Composites: where do you stand?
Sep 15, 2022 12:15:21 #
User ID wrote:
There are no "ethics" to making images for aesthic purposes. Evidentiary images are obviously another matter.
Far too many can't tell / understand the difference ...
Sep 15, 2022 12:20:58 #
Longshadow wrote:
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.
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.
Thank you. Was a pretty grey day, so photo ended up looking pretty flat.
Sep 15, 2022 12:23:18 #
Architect1776 wrote:
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.
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.
I absolutely agree with you. Would you be OK with this picture being entered in a contest? Obviously depends on contest rules, but it is not a contrived shot as both birds were there at the same time; the camera was not capable of taking the shot. At the distance I was (very close), it would have made no difference what f/stop I shot at.
Sep 15, 2022 12:23:46 #
DougS wrote:
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.
My philosophy too.
Sep 15, 2022 12:24:38 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Far too many can't tell / understand the difference ...
A picture shows an Emperor pengiun frolicking in the Everglades. Is that just humorous entertainment or is it serious scientific fraud ? (Please consider that penguins are not known for frolicking.)
Sep 15, 2022 12:25:47 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I agree with Archi about misrepresentation. I woul... (show quote)
Yes, it does get fuzzy sometimes. This picture is not contest worthy, but recently on Pangolin Photo Safari YouTube a contest was recently conducted that involved "Pairs" pictures. When I saw some of the entries I wondered "How did they get both of those animals in focus?".
Sep 15, 2022 12:26:43 #
CliffMcKenzie wrote:
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.
I could agree with that statement. With this picture, all shots were taken within 10 seconds of each other.
Sep 15, 2022 12:28:18 #
Longshadow wrote:
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.
but if nothing is said, the image simply displayed, it is not misrepresented...
but art.
Tough to know where to draw that line between a processed digital photograph and "art".
Sep 15, 2022 12:29:58 #
alberio wrote:
My biggest problem with composition is that I don't know how to do them. I guess it's time to learn.
Very easy. Lots of different ways to do it. I use Alan Murphy's method using the clone tool. Steve Perry of Backcountry Gallery uses a true PS blending mode with masking. Both of these people have YouTube videos of their method.
Took me 15 seconds to do it.
Sep 15, 2022 12:30:48 #
stu352 wrote:
I wanted a picture that sort of summed up a conven... (show quote)
Interesting story. I will remember that.
Sep 15, 2022 12:31:27 #
Rongnongno wrote:
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...
Huh?
Sep 15, 2022 12:32:46 #
richardsaccount wrote:
As far as such effects as changing a sky, I knew p... (show quote)
Yes, certainly depends on the motive of the photographer, not only at the time of processing/manipulation, but also at the time of posting/publishing.
Sep 15, 2022 12:32:50 #
User ID wrote:
There are no "ethics" to making images for aesthetic purposes. Evidentiary images are obviously another matter.
Sep 15, 2022 12:34:34 #
However, I'm also fairly good at retouching. So, I have photos of me cozying up to Stormy Daniels.
--Bob[/quote]
Oh Bob, I might keep that one to myself.
--Bob[/quote]
Oh Bob, I might keep that one to myself.
Sep 15, 2022 12:36:11 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Below shows the 'invention' of a missing wing-tip, actually just a reuse of the other side's wing-tip reversed and merged into the missing portion of the image. This is everyday 'photoshopping'.
Yes, you have not changed the situation or the bird. Sometimes I have clipped wings/tails, etc. At times it was my own ineptitude (could not keep the bird in the frame) and other times I just had too much lens for the bird.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.