bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I watched a YouTube video recently discussing the ethics of composite pictures. Obviously there are many different types of composites, from focus stacking to panoramas to completely artistic, even abstract composites. But the type of composite I am referring to are wildlife/bird photos. I am posting a series of pictures of juvenile Red Crossbills. The pictures are not especially noteworthy, but they illustrate a point. Our eyes are capable of "seeing" things much different than our cameras are. One of those areas of difference is depth of field. In the pictures below, in the first one, the bird on the left is in focus while the bird on the right is not. In the second, the reverse is true. My camera was mounted on a tripod, I took the first picture with the spot focus point on the eye of the bird on the left. I then shifted the focus point to the bird on the right. Granted, in the split second it took to do this the birds moved, but not significantly (the camera also was slightly shifted). In post, I combined the two pictures and ended up with both birds in focus. The third picture reflects that. I also processed the third picture by cropping and other adjustments, but the basic process is combining the shots.
Now, I personally do not have any problem with this, but my pictures rarely get off my computer, so I am the only one that has to be happy. And, I am much happier with two birds in focus that just one.
What about you? Is this why "photoshopping" has a bad connotation sometimes, or should we attempt to reproduce our memory of the scene with our processing?

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Composites are fine with me. Things don't always have to be reality.
I take each image on its own merit.

For example: Replace a sky? Does it look nice? Great.
I'm not going to analyze it to see if that location can or cannot have "that sky/weather/star pattern".

The image is great by the way.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Depends.
This example is fine, perhaps.
Adding something that is totally not there is different.
Adding different sky is popular to do.
That is fine if noted that it was added.
Just don't represent that you got that great sunset in the east without adding it seeing as that could never exist.
Just be honest and and have fun doing as you please without pawning it off as what was actually captured with just a bit of tweaking contrast etc.

DougS Loc: Central Arkansas

Trying to get a photo 'true to life', is quite desirable in my opinion. No camera/lens can match the human eyes. Even our 'memory' is 'faulty'; lol, sigh, or groan... Photoshopping also can be used to 'enhance' certain subjects, and features. And, yes even change EVERYTHING! Then there are spots on the sensor. I personally like trying to make a photo look like I saw (remember) it.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I agree with Archi about misrepresentation. I wouldn't want to accept compliments for capturing a sunset that was't really there. I would want to accept compliments for having seamlessly added said sunset in pp

For me the venue on which you're sharing is most important. On UHH in sections that appear to be primarily "as shot," will most viewers assume reality? In Digital Artistry or PP Forum, will most viewers expect manipulation? Who is your audience and are you influencing people - especially beginners or those stuck in the "sooc" mindset - to assume something that's not true? Do you care if they get the "wrong" impression? I generally do care; however, in the past when I regularly posted to Gallery, I rarely listed all my editing steps - such as color saturation, curves/levels adjustments, or if I removed an unsightly object.

The discussion of this topic (visited often on UHH) has many shades of gray.

PattyW60 Loc: Northwest Illinois

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

My job\desire is to produce the absolute best image possible. In competition, I do have one line. The entire image must be from the photographer. If you are going to do sky replacement, it must be from a sky the photographer shot.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I agree on the misrepresentation part, if something is stated,
but if nothing is said, the image simply displayed, it is not misrepresented...

but art.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

In a gallery, it will be assumed to be art. On personal websites, I wouldn't care who assumes what. But UHH is different - verrrry different

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

THAT's an understatement

(Even if the caption stated "Looking North" and displayed a Southern sky it wouldn't bother me.
Again, the merit of the image. )

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

My biggest problem with composition is that I don't know how to do them. I guess it's time to learn.

stu352 Loc: MA/RI Border

I wanted a picture that sort of summed up a convention I attended (Car club. mid coast Maine), but in the hundreds of photos I shot, nothing really stood out. But I did have a photo of a car on a scenic hilltop with an uninspiring background, and a photo of the scenic harbor taken from a couple hundred feet away. Hmmm... both were taken minutes apart, facing southeast, looking down at about the same angle... So I did a background replacement and submitted the photo to a national car hobby magazine with my article, telling their editors what I'd done. It got published. Even the National Geographic publishes assembled pictures, so why not?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I agree with Architect. It depends. I'm somewhat of a purist in that if it wasn't there when I photographed it, it wasn't there. (ex. sky replacement).

However, I'm also fairly good at retouching. So, I have photos of me cozying up to Stormy Daniels. I have photos in which I retouched house doors and garage doors for permitting applications. These are only a few. Some were done in fun and acknowledged as "fake". Others were to illustrate the final appearance of a house remodel or addition for permitting purposes.

One member here on UHH used, without permission, the sky in one of my posted photos and was called out on it. Chay Yu Wei entered a faked photograph and won a Nikon photographic competition.

A great example of Composite photographs is Jerry Uelsmann. I admire his creativity and the tonality of his final prints. Remarkably, he did all of his work in the darkroom, no photoshop.

So, there are good and bad aspects of Composites. My feeling is integrity plays a major factor when they are presented.
--Bob

Rongnongno Loc: FL

In front of a screen, looking at an odd question that should be asked w/o picture as it will be transferred to another forum...

richardsaccount

As far as such effects as changing a sky, I knew photographers who had negatives of different types
of clouds. Years ago I took a class from a professional business/industrial photographer. He saw some
clouds in a print from a scenic taken in the states. But refering to his time in the service in the pacific islands,
this photo had clouds printed in from that part of the world. When he asked the photographer if that was the
case he confirmed his hunch. Personally, if a manipulated scene does not change the content I can see no harm
being done.