wedding book would end up looking like the bride got all dressed up and married herself.) <o:p></o:p>
As in wildlife work, removing a branch takes only a few seconds with the cloning tool in PhotoShop or similar program. Removing the odd branch in the top left corner for example is an accidental change, a change of meaningless details. If we had changed the animal to another species or removed one all together, this would have changed the meaning of the photo and it would have been an essential change. But if we just remove the small details, branches, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small. <o:p></o:p>
I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, natural history or wildlife, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. Not disclosing it and being found out only further damages credibility.<o:p></o:p>
The reason I get so adamant when I discuss this issue is that the documentary photograph is a very powerful thing and its power is based on the fact that it is real. The real photograph gives us a window on history and wildlife behavior; it allows us to be present at the great events of our times and the past. It gets its power from the fact that it represents exactly what the photographer saw through the medium of photography. The raw reality it depicts, the verisimilitude makes the documentary photo come alive. Look at the photo of Robert Kennedy dying on the floor of the hotel in California; look at the works of David Douglas Duncan or the other great war photographers; look at the photo of Martin Luther King martyred on the balcony of a motel in Memphis. The power of these photographs comes from the fact they are real moments in time captured as they happened, unchanged. To change any detail in any of these photographs diminishes their power and turns them into lies. They would no longer be what the photographer saw but what someone else wanted the scene to be. The integrity of the Moment would be destroyed in favor of the editorial, historical or documentary concept being foisted. <o:p></o:p>
The clients I work for understand my views and conservative nature with regard to photography and appreciate the results. The best tactic is open disclosure, whether for a client, a contest or an art show. An example would be the black and white images on my website in the landscape gallery. They are listed as infrared on the gallery title, so you know what they are going in. I have made a disclosure of the images, but they are not post processing created - I had a camera modified to shoot this way, so that I can still maintain my conservative position.
For contests, it levels the playing field for all participants that way images can be judged with like images with no one person possibly having what could be construd as an unfair advantage.

[Daniel Cadieux]

George, you've put some strict restrictions on yourself...but if that's what keeps you going well good on ya!



But if we just remove the small details, branches, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.


If you are going to go so far, I'd say that the camera itself lies too. I'd need to shoot at very small apertures to record what my eyes actually see. Would you need to disclose wide apertures to get the unnaturally blured backgrounds, or disclose the use of flash for the added catchlight or illuminated backlit subject? How about "well lit" images with techs such as ISO 1600, f/4, 1s. where we know in reality the scene was very dark but appears to have been recored in much stronger light? The settings we choose serve to voluntarily present the image as we wish, not as we normally see them. When I post-process an image and clone out a tiny twig coming in the frame I still feel it is a real moment in time captured as it happened. Had I pruned the twig in the field would I need to disclose it as the truth would be that a branch was trimmed in order to get the image I wanted?

As an artist I give myself the option of tweaking things in post processing to make them as I want them (without changing the history of the scene...a singing warbler on a spruce branch remains a singing warbler on a spruce branch even if I eliminated a small unwanted element that found its way into the frame). I'm sure a portrait painter does not need to disclose that he ommited a bad pimple from his subject's face:e3...maybe in a classroom full of apprentice painters yes, but not otherwise. So why do I have to disclose the removal of a stray feather, except for educational purposes?

I agree with full disclosure in a forum such as this one (again for for educational purposes), and in following contest rules to a T.

[John Chardine]

With respect George, a dead horse is being flogged in your post. No matter how hard you try, here or in the thread you started a while back, you cannot make all nature photographers into photo-journalists. I just don't understand why you feel this should be so just because you yourself come from this school. It's like saying "I collect red stamps, and I think everyone else who collects stamps should collect red stamps too". You must see how daft this is. The reasons are obvious and I have outlined them in previous posts- to do so now would be flogging a dead horse as well, so I won't.

OK I will- people make nature images for a myriad of reasons, all of which are completely valid. We need to just live and let live and not pass sanctimonious judgments on particular motives that don't match our own.

[Desmond Chan]

Had I pruned the twig in the field would I need to disclose it as the truth would be that a branch was trimmed in order to get the image I wanted?

Errr...Daniel, I would suggest you not to do that. I think two photographers have been prosecuted and found quity doing something similar (perhaps in a larger scale ...you could google it). I also think it's stated in the Wildlife Act or something that you should not destroy the environment for getting your photographs, or something along that line.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Desmond, I'm pretty sure I'm OK on my own property...:S3:

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, I'm pretty sure I'm OK on my own property...:S3:


Well, I suppose :t3

[Ofer Levy]

Here is an example to one of my images which was digitally processed and digitally manipulated in a way that I think is 100% acceptable.
I decided to take this image in two parts - first framing just the bird and not worrying about the perch and the second is an image of the perch.
Since this is a setup I could easily place my hide a bit further from the bird, take a shot of the bird with the whole perch and just crop, however, I didn't go this route because of two major reasons:
1. I don't like cropping much.
2. I didn't want to worry about composition as the bird was displaying and he kept changing his posture.

I then had to add some canvas to the top, clone the bright areas in the BG (dead leaves) and so on.

I feel that doing things this way I am just using the available technology in order to get a more pleasing final image which truely represents the behaviour of the bird and the scene when the image was taken.
Your thoughts please...

[Ofer Levy]

Here are two original shots:

[Desmond Chan]

This should be a sticky:


Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?

[Ofer Levy]

This should be a sticky:
Hi Desmond, please send me a link to where I can see some of your wildlife images as I have tried to view them here but they are gone. It is interesting to see where you are coming from.
Cheers:w3

[Desmond Chan]

Hi Desmond, please send me a link to where I can see some of your wildlife images as I have tried to view them here but they are gone. It is interesting to see where you are coming from.
Cheers:w3

LOL !! :bg3::bg3:

It's not about me or anybody else, or photographs of mine or anybody else's, in case you have not figured it out yet. It's you who had the problem, you who were puzzled by some contest rules and not happy about them, and you who didn't seem to be able to decide when and how much to post-process your photos. And I thought you should have your answers by now and know what to do from now on. <sigh> It's just the use of facts and objective reasoning...

How about you answer Jay's question? :S3::t3 Shouldn't be that difficult, should it, I mean to answer Jay's question?</sigh>

[Ofer Levy]

LOL !! :bg3::bg3:

It's not about me or anybody else, or photographs of mine or anybody else's, in case you have not figured it out yet. It's you who had the problem, you who were puzzled by some contest rules and not happy about them, and you who didn't seem to be able to decide when and how much to post-process your photos. And I thought you should have your answers by now and know what to do from now on. <SIGH>It's just the use of facts and objective reasoning...

How about you answer Jay's question? :S3::t3 Shouldn't be that difficult, should it, I mean to answer Jay's question?</SIGH>
I actually do think that seeing someone's level of photography is relevant in here as this is a forum for photographers not philosophers....:w3
Link please....:bg3:

[Jonathan Ashton]

Hey guys this is very interesting but let's lighten up!:eek: Don't we do photography for fun? I appreciate many of the views expressed and can see both side of the argument - this doesn't mean I am sitting on the fence.
All photography is an artefact, we all see the subject and we all capture the subject in differing ways using different cameras metering modes and lenses etc. Beauty it was once said is in the eye of the beholder. We may capture a first class image or do we create a first class image? All images are processed however minimally this may be.
I think a very clear point has been made however that if the image presented was as close to the actual scene captured and there had been practically no processing other than conversion to a jpeg (or say PSD.TIFF for a print) and of course that the image was outstanding in terms of content then I think we could all agree it is a case of congratulations.
Lets consider a technically great shot that just needed an OOF object removing - nothing wrong here remove it if you intend to present your image for one to be appreciated for what it is. There is a case here of course for the photographer to be congratulated upon photographic and processing skills - so again no problem.
The point in debate appears to be can the more manipulated image ever be regarded to be as good as the non manipulated image - well of course if you want them to be they can, we just don't have to pretend that one is the other. Competitions have to have rules, if we don't like them the choice is ours - we can enter or not but we always have to be honest about what is being presented.
I appreciate I have not really added to the great debate in terms of content but I hope I have helped to smooth out a few wrinkles here and there - we are all submitting our images because we enjoy it and I think the vast majority of people are looking for ways to improve. We all present the scene as a created image and we just need to be honest about how it was created.:w3

[Greg Basco]

Ofer, this is an interesting example. In my honest opinion, while I understand well the challenges in bird setup photography and can appreciate the difficulty in getting what you wanted here, I would be much more impressed with the image if you had been able to tweak the set up to get what you wanted in camera.

The final result is quite pleasing, but if I saw it and then saw the originals, the value of the final image would drop on my scorecard. This is simply my frank opinion and how I would evaluate things if I were a contest judge.


Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Dan Brown]

Here is an example to one of my images which was digitally processed and digitally manipulated in a way that I think is 100% acceptable.
I decided to take this image in two parts - first framing just the bird and not worrying about the perch and the second is an image of the perch.
Since this is a setup I could easily place my hide a bit further from the bird, take a shot of the bird with the whole perch and just crop, however, I didn't go this route because of two major reasons:
1. I don't like cropping much.
2. I didn't want to worry about composition as the bird was displaying and he kept changing his posture.

I then had to add some canvas to the top, clone the bright areas in the BG (dead leaves) and so on.

I feel that doing things this way I am just using the available technology in order to get a more pleasing final image which truely represents the behaviour of the bird and the scene when the image was taken.
Your thoughts please...

Ofer, I really like what you have done here! Very smart prep with the setup. I agree with Greg to a degree but I also like your thinking in trying to create an uncropped final product for more resolution! Nice work man!

And, if this isn't art, then slap my face!!!!:bg3:

[Chris Ober]

Locking thread because this is going nowhere, it seems not everyone can keep things civil and polite here and because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk