Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

[Nathaniel]

As the year 2014 is coming to a close and I have been laid out with the flu/cold despite having received the flu jab, I have been spending a good bit of time looking at my specialist photography books- the photography year books from 2010 to 2014 as well as my two volumes of 200 "greatest wildlife pictures ever" in two volumes of 100 pictures each. I have noted that the natual background features in the majority of the photos- I should say a good 97%.

Having said that I find that many members post wild life pictures with the background nicely cleaned out so that the image stands out and some post images with their natural background. I prefer to look at the latter images more closely as they are more in line with the books I have got (pictures taken by some excellent photographers), and I would personally like to go in that direction.

I would however, like to hear the views of the members, some of whom are excellent photographers, who regularly post on the forum.

Many thanks
Nathaniel

[Tigger]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

I don't think it a case of having a clean / natural background but more so having a photo that shows the subject off well, if that means cleaning twigs that obscure or removing things to make the image better then I'm all for it.. When shooting I try to keep an eye on whats going on around but sometimes you just don't have that luxury and thats were PS comes into play

[Jock]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Interesting to hear what you say Nat because I thought I was different from the norm here - I prefer to be able to see what the background was - I don't like only the image to be displayed - I think it looks too unnatural. I do agree with Ian to an extent - sometimes, in order to get the shot, there has to be an extraneous twig or other object in the way and I think it's quite acceptable to clean that out, but to remove all detail from the background?

No, not for me anyway.

[jimsphotography]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Hi Nat,
An interesting debate. It's not as black and white as one might first suspect. At one end of the spectrum are those who would remove the background altogether and replace it with a more 'suitable' one, then those who believe cloning out a twig or two is ok and of corse the purist who don't believe in altering an image in any way at all. If you want to enter something like Wildlife Photographer of the Year then if you get into the finals they ask you to supply the original RAW file so they can check there has been no significant 'fiddling' with the image.
My personal opinion is that photography forums like this one should be broad enough to cater for all tastes and styles. I personally enjoy looking at ( and appreciating) images from either extreme ( including the middle).
James

[Dave_S]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

My preference is to have the background in soft focus, but created by the use of a wide aperture. However, this is not always possible if the subject is close to the background foliage, or whatever.

In these cases I might try to soften the background a bit, using the blur tool in Photoshop, but this softens the background as opposed to blurring it, in the true sense of the word.

Photoshop editing does have its place in digital photography, and can certainly enhance an image. However, some people will take the 'artistic licence' a bit too far, and end up with a background, that is nothing like the original image. This seems to be a common feature with many bird images, which can end up looking like the 'doctored' pictures you would see in some bird identification books.

Of course, it all depends who you are trying to please, such as your own personal taste. or perhaps a judge who likes a well 'doctored' background.

At the 'end of the day', its "your" picture to do with, whatever pleases you.

There is an old saying that says, "you can please most of the people most of time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

It wasn't that long ago, that we discussed the subject of photo-shopping the background in bird shots, to blur it right out, and I posted some shots of the same image, with two different levels of photoshop background blurring. The first one 'as shot', with just a gentle softening of the background, which was quite close to the bird, and the second with the background blurred right out, as seen in many bird shots. To save linking back to them, I have attached them here.

Each to his own of course, but I much prefer the first one, as to me, the second on looks too artificial.

Dave

[LukeGrayson]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Dave I agree with you the first image is much better looking. I am not great with the PP tools at all but I think they all have their place depending on what you are looking to achieve with the image but as I don't really use it at the moment I don't have much room for comment here.

[Stan]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

There is nothing wrong with the first robin Dave, the background is oof and doesn't distract from the subject. Equally the second is fine and if you were shooting with the background a good way behind the robin then you would be able to get that sort of effect naturally

Stan

[Dave_S]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Indeed so Stan, as you have demonstrated in some of your shots.

My main obstacle is shooting mainly at 560mm (EF 400mm f/5.6L + a 1.4x TC), with a maximum aperture of f/8, the DoF is deeper than ideal.

Of course using a full-frame camera (5D3) it does not have the advantage of an APS-C camera. with its 1.6x magnification factor, which with the 400mm would give me the equivalent of over 600mm of focal length, at f/5.6. Even my 300mm f/4 would be 480mm.

I find that with the FF camera and 400mm, I need to get within 3m of the smaller birds, to get something approaching a decent sized image of the bird.

However, I cant' both "have my cake and eat it", and both the FF and crop-sensor cameras have their advantages and disadvantages.

What I really need is to buy a 7D Mkll, to compliment the 5D3. Mrs S would love me for that, I'm sure.

Dave

[tesarver]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Funny how this debate is still continuing since the inception of photography. Photo manipulation has been regularly used to deceive, persuade or improve the story. During the Civil war they used a technique where they used more than one negative to create engravings so they could print a more persuasive story, or they would alter the battlefield so that the photo told a better story. In the 1860s a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from on photo and the head of another which became the images used for the 5 dollar bill. Then of course there was Ansel Adams who was the master of the dark room. From what I read about him he would spend days in the darkroom on one image to create the look that he was after. So what it really boils down to is the photographer and how he/she sees the image in their mind, the story they want the image to tell, and the audience that the image was meant for.

So the only thing that really has changed is the technology used to manipulate a image. Now here is a image that I recreated using Elements that was originally produced by a photographer in the early 1900's:



The only difference besides the subject is that the original was done in a darkroom and not on a computer.

Tom

[Nathaniel]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

I think I am beginning to get a sort of "gist" to the thread. It appears, that when you photograph a subject, i.e a bird, the question is (a) do you want the resulting picture as you saw it, with perhaps a few bits cloned or cropped out? or (b) how you would like it to be, to look? with all warts & background removed?On this criteria I would certainly opt for the first Robin photo as it looks so NATURAL whereas the second one clearly shows that it has been photoshopped. Following on from this, the question to ask is (i) do you want to be wild life photographer with warts and all or (ii) do you want to be a photoshopped photographer? AND, if I might take it a bit further, how many photshopping photographers have won national and international competitions as opposed to club competitions ?

[Dave_S]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

if I might take it a bit further, how many photshopping photographers have won national and international competitions as opposed to club competitions ?

I seem to remember this question came up before, and I believe that it was Stan who told us that at that sort of level (i.e. not club competitions), the original RAW image, with its Exif data, has to be submitted along with the entry.

Dave

[Nathaniel]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

I may be wrong here, but I seem to remember reading that images should be in Jpeg. Jpeg images do show all the exif data necessaary.

[Stan]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

I may be wrong here, but I seem to remember reading that images should be in Jpeg. Jpeg images do show all the exif data necessaary.

If you are entering a national or regional competition as opposed to a club competition and you are submitting in a Wildlife section, then the rules are very strict and the only processing allowed is in respect of levels, curves saturation cropping etc but nothing that alters the make up of the original image. Initially you submit a jpeg and if you are shortlisted then the big national competitions require the original RAW file to ensure that that you have not materially altered the shot. So it is important to get the composition right when shooting and wildlife photographers will spend time in getting the right angles etc to ensure tatt their subject is centre stage with no distractions

Following on from this, the question to ask is (i) do you want to be wild life photographer with warts and all or (ii) do you want to be a photoshopped photographer?

if you are the former than you are just a wildlife snapper not a wildlife photographer

Stan

[Nathaniel]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

I should have made myself clearer. One must always read the competition rules thoroughly, if one is to have any real chance to any prize.If I was entering a national/regional or international competition I will always play it safe by taking my images both in RAW/Jpeg. Having said that I did enter one or two national competitions esp those run by the Daily Telegraph and one of my Jpeg images,with warts and all was highly recommended, placed within the first five and also published in the paper. I attach a copy of one of my highly commended pictures taken by me a few years ago, in South Africa.(I also have a few others,similarly recommended and published, including a Heron!!!!).

[Dave_S]

Re: Natural or edited/photoshopped wild life pictures

Nice shot Nat.

Dave