• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Is this fair? (1 Viewer)

RickT

Member
Hello everyone! This is my first post. Is it fair to artistically alter a photograph in photoshop and still call it a nature photo? On a recent trip to Arizona, I took several photographs of an Elegant Trogon. Although a couple of the photos were sharp, the one with the best composition was blurry. Instead of deleting the photo, I used the PS watercolor filter, and created the following picture. Any comments would be appreciated?
Thanks, RickT
 

Attachments

  • trogonwc.jpg
    trogonwc.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 333
Rick

To me, its no longer a photograph, but it is art!. But then, I have never seen this species, its possible they all look like this!?.
 
Basically an image is an image. This might not do if the intention is to produce an image for a field guide. If that is not the intention then why shouldn't it be called a nature photograph? If the medium had been paint there would be no quibble about whether it was a nature painting or not.

Photos are not natural. They have been manipulated in some way, the backgound suppressed, the subject highlighted, certain parts enhanced, colour balance changed, colour saturation fiddled with, etc.

Using analog techniques in the darkroom, an image like this might have been built by posterization.

Try these which will sell for many $$$:
http://www.ernsthaas.com/still/066.html
 
RickT,

I think you should practice the art of taking a blurry photograph until you master it - because if you can do that to it on a regular basis, you might find you've got yourself a nice little sideline.

I think it is brilliant!
 
Photography is art, and therein lies a broad definition. It is still a photo, but obviously has been manipulated on the computer. Bottom line, since it is a photo of a wild bird, it is still nature photography. While people may dispute your methods, they cannot dispute that it is still a photo.
 
Rick

Please let me welcome you to Bird Forum on behalf of Admin and the Moderators. That is the most original first posting I have ever seen! Quite superb.

I wish you all the best, and have great fun cruising round the various BF forums. We look forward to hearing from you again!
 
Hi Rick,

Welcome to the forum.

I have to disagree with Walwyn & Brian, I think this can no longer be classed as a nature shot. Even if it were a painting it would not fall in that category (more Impressionist I would say). A nature picture should show a realistic image of a subject in its natural environment. This does not mean that no manipulation can be carried out to improve the final image, for example a great shot of your chosen subject might not look so good if right behind its head is a leaf with a distracting white poo on it. It is quite ok to burn that out in the darkroom or in photoshop. You still have a natural history picture.

No camera club in the world would allow this to be entered in a nature / nat history competition.

I am not saying that this is not a pleasing image (I think it is), just that it cannot be classed as nature. This does not stop you posting it in the BF forum gallery. The Artwork, Paintings and Graphics category would seem the most appropriate.

Paul
 
Not that it really matters in the slightest, but I'm actually going to disagree with Paul Rule on this.

Whilst image manipulation software has been used on this photograph, it is still a photograph.

As the counter example, may I suggest that the Super-realism art movement produces paintings of such amazing detail and quality, that they appear to photographs (which is somewhat pointless if you ask me, but there you go!). Nevertheless, they are still paintings, not photos.

But Rick T, I think you'll notice that we all agree on one thing... that it is a fabulous image.
 
Irrespective of image manipulation, photography is an artifice.

A 'natural' picture would in most cases be a brown blurr disappearing into some green. We mostly have to use binoculars, scopes, or macro lens, to see the subject in any detail. The images that that photography gives us we don't see naturally, which is part of their appeal.
 
Birdman,

I dont think we do dissagree here, I did not say it wasn't a photograph, I was saying that it could no longer be classed as a nature photograph. I did say it would not be allowed in a nature photographic comp, but it certainly would be allowed in an open photographic competition.

Paul
 
Fair enough Paul,

I obviously misinterpreted your post.

I was gonna respond by saying that I meant to argue that it was a nature photgraph - which I did - but having reread what you put, I can see you point of view in the context that you've expressed it, and I'm struggling to disagree!
 
Sure its Fair but it is what it is. Digital Art! Its a photo of a wild creature turned into art. And well done BTY. No one would ever mistake this shot as it is to portray the bird as actually seen. Unless they have dropped their scope and bins recently. I would like to see the other clear shots even if the comp is not great.
Doug
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top