I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and I said to myself, self, that would look pretty cool if there was a bird in the picture. So playing around I combined a couple of my bird photo's with the orchid to see what I'd come up with. They're real birds, it's a real orchid. It is digital photography, but some folks I've shown them to say, no, its fake. I look at them as digital art, not fake photo's, as I never said, the orchid was present when the birds were photographed. Just playing around...
Oh I suppose. But, and it's a big one, they are beautiful shots.
IMO, not fake, a composite. Both birds and flowers look good alone, better together.
Fake would be plastic flowers with stuffed birds presented as organic beings.
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and I said to myself, self, that would look pretty cool if there was a bird in the picture. So playing around I combined a couple of my bird photo's with the orchid to see what I'd come up with. They're real birds, it's a real orchid. It is digital photography, but some folks I've shown them to say, no, its fake. I look at them as digital art, not fake photo's, as I never said, the orchid was present when the birds were photographed. Just playing around...
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and ... (
show quote)
I agree with Neil.....These are both wonderful composites and well done I might add.....
As long as you disclose it is composite if asked, I think yu have some nice art pieces.
At first glance I thought these were nice photographs. But as I studied them I noticed that the Depth of field seems off on the first one, and the lighting doesn't seem to match on the second one. And the different camera angles. Still a couple of nice composites, but fake photographs.
neilds37 wrote:
IMO, not fake, a composite. Both birds and flowers look good alone, better together.
Fake would be plastic flowers with stuffed birds presented as organic beings.
On further reflection, terms must be defined and agreed upon before a conclusion can be drawn.
1. What is a photograph
2. What is a fake.
Getting agreement on the definitions of each of these terms could run into a whole bunch of pages. Think I'd rather sit back with a cold one and enjoy the results for what they are.
jim quist wrote:
Depth of field seems off on the first one, and the lighting doesn't seem to match on the second one. These are very nice composites.
Three different photos taken with three different cameras and three different lenses and three different times.
I was experimenting with my new EOS 5Dsr and a Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 around 1:00 in the morning when I shot the orchid. The Thrasher was taken with an EOS 7DII and a Sigma 150-600 S in mid morning sun, Hatteras Island NC. The Bunting was also photographed in North Carolina in full morning sun with, I'm pretty sure, an EOS 6D with a EF 28-300L attached.
nice work. worth the time :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
You did a magnificent job of making a composite photo. Nothing fake about the end result. Enjoy this because the elements make a wonderful final product.
People who call it a fake, do not understand the world of Digital Photography. 30 years ago photographers would use air brush to combine images. I think it is a great image.
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and I said to myself, self, that would look pretty cool if there was a bird in the picture. So playing around I combined a couple of my bird photo's with the orchid to see what I'd come up with. They're real birds, it's a real orchid. It is digital photography, but some folks I've shown them to say, no, its fake. I look at them as digital art, not fake photo's, as I never said, the orchid was present when the birds were photographed. Just playing around...
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and ... (
show quote)
It's digital art. It's a composite. Pretty nice job too. I like them both, like the first one better.
Screw the critics! It's Digital Art at it's best.
rmorrison1116 wrote:
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and I said to myself, self, that would look pretty cool if there was a bird in the picture. So playing around I combined a couple of my bird photo's with the orchid to see what I'd come up with. They're real birds, it's a real orchid. It is digital photography, but some folks I've shown them to say, no, its fake. I look at them as digital art, not fake photo's, as I never said, the orchid was present when the birds were photographed. Just playing around...
I was looking at a photo of one of my orchids and ... (
show quote)
If yours are fake then a lot of my pictures are fake. I call them composites and love doing them. Any digital picture could be called fake by using Photoshop, Portrait Professional and other enhancing software as we see many times but it is certainly a lot easier than being in a dark room with chemicals. I think your pictures look great and keep on doing them if you are happy with the result. I read on a recent link on UHH " it is your picture do what you want with it" and it is quite true.....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.