To Photoshop or Not w/Repost
by Craig Strand
"Thank you" for visiting this posting of a pair of Ring-necked Ducks. I am seeking more then a regular critique, I would like your opinion on what was done to create this image.
As wildlife/bird photographers we sometimes are challenged in ways that our cousins (landscape, floral, etc photographers) are not to get what we might call the "Ideal Image."
Being an avid birder I am always thrilled when my subject, once located, presents himself in an uncluttered, well lit pose and setting, and I'm in position to capture a good image. You may agree that the "ultimate" prize would be to capture both the male and female of a specie, both in the same frame with great DOF, lighting and all the other components. Unfortunately, I have found that this rarely if ever happens.
So my friends I have a confession and I have sinned, again! The Ring-neck Duck pair is a composite of 2 images, the drake and the hen. They were shot 3 days ago and at the time I posted the hen by herself. NPN photographer John Clulow suggested that she might look better with her image being "flipped horizontally," which I did and liked. I later processed the drake in photoshop and realized the lighting and water were almost identical (they were shot within 1 minute,) and so I decided to spend the hours required in Photoshop to bring the pair "together."
In 12 years of bird shooting this is the 4th time I have photoshopped a pair into one image and my question is "WHAT TO YOU THINK?"
I use to think in terms of PS processing as sort of a "purist" perhaps you do too. Normally I limit myself to as little use of PS, filters, etc as possible Just the minor adjustments of contrast, NR, white balance, sharpening, etc. So when this major use of PS in merging 2 images together is used is it OK, acceptable? I should point out that I always label the few I have done as "composite images" and advise customers they are looking at 2 photo's.
Please tell me what You think. If it's accepted practice to improve an image by cloning out parts when necessary. . . is it OK to "add?"
Shooting Data identical for both images - canon 7D, canon 600mm f4.L +1/4TC F9.5 1/500 ISO 400
Comments
21 commentsAs long as people know that that's how the image was made, I don't have a problem with it, Craig. You did a sweet job on this one.
But seriously, Craig, except for the errant feather over in the lower right corner, this is a really nice image.
For me that's one of the pleasures of nature photography - spending enough time in the field with my subjects until it does happen and I capture it.
I put myself in the minimal PS camp as I have stated many times before on NPN and I rarely clone out anything more than flotsam on the water's surface. I believe that it is never acceptable to add content from another image.
The work you've done on this image is very good, and I like the two separate images - just not artificially together. The only aspect I find unnatural in this composite is the comparative lack of distortion of the drake's reflection as compared to the gen's.
It's kind of like knowing how the magician does his tricks. It's no longer magic. And it's no longer fun.
Go for it.
Normally I would say post it in the photo art forum here, but this is a new take on it.
All the best Craig and wonderful result.
Danny.
If you like the results enough to print this and hang it on a wall, I would say do it.
If it is being posted into a forum where it says to disclose the composite, cloning, etc, I would say disclose it.
If this is being sold, I would say to disclose it to the customer.
For me though, this is more photo art than a realistic image. When I look at this I can tell it is a composite, especially in the head reflection of the drake and how the concentric ripple of water surrounding the hen doesn't look natural when it reaches to the male.
Personally I think these two images would make a huge splash printed individually and hung on a wall side by side.
I like the results but the circular water pattern does not continue into the reflection naturally to my eye. Thjis is a sellable capture as long as the buyer knows it is Photoshopped.
Since I transitioned from a landscape photographer to a bird/wildlife photographer I have found myself appreciating an image more knowing that it had minimal post processing. This tells me the photographer knew what they were doing out in the field versus learning a software application. Coming across those rare occasion's when everything comes together is what motivates me to keep on getting out there.
Bottom line: if you're going to take the time to make a composite and you want sellable results, go for a polar bear smooching a penguin, way more marketable than Ringnecks.
The comments left reflect a wide gamut of opinions on the subject and personally believe each has strong merit. Overall, I must agree with the purist thinking, it's best to spend enough time in the field to eventually capture the difficult shot. I will ask the galleries moderators to please move this posting to the "Photo Art" Gallery where l believe it belongs.
Thanks again everyone, Craig
I just wanted to thank you for the suggestion on using the PS "smudge" tool to do a better job on the water ripple/blur effect on the drakes reflection. I knew of the smudge tool years ago, but never had a need to use it until now and I think it worked pretty well. Don't get "Old" you'll start forgetting about all the great tools available in PS.
Regards, Craig
A match made in PS heaven
Very well done!
This is probably more Photoshopped than I would do (although I have made composites to satisfy a full moon landscape request), my style being more towards the realistic. But I do not think it is 'wrong' as long as you are not hiding the fact. I like Mia's idea of individual images as a set.
Paul
Congrats on the WP!
Sandy