Help! Opinion & Ethics
Mar 10, 2018 20:05:03 #
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be opening myself to ridicule for not knowing the rules about this kind of thing....I any case my wife and I visited Orlando Wetlands near Christmas, Florida today. Attached are two images..one is shot with the sky not very cooperative but the Ospreys were active doing the 'wild thing' and simply flying from nest to a nearby dead tree so we kept on shooting. Though this particular shot is far from perfect, I thought the look of the wings were rather unique with one wing looking much larger than the other. I was shooting with my Canon 5D Mark III and with a Canon 400mm Prime f/5.6 lens. Having said all that I overlay-ed the Osprey onto a more endearing sky which I shot a few days ago. Question...is this ethical? Do I need to make people aware of the added sky? Is this straying from 'true' photography? Am I an idiot for trying this...and lastly have I bored you to tears yet? :)
Mar 10, 2018 20:09:43 #
It is art.
Composite art.
I would think if asked and denied thats un ethical. If presented and appreciated all is good. Everyone is aware pp is performed on all to some degree
Composite art.
I would think if asked and denied thats un ethical. If presented and appreciated all is good. Everyone is aware pp is performed on all to some degree
Mar 10, 2018 20:11:12 #
Mar 10, 2018 20:13:16 #
Same question has been asked several times and the answer is, who cares. Unless you are falsifying an image for legal reasons, do as you please. That's one reason it's called 'art'.
Mar 10, 2018 20:13:36 #
If it is "art" for you, perfect. If you sell, promote or profit from it as "true life, straight out of the camera", that is not perfect. National Geographic would not buy it. An "art" gallery could sell it on consignment for you. One is trying to let you see nature perfectly, the other is trying to let you enjoy beauty.
Nice work in the post processing!
Nice work in the post processing!
Mar 10, 2018 20:14:15 #
I would not call #2 unethical as it is your creation. Nobody else's. That said, I like #1 better. #2 is overbaked to my eye. But, that is just me so don't fret on my account. It was a nice capture regardless of your ?
Mar 10, 2018 20:16:17 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Regardless of the ethics I much prefer the first over the second. The added sky and clouds does nothing but distract the eye from the details of the bird. Many professional and advanced amateur bird photos are taken against sky's not unlike yours.
Mar 10, 2018 20:21:14 #
mwsilvers wrote:
Regardless of the ethics I much prefer the first over the second. The added sky and clouds does nothing but distract the eye from the details of the bird. Many professional and advanced amateur bird photos are taken against sky's not unlike yours.
Agree; the sky adds nothing.
Mar 10, 2018 20:36:24 #
Mar 10, 2018 20:39:14 #
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Nice capture! The blue sky is a bit drama much here. It would only be a problem if you entered it in to a contest that specified no alterations or for journalism. I've heard of photographers being disqualified for PP "removing" trash from an image. If it is just your "art", no one should care. As pointed out, if someone got suspicious and asked, I'd fess up. My only personal qualm would be with people who use a sky or other background they did not also shoot. Though there are many sources of copyright free graphics on the Web. I know photographers who go around shooting background (textures) for later photos. That is cool unless prohibited by a rule somewhere. Have fun!
On a personal note, I did kinda what you did but a step further. I replaced the boring sky in a locomotive image I shot on film back around 1980 in Los Angeles with a digital sky I shot around 2012. All in black and white I even added speckle noise to my new clouds and sky to make it look like film grain to any pixel peekers.
Mar 10, 2018 20:47:59 #
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Love the result. Artistic license is broad, and if you are not representing your work as documentary in nature, anything goes. The only thing is I would add some blur to the clouds. It would make it look less like a composite and more "real" - if you catch my meaning.
Mar 10, 2018 20:54:58 #
I don’t mind the post processing. But it should be noted when posting in my opinion.
Mar 10, 2018 20:57:05 #
It's not unethical, it's the creation of a final photographic image from two images.
If they weren't there the day you took the shot(s), who would know???
I wouldn't, and wouldn't care. I'd be interested in the end result.
If they weren't there the day you took the shot(s), who would know???
I wouldn't, and wouldn't care. I'd be interested in the end result.
Mar 10, 2018 21:17:14 #
Thank you for all the replies and input...it is greatly appreciated and was very helpful. I opted to stay with the original image shot in the field.
Mar 10, 2018 21:21:27 #
SafariGuy wrote:
Is this straying from 'true' photography? Am I an idiot for trying this...and lastly have I bored you to tears yet? :)
Do not over analyze things; in the digital age "true photography is an outmoded term. You took a ho-hum picture of a bird and made it more interesting. Good on you.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.