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?

Ethics??? I consider myself an ethical guy. I do not wake up every morning and decide to fool anyone in my photographic work- commercial or otherwise. I will never misrepresent a retouched or manipulated image as a totally authentic capture. To do so would be childish, useless, and insulting people's intelligence.

In many kinds of commercial photography, we are required to idealize various subjects- people, places, things and situations. We are asked to create moods and environments. With the skilled application of lighting, makeup, camera angle, and post-processg manipulations. retouching and other techniques we produce images of all of the aforementioned subjects that, frankly, never look that way in real life- faultless skin tones and textures, a plate of pasta with every noodle in place, and everything seen in its best light and eye-catching composition. We are asked to idealize everything just about every day. Our clients, art directors and, ad agencies all demand these interpretations of whatever they are advertising, promoting, or bringing to the public eye. "Aesthetics and cosmetics" are buzz word we hear every day. I won't say we engage in fakery but we certainly glamorize stuff as much as we can do- legally!

Art is another story. You are the artist and have a vision that you want to express. You may not find the interpretation in a scene, wildlife situation, portrat of a person or whatever you are shooting. So, in order to create your vision, imagination, and interpretation you set out to add and subtract, elements for your basic image. There are numerous techniques in your toolbox- y'all know what they are and you may use one or two of them or pull out all the stops! You create your image and show it to whoever, the word, the forum, you enter it in a competition. Unless there are contest rules or specified restrictions, you have no real obligation to accompany your image with a disclaimer. You put it out here and if you have done a good job or created a botched-up mess, you have to live with the accolades or the criticism respectively. On a photographic forum- nobody is foolin' anybody! If things don't jibe, someone will find it out and probably call it out! My advice is not to create false ethics or rules where the real ones don't exist- it will mess up your creativity and your encouragement to experiment and venture into new things. Just like literature, your image can be fact or fiction.

Of course in legitimate photojournalism, there's no place for composite applications that will alter the story. I preface the term "photojournalism" with the word "legitimate" because there are lots of media out there that are propaganda and sensationalism and not the real stuff.

I think there is too much time wasted on speculating or worrying about what others will think about the art photographers produce. Just put it out there and let it "speak" for itself.

So, if your landscape foreground does not match the light direction and colour of your replaced sky, that is a boo-boo! Etc. etc. etc!

Not offended at all. Wanted honest opinions. In this situation there is no way both birds could have been in focus at the same time. I was so close (in a pop up blind) that I could have been at f/22 and still would have not had enough DOF to get both birds. I guess I could have shot at 100 mm (I was close to 500) because I was using a zoom, and then cropped heavily, but then would have had background problems (ugly bare mesquite bushes). So... left with only one choice if I wanted two in focus birds.

Let's say that is what I did-shot at 100 mm and f/16 to get enough DOF to make both birds in focus. But then in Photoshop, I created another layer and blurred the background heavily to make it buttery. Would that have been OK for you?

How can you say that “converting images from color to monochrome, selective color, black & white” is in any way “just to show a good/best representation of the SOOC file”??? Doing that is manipulation! – not SOOC at all. And “removing scars, creating background ….., using liquefy to make eyes bigger, smaller tummy etc. ….. Removal of pimples, strings, power lines ….. Removing elements via cloning other parts of the image” also are nothing but manipulation – not that which really was there at the moment the picture was taken.

“using lens correction, stretching, perspective & horizon adjustments” are true editing – meant to correct the representation of the subject as it actually existed (from the flaws produced by the equipment and/or the photographer).

In addition, “adding decorative elements such as borders, text/signature and the like” certainly have absolutely nothing to do with “processing”, “editing” or “manipulating” of a picture!

Creativity and artistic expression are in a completely different realm from the foregoing and may have their own norms and expectations!!!

Loren – in Beautiful Baguio City

Not offended at all. Wanted honest opinions. In this situation there is no way both birds could have been in focus at the same time. I was so close (in a pop up blind) that I could have been at f/22 and still would have not had enough DOF to get both birds. I guess I could have shot at 100 mm (I was close to 500) because I was using a zoom, and then cropped heavily, but then would have had background problems (ugly bare mesquite bushes). So... left with only one choice if I wanted two in focus birds.

Let's say that is what I did-shot at 100 mm and f/16 to get enough DOF to make both birds in focus. But then in Photoshop, I created another layer and blurred the background heavily to make it buttery. Would that have been OK for you?