Well thats what they used to say but in these days of digital cameras and Photoshop nothing could be further from the truth, My friend David Newton did a blog yesterday on his own personal thoughts of image manipulation and in wildlife in general, Now i have to say that i am very old school and also not very good at fiddling around with my images, The most i will go to apart from the normal levels,saturation and curves is to remove a small twig or blade of grass that may be distracting, How far do you go? well i guess that entirely up to you, Forums are now full of 'clean' images and if you put one up with branches or so in the background then somebody is bound to comment that these should be removed as they are distracting, I shot some cracking eagle images when i was in Japan and by using a long prime you get what you get and i had some had wing-tips etc clipped, My favourite Eagle image had a very small amount clipped so the other day as i needed to print it large i went onto you tube and found a video of how to add wing tips, I did this and it printed very nicely, Now does this smack of hypocrisy? well i don't think so, the wing-tip was there but i just didn't/couldn't frame it properly what i hadn't done was to remove a tree or anything from the image so in such the scene was as it was at the time, I personally do not mind a small amount of tiding up and maybe there should be some guide lines to set the 'rules' on what is a photograph and what is a manipulated image-both will sell but one is the truth and one isnt, That is the reason why competitions ask for a RAW file to make sure that the images is as true to life as the time that it was taken, I think that is kind of sad that people coming into the trade/hobby see these heavily photo shopped images on the web and feel that its the norm and will emulate them-In the days of slide film what you shot was what you got ,just my thoughts-what are yours?
Im with you on this one Dave, the edit of yours improves the image, at Focus the emphasis seemed to be more towards photoshop than getting images right in camera.ReplyDelete
At least your edit looks right some are shocking - but as you rightly say forums are alive with premadonna's who can't get an image for toffee but will happily say there is a distracting twig.
I, too, am on your side. The key, surely, is that no image manipulation should materially interfere, detract or alter the subject in question. To change a kingfisher's colours to make them appear more iridescent, for example. To add a forked tongue to a snake that clearly had its mouth closed. As for distractions, yes, I think they can be removed or knocked back if its enhances the viewing experience. I personally, however, neither trust nor enjoy images of birds, for example, shot against manufactured backdrops, the image rendered lifeless and too perfect. Really nice blog and great work! – Tim, UKReplyDelete
I think what you have done has improved the image a great deal, do you have a link to the video? There is no harm in tidying the image up(ok no good for wildlife competition) so long as that is all that happens. I do find it irratating when some people create a "new image" by manipulating to far. That is just my thought and if we had the required photoshop skill set, how far would one go?ReplyDelete
I watched this one