Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Help! Opinion & Ethics
Mar 10, 2018 21:25:20 #
When the answer is this is what you've created. It's art. Unnecessarily persisting this is the original image is bad form. I'd use a less dramatic replacement, maybe a lighter solid color of blue.
Mar 10, 2018 21:43:15 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
SafariGuy wrote:
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.
I think that was a wise decision.
Mar 10, 2018 21:43:44 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
Quelle horreurs!!!!! We're afraid you've committed one of the 2,316 deadly sins, and if you wish to atone for same, you'll need to surrender your camera equipment poste haste. My shipping address is:
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Mar 10, 2018 23:19:41 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Nice capture! The blue sky is a bit drama much he... (show quote)
As "art", this is fine. If this were submitted to a magazine such as "Trains", they would reject this if there were any means to detect PP activity, because they would never be certain that you had not changed anything on the locomotive.
Mar 11, 2018 05:17:25 #
Mar 11, 2018 05:53:23 #
Your objective is to create something visually pleasing. If your intention was to deceive or mislead, that would be another matter and obviously unethical.
We would all like it if reality presented us with perfect shooting circumstances every time we took a photo, but reality isn't like that. What we can do is use PP to nudge a shot closer to what it would have been like if it'd been taken in perfect circumstances. If you're minimising the editing that you give your shots you're not realising their full potential, and that's apart from the fact that cameras don't do a 100% accurate job of capturing reality in the first place.
We would all like it if reality presented us with perfect shooting circumstances every time we took a photo, but reality isn't like that. What we can do is use PP to nudge a shot closer to what it would have been like if it'd been taken in perfect circumstances. If you're minimising the editing that you give your shots you're not realising their full potential, and that's apart from the fact that cameras don't do a 100% accurate job of capturing reality in the first place.
Mar 11, 2018 05:57:33 #
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Ethical...Ethics???? You are involved in an industry that uses every known level of software programs to alter and enhance their product. Have at it.
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Mar 11, 2018 06:23:32 #
Thrawn John
Loc: Scotland
While I like the second better, it's not a photograph - it's a composite.
And still a nice picture.
As long as you're not telling people it's a photograph (and just putting it up without noting it's a composite would be doing just that) then it's absolutely fine.
Nice image, if you wanted to sell it as a poster or whatever else, that would be fine - people would be buying the image however it was made.
(The extra processing you did in the bird and the tree would also look good applied to the original photograph on its own, FWIW.)
And still a nice picture.
As long as you're not telling people it's a photograph (and just putting it up without noting it's a composite would be doing just that) then it's absolutely fine.
Nice image, if you wanted to sell it as a poster or whatever else, that would be fine - people would be buying the image however it was made.
(The extra processing you did in the bird and the tree would also look good applied to the original photograph on its own, FWIW.)
Mar 11, 2018 06:41:17 #
Mar 11, 2018 07:11:32 #
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Making changes to a photograph?! The nerve!
That's why we have LR and PS and a dozen other programs. Have fun with it!
Mar 11, 2018 07:12:21 #
Thrawn John wrote:
While I like the second better, it's not a photogr... (show quote)
Splitting heirs here. Out of camera or composite, it still remains a photo-graph. If it is the result of applying two different medias, i.e., OOC shot plus some artwork, it becomes a multi-media work. If someone asks about how the final work was gotten, describe process to whatever detail that satisfies the questioner. If the process statement has erroneous information intentionally, then it crosses over to being a fraud. Some in the print markets do have valid criteria for submission of work. These should be viewed as a-priori questions to the process.
As stated in quote, it is the final result that people want and purchase.
Mar 11, 2018 07:20:25 #
Their is nothing wrong in changing a sky to make the shot more appealing. But you have to be careful how you do it. This one seems very obvious that you changed the sky. It's a very nice attempt...you have the right idea.
Mar 11, 2018 07:37:13 #
I personally like what the camera provides without any changes. That said I'm going to start tinkering only because I see advantages to modest enhancement. Guess do you want "art " or a true photo, up to the person behind the camera.
Mar 11, 2018 07:58:40 #
Mar 11, 2018 08:00:14 #
The craft of photography may rise to art in the right hands.
jayd wrote:
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
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.