• 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.

Digital composite images (1 Viewer)

nigelblake

don't re member
Hi All
I have recently loaded some digitally constructed images in the gallery area, I try very much to portray a scene that I have seen but it would be nigh impossible to capture conventionally, i.e. 'in camera'. There are in many circles mixed views regarding the ethics of manipulating wildlife images, my personal feeling is that as long as you show something that is biologically and/or behaviorally correct then it is a perfectly valid extension of the art of wildlife photography, what if any do the members of this forum feel about it?.

Nigel
 
I thoroughly agree Nigel. I only wish I could acheive a third of what you can. You keep on doing what you do best and let us all sit back and enjoy.
 
Surely the finished image is all that counts, no matter how it was achieved ? I remember many hours spent in the darkroom, combining images, dodging and burning-in, to get the result I wanted. As Nigel says, provided the images portrays natural behaviour / surroundings, there should be no problem.
However, should someone decide to 'enhance'a picture of a rarity taken abroad with (say) the airfield on St. Mary's as backdrop, then submit it to the BBRC, it would be a different matter.

Tony
 
Nigel, I have to confess to not being a supporter of this type of manipulation. However, providing it is declared at time of posting I guess it is acceptable. - Mike
 
I think of it as another technique, which you have mastered well. I see nothing wrong with such imagery.
 
Well a cross section of views here, what I find interesting is that we are happy to accept an image that has been painted without question and many show unnatural postures etc, especially when the artist has worked from skins and not from field experience.
What we see as pure photography is in fact not the way we see something with our own eye, for instance when looking at a flock of birds we see all of them in focus, but optics have limited depth of field meaning that only some are sharply defined and those behind and infront are blurred, I could present a much purer view of this flock by photographing the scene a number of times whilst refocusing on each bird, then put the sharply defined birds together as the whole flock in Photoshop, thus showing what I actually saw, and though this image would be defined as digitally manipulated it would in fact be closer to reality than the unmanipulated version.

Manipulation happens in art all the time, landscapes have pylons or arials omitted, people have pimples etc omitted, would we consign the Mona Lisa to the bin if it could be proved that she did'nt smile at all when Da Vinci painted her........ I think not.

I personnally think the Ludite attitude is stifling the progress of wildlife photography, which of late is getting static and cliched.
 
Last edited:
I can not see anything wrong with it, as long as it pleases the eye, who cares.
Nice when a declaration accompanies the picture though.
 
Nigel, I personally feel your 'enchanced' images are a work of art- it takes talent to manipulate a photo in that fashion and my hat is off to you for exploring new techniques. I enjoy digital art and am happy to see it shared here.:t:
 
Cindy,
''And on the fifth day God created Birds (days 1-4 must have been a real drag)''
I must disagree - just as Nigel (presumably) needed a lot of practice before he was able to produce the images we all marvel over, God must have needed practice before producing something as beautiful as bird-life. This also explains why woman was not created during this period at all, but only after thought had gone into the refinements needed.

Tony
 
Well, that explains all the beautiful women around. However, I must have been created in the first five minutes of day one. So, Nigel, grab the pic of me from the gallery (the older one) and see if you can digitally enhance me. Be warned, your birding will suffer as to fix my photo is a lifes work.....lol

But I like your pictures, enhances or otherwise.


Colin
 
Nigel,

If declared as such when posted, as you have, I do not have any disagreement to it. It is after all, just another form of art. Whether digital or film, you can always manipulate a photo. However, I think I have a view which will conflict with what I just said. If it is obvous that it has been done, then I usually do not care for the image. By this, I don't mean putting an owl in the Sistine(sp?) chapel, I mean if lighting isn't not consistent (for example), then it seems out of place to me.
 
Nigel,

I think you are right on all counts that you mentioned. There are organizations that do not want any manipulation, but allow sharpening, hue, saturation, etc. Sometimes, keeping the subject and replacing the negative space can actually enhance the image. I am just learning how to do that, and will be posting my second of such images.
 
NIGEL JUST KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK I LIKE THE PICS AND I NO A LOT OF UTHER PEPPLE DO SO JUST KEEPEM COMING IS ALL I CARE
 
T0ny said:
Cindy,
God must have needed practice before producing something as beautiful as bird-life. This also explains why woman was not created during this period at all, but only after thought had gone into the refinements needed.

Tony

Ah, very well stated Tony.. my signature is partly in jest, but not entirely. To me the world would be a pretty sorry place without birds, and the birders that treasure them :)
 
Hi, Cindy - I agree about the birds, wholeheartedly, but I'm not too sure about some of the birders ...

Tony
 
Nigel I used to be very naive about this thing called Bird Photography and USED to think it was only good if you got it right the first time.
But with learning and listening... it becomes apparent that one needs to think and act outside the restrictive measures of the box.
I think that no matter what you do with your photos I would be hard pressed to find many better anywhere. Your portrayal is of the beauty in the bird.. the manner in which you saw it.. if in some way you have manipulated it to make it even better and say so then I say the viewer is in for some real eye candy!

I am not naive anymore about a great many things and before I make any judgement I like to garner all the info I can and then leave it for awhile.. then come back and make a comment.

Whatever you do to your work, you at least know exactly what you are doing..
in the hands of a less talented and less knowledgable person that could spell disaster!

Bravo on a decent question... good read too!
 
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