Composite photography with wildlife?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr F Stop.

Mr F Stop.

Active member
Member's gallery
I recently saw a stunning image of an Eagle landing on an old branch with the most amazing vista in the background, it was truly amazing. I thought wrongly as it turned out that the photographer must have either been very lucky, (right place right time) or had reccied the spot, seen that it was a favorite branch etc etc. But no, that was not the case at all. He had placed the branch there and then set up a remote camera with a trigger for when the bird did eventually landed, the shot took 6 months. Or there was another shot of another amazing vista which I knew, but this guy had captured a Chamios resting right on the edge of the cliff. Brilliant I thought. Having stalked these animals for hours and getting some nice shots I knew how difficult his shot must have been. Or did I? Not difficult at all in fact as he had photo shopped the critter in, it was n't even his photo. Now I have no problem with either shot if there is a little note at the bottom admitting what had been done. Why I hear you ask, well because the viewer has a right to know they are being conned. I also think that it de values a real capture. What say you.
 
Member's gallery
It depends on your attitude to photography .
There is no such a thing like straight-straight photos. You always change something
Be it in the camera, be it in post processing.
I cannot imagine that anybody takes a photograph of, say, a flock of flying geese (well, I am a novice...) and gets the right composition, the position of the wings, the relative positions of the birds among themselves and with the landscape etc etc such as to make a great composition.
I imagine that many photographers make a burst at 10 fps and then look at what they got.
I can hardly imagine that anybody "sees" what in the end is going to be in the frame.
Just too fast and too many variables.
I personally don't make any composites but if there is a straw disturbing the image, away it goes. If I can, I remove it physically, if not, then with PS.
Some of us discuss even the better methods to exchange this with that sky, in order to make the picture better...
Not to speak of AI programs which "help" you with your creativity (!)
For me, what counts is only the end result. In my personal case the print. How it was obtained is secondary.

Just MHO
 
Member's gallery
pochito said:
It depends on your attitude to photography .
There is no such a thing like straight-straight photos. You always change something
Be it in the camera, be it in post processing.
I cannot imagine that anybody takes a photograph of, say, a flock of flying geese (well, I am a novice...) and gets the right composition, the position of the wings, the relative positions of the birds among themselves and with the landscape etc etc such as to make a great composition.
I imagine that many photographers make a burst at 10 fps and then look at what they got.
I can hardly imagine that anybody "sees" what in the end is going to be in the frame.
Just too fast and too many variables.
I personally don't make any composites but if there is a straw disturbing the image, away it goes. If I can, I remove it physically, if not, then with PS.
Some of us discuss even the better methods to exchange this with that sky, in order to make the picture better...
Not to speak of AI programs which "help" you with your creativity (!)
For me, what counts is only the end result. In my personal case the print. How it was obtained is secondary.

Just MHO
Click to expand...
Really? I am not sure what kind of photography your talking about but inserting something that was n't there like a different sky or animal is lying, cheating, conning the viewer, unless as I said you actually say at the bottom its a composite. I am not sure about you, but when I edit its to enhance the image or to rectify something I did wrong when taking the shot, not changing it to something completely different. Your point about ten frames a second which I use often, is daft, the mirror goes up and down every single shutter actuation so that you can track the bird. Yes you can take a thousand shots of a bird in flight and then choose the wing position you like, absolutely nothing wrong with that because you took all the shots! Inserting a bird with the right wing position on the other hand is cheating your self and your viewers. So answer me one question, If I had two images hanging in my gallery and one was a composite and the other was the real thing would you pay the same money for them and rate them the same?
 
Member's gallery
Mr F Stop. said:
Really? I am not sure what kind of photography your talking about but inserting something that was n't there like a different sky or animal is lying, cheating, conning the viewer, unless as I said you actually say at the bottom its a composite. I am not sure about you, but when I edit its to enhance the image or to rectify something I did wrong when taking the shot, not changing it to something completely different. Your point about ten frames a second which I use often, is daft, the mirror goes up and down every single shutter actuation so that you can track the bird. Yes you can take a thousand shots of a bird in flight and then choose the wing position you like, absolutely nothing wrong with that because you took all the shots! Inserting a bird with the right wing position on the other hand is cheating your self and your viewers. So answer me one question, If I had two images hanging in my gallery and one was a composite and the other was the real thing would you pay the same money for them and rate them the same?
Click to expand...

Because probably we don't see photography in the same light.
I don't understand this "lying, conning the viewer" stuff.
The viewer ALWAYS see just an image, not a real thing. That's all that there is.
You cannot call a painter, Velazquez, Turner or whatever "liers" because they put things wherever they wanted.

The viewer sees a picture. Period.
If you want then to relate your adventures, your knowledge, how cold it was there, how good you are at composing, so be it. Can be interesting too but anecdotic.
The image is just that, no more, no less.
An artist makes something meaningful with whatever he chooses to do.

And as for your question, the answer is YES. I care for the picture that is in front of my eyes. Nothing else.
Curators will act the same when examining your pictures. And ask you some questions
I'm not interested in being personal. Just for your info I myself do not exchange skies nor put eagles in condor's nests. Not my technique. But others may achieve their results differently.
This can be found in my original text.
 
Member's gallery
Mr F Stop. said:
I recently saw a stunning image of an Eagle landing on an old branch with the most amazing vista in the background, it was truly amazing. I thought wrongly as it turned out that the photographer must have either been very lucky, (right place right time) or had reccied the spot, seen that it was a favorite branch etc etc. But no, that was not the case at all. He had placed the branch there and then set up a remote camera with a trigger for when the bird did eventually landed, the shot took 6 months. Or there was another shot of another amazing vista which I knew, but this guy had captured a Chamios resting right on the edge of the cliff. Brilliant I thought. Having stalked these animals for hours and getting some nice shots I knew how difficult his shot must have been. Or did I? Not difficult at all in fact as he had photo shopped the critter in, it was n't even his photo. Now I have no problem with either shot if there is a little note at the bottom admitting what had been done. Why I hear you ask, well because the viewer has a right to know they are being conned. I also think that it de values a real capture. What say you.
Click to expand...
I say ...whatever. If it is a contest and the rules say no manipulation...no good...although those that have a generic no PP rule don’t realize that every single digital photo ever is processed. If it’s not a contest...then like others I only care if I like it. Whether it had the sky replaced or de-noised or whatever is just fine...it’s your image and unless it is a contest or ‘journalism’ the photographer can do whatever they want. A sell Adams post processed...but our tools are better today. o thing wrong with cloning the beer can out of the meadow or anything else.
 
Member's gallery
You have two topics here - remote setups and composites. For remote setups, I really don't have much of a problem, although I don't know about sticking a branch in there. People often shoot bids on perches near feeders, so I suppose it's just doing it on a larger scale. I guess I'd have to see it...

I've thought about doing remote setups before (and have even tried without much success). In a remote setup, the photographer has to anticipate quite a bit - including focus position and exposure - so it can actually more difficult in my opinion than actually being there (at least, in some cases). In fact, if I were able to pull off an epic remote shot I'd be bragging about it in the description. However, it's important to note that what I was shooting actually happened. Which brings me to composites.

As for composites, I'm not a fan. Photography is an art form and if that's how the artist wants to approach it, it's up to them. I agree they should disclose it though.

Personally, I think the photo should represent what was there. It doesn't have to be a dry, clinical representation, but it should be an honest one that reflects what you saw and how you felt about it and the story you wanted to tell. For me personally - and only me - it goes over the line to stick an animal into a frame when it wasn't there. Part of the fun I get out of my wildlife photography is the thrill of the hunt, not the thrill of Photoshop. I like to find cool situations and share them with others - that's the reason I do it. I think making a composite sucks the fun out of it, at least it does for me.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Also, for everyone posing: Topics like this have potential to get out of hand and turn into virtual yelling matches. This can turn into a very interesting thread, but the moment I see it start to spiral, I'm locking it.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that Steve - If you want to have your say then have your say its only one persons opinion over someone elses , ones man food is another mans poison etc

My take on it is simple you have Photography and you have Composites, in my eyes they are two totally different things ,Composites can take different parts of different photos and merge them together to create "One Photo", hell you don`t even need to be a photographer or even own a Camera as you can take a few or multiple images from the internet and make them into anything you please, while there is nothing wrong with that and I have seen some very clever Photos created this way it is Certainly NOT Photography .. hence it spurned that old saying ""Is that Photoshopped"" when people saw photos that they kinda knew were not True photos

Trying to con others by way of manipulation ""without declaring it"" is cheating, Period ! ! ..... IF you declare it then that`s a different story .......

I have no problem with anyone replacing or removing items in their images its up to them and, possibly they`ve done it to make the image better. On a personal level it doesn`t float my boat, If it were lets say a wildlife competition and I`d taken a photo of a bird sitting in a Tree I would not use any form of removal tool to delete/remove obstructions to make it look as if that`s how the photo was at the time of taking it, that just wouldn`t sit right with me...

I cannot imagine that anybody takes a photograph of, say, a flock of flying geese (well, I am a novice...) and gets the right composition, the position of the wings, the relative positions of the birds among themselves and with the landscape etc etc such as to make a great composition.
I imagine that many photographers make a burst at 10 fps and then look at what they got.
I can hardly imagine that anybody "sees" what in the end is going to be in the frame.
Just too fast and too many variables.

@pochito - I`d say with a degree of confidence that you are very very wrong in that statement , and that`s coming from myself as a novice .. my reason for saying that is this - There are many many Pro and semi pro photographers on this forum alone never mind the hundreds or thousands of Pro and semi Pro`s out there who, believe it or not ,will actually form a mental picture in their head of what it is they want to shoot, what the composition should be, what the background is,sit for hours on end waiting for the right moment etc etc and then take the shot - ok they wont predict every single wing beat of every duck in a flock of 10/20 Ducks flying past but you can bet your bottom dollar that they have "to a certain degree" planned and executed the shot almost exactly as they had foreseen.. its not a matter of Point the camera and squeeze the shutter release OR to coin a phrase ""Spray and Pray"" ........ that`s what novices like You and I do ....... So believe it or not YES there are guys who can do that on a regular regular basis

It`s not what I do anymore ..I also have sat by a lake, watched for ages ,planned an image in my head, tried to predict when the birds were about to fly, then just at the right moment took a few shots and Viola I produced some pretty decent photos which gave me such a buzz , ok there`s a degree of fortune involved but hey it`s not an exact science, Its all down to the advice give on forums such as this and trying to put that advice into practise ..some you get some you don`t but the more you do it the better at it you become....


Harry.G
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
pochito said:
Because probably we don't see photography in the same light.
I don't understand this "lying, conning the viewer" stuff.
The viewer ALWAYS see just an image, not a real thing. That's all that there is.
You cannot call a painter, Velazquez, Turner or whatever "liers" because they put things wherever they wanted.

The viewer sees a picture. Period.
If you want then to relate your adventures, your knowledge, how cold it was there, how good you are at composing, so be it. Can be interesting too but anecdotic.
The image is just that, no more, no less.
An artist makes something meaningful with whatever he chooses to do.

And as for your question, the answer is YES. I care for the picture that is in front of my eyes. Nothing else.
Curators will act the same when examining your pictures. And ask you some questions
I'm not interested in being personal. Just for your info I myself do not exchange skies nor put eagles in condor's nests. Not my technique. But others may achieve their results differently.
This can be found in my original text.
Click to expand...
Ok, not being personal and I like the fact that you have a completely different view. So why don't you insert your sky's? Surely if all your interested in is the end result then this would be the best way? I would add I would never ever compare a photo to a painting, they are in my mind two different things, now digital art and a painting that's a different matter. The folk that view my photography enjoy the fact that I have sat in a tree and waited for a one off shot it's part of the experience. If I simply cut and paste the animal that experience would be something completely different.
 
Member's gallery
Mr F Stop. said:
I recently saw a stunning image of an Eagle landing on an old branch with the most amazing vista in the background, it was truly amazing. I thought wrongly as it turned out that the photographer must have either been very lucky, (right place right time) or had reccied the spot, seen that it was a favorite branch etc etc. But no, that was not the case at all. He had placed the branch there and then set up a remote camera with a trigger for when the bird did eventually landed, the shot took 6 months. Or there was another shot of another amazing vista which I knew, but this guy had captured a Chamios resting right on the edge of the cliff. Brilliant I thought. Having stalked these animals for hours and getting some nice shots I knew how difficult his shot must have been. Or did I? Not difficult at all in fact as he had photo shopped the critter in, it was n't even his photo. Now I have no problem with either shot if there is a little note at the bottom admitting what had been done. Why I hear you ask, well because the viewer has a right to know they are being conned. I also think that it de values a real capture. What say you.
Click to expand...
I agree with others that a remote trigger very different than composites. A remote trigger is something I would like to try, but it is more time consuming than I can deal with. Some composites are amazing and I have to give credit to the artist who created it. I am normally referring to ones that are obviously composites and I consider them digital art. Now if someone takes a photo of an interesting log in the forest, then photoshops a bear crossing the log, I agree that they should state the photo was manipulated. Some other manipulation has been going on for the longest time. I’ve seen many photographers add the moon, or do two exposures, one for the scene, one for the moon. Similar with some astro photography with the night sky and landscapes. I guess the question is, where each person draws the line.

For me personally, I spend all day working behind a computer so I don’t want to spend time processing photos and do very minimal editing. I enjoy the challenge of getting the best shot in camera. Photography is an art and everyone interprets it differently.
 
Member's gallery
I've seen this topic crop up in photographic forums a few times already, and it's controversial as heck. One of the reasons I join these forums is to learn from others and become a better photographer, so I'm always interested in how someone achieved a good or interesting picture. For myself, then, I would like to know if the image is a composite. Otherwise I might be scratching my head forever trying to figure out how the photographer did it.

As for the beer can or twig, personally I'm ok with cloning out unwanted elements that detract from the image. I do it myself, either through selective cropping or cloning. Where I draw my own personal line for my own pictures is when it comes to adding something that was not part of the original scene to begin with. I prefer not to do it. Perhaps this philosophy doesn't make sense, but that's me. Other photographers don't need to tell me they cloned something out, but I do want to know if something was pasted in or if the image is a composite.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Mr F Stop. said:
So why don't you insert your sky's? Surely if all your interested in is the end result then this would be the best way?
Click to expand...

Because for MY (I stress MY) photography (or style or whatever) this is not necessary. The best way for one person is not necessarily the best for another.

Just as an example. Some people like contests, some prefer exhibitions. Some do both.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
This debate has a long history - fyi an interesting article from 1998, when digital had yet to supplant film fully

Photography in the Age of Falsification

The wildlife photography we see in films, books, and periodicals is often stunning in its design, import, and aesthetics. It may also be fake, enhanced, or manufactured by emerging digital technologies that have transformed—some say contaminated—the photography landscape.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Photography Falsification (Part Two)

Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online
www.theatlantic.com

Photography Falsification (Part Three)

Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online
www.theatlantic.com
 
Member's gallery
I have a photographer acquaintance that lives near me who is very talented, both shooting wildlife and post processing. He has great, natural scene, realistic shots that I would be proud of myself. Then again, he takes some of those same shots and adds textures to them. They are amazing work and very impressive, but at the same time (at least to me) they cross a line between photography and digital imaging. Yes, all our photos from digital cameras are digital imaging but they either depict a natural scene or a heavily manipulated scene. I can appreciate both due to the person's talents and abilities, I just highly prefer the natural scenes.
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
I've seen this topic crop up in photographic forums a few times already, and it's controversial as heck. One of the reasons I join these forums is to learn from others and become a better photographer, so I'm always interested in how someone achieved a good or interesting picture. For myself, then, I would like to know if the image is a composite. Otherwise I might be scratching my head forever trying to figure out how the photographer did it.

As for the beer can or twig, personally I'm ok with cloning out unwanted elements that detract from the image. I do it myself, either through selective cropping or cloning. Where I draw my own personal line for my own pictures is when it comes to adding something that was not part of the original scene to begin with. I prefer not to do it. Perhaps this philosophy doesn't make sense, but that's me. Other photographers don't need to tell me they cloned something out, but I do want to know if something was pasted in or if the image is a composite.
Click to expand...
Yes I totally agree that cloning out the odd branch or rubbish is ok, and I would say what you keep out of the image is part of the composition? Here in Bulgaria if you could clone out rubbish you'd be in big trouble.
 
Member's gallery
Personal opinion here: I think the reason this topic is so contentious and can become so heated is there really is no clear right or wrong answer. It comes down to opinion, preference and nuance in the discussion. There have been heated conversations over art probably since the first person painted a buffalo on a cave wall.
 
Member's gallery
pochito said:
Interesting, but falsification or forgery is the act of producing something that lacks authenticity with the intent to commit fraud or deception.
But if the intention is to create say, something beutiful. Why should this be a problem?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with creating digital art. My view is that should not be passed off as a photo. The example I used with the Chamois pasted in, the guy had posted in a photography group and had n't said how he had made the shot. Only when I said "oh your a lucky guy catching the animal in just the right position" did he admit inserting it. So I as a fellow photographer was conned (not really) so I am guessing the other viewers were as well. Another problem I have with this kind of thing is when I look at other peoples work it makes me skeptical. I have just minuets ago looked at a photo somewhere in Colorado I guess with the full moon captured through a massive hole in the rocks. I doubted the image straight away. Which spoils my experience.
 
Member's gallery
Mr F Stop. said:
Nothing wrong with creating digital art. My view is that should not be passed off as a photo. The example I used with the Chamois pasted in, the guy had posted in a photography group and had n't said how he had made the shot. Only when I said "oh your a lucky guy catching the animal in just the right position" did he admit inserting it. So I as a fellow photographer was conned (not really) so I am guessing the other viewers were as well. Another problem I have with this kind of thing is when I look at other peoples work it makes me skeptical. I have just minuets ago looked at a photo somewhere in Colorado I guess with the full moon captured through a massive hole in the rocks. I doubted the image straight away. Which spoils my experience.
Click to expand...
From Peter Lik I presume?
 
Member's gallery
I did this composite a few days ago... high frame rate and Photoshop... coyote hunting in our front field... go ahead, I can take it :)
coyote jump.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Karl said:
I did this composite a few days ago... high frame rate and Photoshop... coyote hunting in our front field... go ahead, I can take it :) View attachment 11445
Click to expand...
That's one of the rare exceptions to the rule I think. First, it's obvious what you did, so even without reading the description it's not misrepresented. In addition, it shows what happened honestly. If you would have added an eagle soaring past or a wolf looking on in the background, then it crosses the line. Personally, I'm totally OK with this. (y)
 
Member's gallery
Interesting conversation. I for one take the photojournalist approach to editing. I will burn, dodge, crop and fine tune exposure but that’s it. I used photoshop on an Astro photo for the first time doing a stack yesterday. I limit myself to Lightroom mostly because my software ability is limited but also I take pride in what I was able to produce.

There are a few landscape photographers on YouTube I watch and they will do videos on photoshop. It’s impressive but I always end up feeling the same way at the end. Wow what a dramatic image you created in photoshop but it isn’t what you actually took. I often feel they are considerably better at photoshop than photography.

Personally I take pictures because I love doing it. I don’t do it to spend more time on a computer. I love shooting guns but hate cleaning them. Kind of the same for me. If I’ve got to spend hours cleaning/adjusting an image it has lost its luster.

It’s probably why I’ll never create an image that blows people away or launches a social media presence.I’m good with that!
 
Member's gallery
A friend of mine set up a remote camera to photograph a hawk nest this past spring. He did it you two reasons. One, he's a pro and wanted to sell the shots of the developing youngsters to a publication. Two, these hawks were extremely skittish and he was afraid the parents wouldn't go to the nest if anyone was nearby. He felt the remote was better for the welfare of the birds. There are plenty of times a remote setup makes a lot of sense.

As far as composites, I'm not a fan but won't judge others who do them. The fun for me is to catch a spilt second of reality. I'm also not a fan of over-saturating a picture to make unnatural colors. But, I'm sure that sunset pictures with crazy bright colors sell well, so to each their own.

The new replace sky feature in Photoshop and other applications is a marvel of AI, in my opinion. Still, I just use the Select Sky feature in order to lighten or darken the sky to correct for dynamic range. I just can't get myself to put puffy clouds into a sky that was overcast or clear blue. I want a record of what I actually saw and recorded. Again, though, if people want to do that to their shots, who am I to judge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top