In the old days, what you saw is what you got. The slide was the slide, and that was it. These days it isn't so clear cut. If there is a branch, you can zap it. A stray twig? Kapow, and gone! It takes quite a lot of work, but essentially almost anything is possible. Photographers call this image optimization. Anyhow, back to the Sedgie. I managed to get a clear shot of it on occasion, but there were loads of distracting elements. A session in Photoshop however, and el Segdie is singing from a clean, distraction-free perch. Happy days.
But this poses a few questions, not least that having done all the hard work, do I actually prefer the image with the clean background or not?. Other more interesting questions might encompass whether it is right to do so or not? The image does not represent what actually occured. Or maybe it does, just not quite all of it. Have I messed with nature? (you know, moved a Shrike's larder for instance). No. Have I got out the secateurs and messed with a bird's bush? Euphemisms aside, only metaphorically. Does removing a few twigs fundamentally alter the image, which shows a Sedgie having a bit of a sing? Is the Sedge Warbler now somehow unnatural? Could I enter this in a competition, or would it be classed as cheating?
What do you think. In an html coding triumph, I have managed to work out mouse-hovering. Do please try it out. In theory, if you hover your mouse cursor over the photo below, you should see the original. Move it off again, you'll see my optimized version.
Anyhow, seeing as how everyone is a photographer these days, what do you think?
It's perfectly acceptable. It is, after all, just a pretty picture. I'm sure there are times and places where editing pictures at all is a no-no, but a blog isn't one of them. Says me, the world renowned photographer.
ReplyDeleteI think I prefer the one with the twigs in the background? Still, it makes a change from twigs in the foreground which is usually what I manage!
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty clever. I don't have photoshop, but can see the appeal. David Tipling recently did a piece in BB, proposing a code of practice for togs, and my memory is telling me that one should fess up if publishing the photo in some place where such technical trickery would look deceitful if not admitted. However, if photoshop does the same for big guts and naked scalps I can't see any point in admitting anything.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that any photography competition or magazine these days offers rules about just such a thing. Although, compared to what the average women's magazine does to their cover models... airbrushing a few twigs doesn't seem like much.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the twigs you took out of the first were distracting, I might agree with col about liking the original better anyway. It is imperfect, but the "fixed" one is *too* bland. My favorite bird shots show a good amount of the bird's environment. Nice shot either way though.
Actually it was one of those "I've started so I'll finish" things, and I think I prefer the original version as well. I hardly ever do it as it takes far too much time to get a decent end result, but I had the idea in my head for this blog post so pushed on. When I do muck about, it is usually to airbrush litter out of Wanstead photos in order to preserve the notion that I live in an idyll.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with the "fixed" version that rethinking the cropping/composition wouldn't fix.
ReplyDeleteWith was better I reckon - looked less like a snippet from Cage and Aviary Birds. Doesn't detract from the image of the bird.
ReplyDeleteCan you do one with a Vagrant Emperor in the background?:-(
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything wrong with this for the purposes of a blog etc. I would see something wrong with it if one was entering a competition for example. Now, can you remove an annoying twig from in front of a bird?
ReplyDeleteYep, it's more difficult and takes longer, but is exactly the same technique.
ReplyDelete