Busy background: Would you "photoshop" this image? (Page 4): I don't know about "photoshopping" but I would attempt to crop or clone out the closest ducks (on the right) to the main...

Jim Bob

robsphotography wrote:

I recently captured an image of a pretty Pukeko bi... (show quote)

I don't know about "photoshopping" but I would attempt to crop or clone out the closest ducks (on the right) to the main subject.

Jim Bob

cjeisch wrote:

You can make it looklike this in elements by blurring the background using the selection tool and then use the clone stamp tool.

Weird and ugly in my opinion-totally destroys the original image.

pjarbit Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Jim Bob wrote:

Weird and ugly in my opinion-totally destroys the original image.

I agree.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

crissx09 wrote:

Robsphotography Yes you can. This is not a fine work from me but a very quick one made with PSE14

I was not in favor of removing the ducks, but I have to admit this looks very good. >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Jim Bob wrote:

Weird and ugly in my opinion-totally destroys the original image.

As in any art form, an individual's judgment of quality is 100% subjective. In this case, "weird and ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, don't you think? >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

robsphotography wrote:

Hi Alan, thanks for your post, yes I will spend so... (show quote)

Rob, Thanks for the response. I like what the other poster did by removing the ducks, but I still think that working on the background will yield a much more interesting composition. The great thing about blurring / defocusing is that you have so many options in terms of type of blur and amount of blur. Would very much like to see the results if you post, or you can send me a private message. >Alan

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Ugly Jake wrote:

I'm with nc - this is not an "Audubon" shot, so the question of ethics is muted; it is definitely worth keeping - 'shopped or not.
My once-in-a-lifetime eagle shot had a distracting branch behind its head, and I took it out. I have a feature in my PP program called "Compare to original", and I check it Every Time - and if my "work" is not an improvement, whether it's 5 min or 20, I hit Cancel and start over, or leave it original.

That's fine if that's what you want.
BUT, you can no longer refer to those shots as a Wildlife shot. They are just images. You can no longer, at least not with any conscience enter it into any Wildlife exhibits or competitions either since its no longer a wildlife shot. Just saying.
SS

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Toss it.

robsphotography Loc: New Zealand

SharpShooter wrote:

That's fine if that's what you want.
BUT, you can no longer refer to those shots as a Wildlife shot. They are just images. You can no longer, at least not with any conscience enter it into any Wildlife exhibits or competitions either since its no longer a wildlife shot. Just saying.
SS

I think this is a very good point. I have just checked out the "conditions of entry" to the current Otago Wildlife Photography Competition and the following conditions are included:

"17) Images that are obviously heavily photoshopped will not be accepted as entries to the competition. Videos may be edited, but captions are not allowed.

18) Entrants may be required to provide the original source of their photo for enlargement and display purposes. Please note, images may be cropped for display purposes in the competition exhibition or marketing collateral."

http://otagomuseum.nz/owpc-2016-tscs/

I am not sure how Condition 17 would be applied to the example we have been discussing in this thread? It could be argued that, if the ducks are removed together with their shadows, then this doesn't actually affect the picture of the Pukeko bird itself, it only alters the environment in which the Pukeko was photographed. If the judges looked at the original photo they would be able to see this for themselves.

If you were a judge in this competition, would you accept the image of the Pukeko bird without the ducks and their shadows?

Regards
Rob

aellman Loc: Boston MA

SharpShooter wrote:

That's fine if that's what you want.
BUT, you can no longer refer to those shots as a Wildlife shot. They are just images. You can no longer, at least not with any conscience enter it into any Wildlife exhibits or competitions either since its no longer a wildlife shot. Just saying.
SS

So, let me be sure I understand... If I remove a stick from a photo of an iguana, it changes the image of the iguana into a picture of road-kill. I got it now. Your opinion is not a matter of "good conscience;" it is merely your opinion. Just saying.

pjarbit Loc: Detroit, Michigan

aellman wrote:

As in any art form, an individual's judgment of quality is 100% subjective. In this case, "weird and ugly" is in the eye of the beholder, don't you think? >Alan

Beauty is subjective.... Ugly is obvious!

aellman Loc: Boston MA

pjarbit wrote:

Beauty is subjective.... Ugly is obvious!

Neither is obvious. "Eye of the beholder."

Jim Bob

pjarbit wrote:

5 minutes with patch and clone

There is a noticeable loss in color, contrast and detail in your modified image. Otherwise excellent.

john901 Loc: Lancaster, PA

I removed the extra ducks with Snapheal in 2 minutes; simple and quick. You don't have to go into Photoshop for something like this.

John S.

robsphotography Loc: New Zealand

john901 wrote:

I removed the extra ducks with Snapheal in 2 minutes; simple and quick. You don't have to go into Photoshop for something like this.

John S.

Hi John, thanks for the reference to "Snapheal". I have now used the latest version of "Photoshop" to remove the ducks from the image and my efforts can be seen here:

http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/A7R2-Pukeko.html

However, I didn't quite manage to edit this image and remove the ducks in just 2 minutes, in fact it took me a great deal longer than that!

I have included on the above revised web page a link to this forum discussion so that anyone visiting my page can see the opinions of those who posted about this topic.

I am still not sure whether the edited image would be regarded as "heavily photoshopped" and would therefore not be accepted in a wildlife photographic competition!

Regards
Rob