Help! Opinion & Ethics
Mar 11, 2018 08:28:30 #
Mar 11, 2018 08:31:09 #
Mar 11, 2018 08:32:58 #
Art is always in the eye of the beholder. Art is creative and allows a lot of leeway in getting to the final product. Some of my prints are closer to what I saw when I took the photo with only minor touches such as sharpening and contrast adjustments. Others are highly
Manipulated to create and artistic image closer to what I imagined I wanted the final product to be. Like some others I prefer the first edition and think the sky takes away from the osprey.
Manipulated to create and artistic image closer to what I imagined I wanted the final product to be. Like some others I prefer the first edition and think the sky takes away from the osprey.
Mar 11, 2018 09:09:24 #
Just Shoot Me
Loc: Ithaca, NY
An artist thinks of an image they want to paint and then they put it to canvas.
A photographer has to find that image and capture it at that exact moment.
I think you've done both. Nice work.
A photographer has to find that image and capture it at that exact moment.
I think you've done both. Nice work.
Mar 11, 2018 09:10:33 #
Mar 11, 2018 09:12:26 #
SteveR wrote:
I'M still wondering what's up with that wing!! Forget the clouds.
To be honest I was puzzled about the wing as well...I have no clue why it looks as it does. It was a 400 mm Canon Prime lens perhaps someone in here who is smarter than me could explain it
Mar 11, 2018 09:15:32 #
SafariGuy wrote:
To be honest I was puzzled about the wing as well...I have no clue why it looks as it does. It was a 400 mm Canon Prime lens perhaps someone in here who is smarter than me could explain it
Perspective and the difference in the angle of the wings to the lens. The right wing would look longer if the camera was more to the left of the bird.
Mar 11, 2018 09:26:02 #
bsprague wrote:
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 11, 2018 09:30:58 #
Mar 11, 2018 09:31:20 #
N
Gene51 wrote:
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 11, 2018 09:31:35 #
LouV
Loc: Juno Beach, FL
As others have said, unless this is intended to be a journalistic record, there is no ethical issue. I also concur with those who prefer the unaltered image. I think number one is MUCH better! The appeal is the graphic impact and the clouds just distract.
Mar 11, 2018 09:52:39 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
What you did is art. It has no relationship to ethics, or morality, unless it was meant to deceive another person for your personal benefit or to their detriment. Other than that, it looks artificial but otherwise nice.
Mar 11, 2018 10:21:50 #
Yesterday I went to see the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum. Quite a few of the photos were composites (marked as such) so I think this is widely accepted by art and photo facilities.
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
Mar 11, 2018 10:29:41 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
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.
Agreed!!!
Mar 11, 2018 10:37:02 #
Do what you want. Personally, there are many days I don't even touch the camera due to the weather not being cooperative in providing clouds. The landscape just needs a particular kind of cloud.
What you might do is mention that it is a composite image when you post it. One of the drawbacks to modern photography is the ease at which one can alter original scenes. The only unethical part of that is not admitting to it.
--Bob
What you might do is mention that it is a composite image when you post it. One of the drawbacks to modern photography is the ease at which one can alter original scenes. The only unethical part of that is not admitting to it.
--Bob
SafariGuy wrote:
Ok here's my dilemma and I realize I might be open... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.