Composite photography with wildlife?

[pochito]

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.

Take the example of Ansel Adams, a well known landscape photographer.
He took a negative out of his camera applying his Zone System, knowing already how he would develop it, compressing or expanding the values (N+1, N, N-1...)
Then he worked in his darkroom accordingly, with an idea of what he wanted, his pre-visualization (having started with the negative), toned it in selenium etc etc. This would be the equivalent in part of what we do in our computers.
And I wouldn't say that Mr. Adams was better at chemistry than photography

 

[frdjohns]

This is one of those issues that I see debated over and over every few months in various forums. There are always as many opinions as there are members, and nothing gets resolved. I feel you should conduct your photography as you see fit, but be honest about how your present or represent your work to others.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

How so?

That should be could n't. Sorry.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

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?

I agree with all you have written. But I do think the example I gave of the guy who set up the remote camera was a different to your example. Yes I use a camera trap to locate and monitor animals, yes they do the same in Scotland with their rare breeds. But setting up a branch with in a perfect vista and waiting 6 months is creating something unnatural? Which as everyone seems to agree on is a personal choice.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

Take the example of Ansel Adams, a well known landscape photographer.
He took a negative out of his camera applying his Zone System, knowing already how he would develop it, compressing or expanding the values (N+1, N, N-1...)
Then he worked in his darkroom accordingly, with an idea of what he wanted, his pre-visualization (having started with the negative), toned it in selenium etc etc. This would be the equivalent in part of what we do in our computers.
And I wouldn't say that Mr. Adams was better at chemistry than photography

I was wondering when someone would march Mr Adams out. I would say he was an artist creating his art through photography. Like a lot of pro's the photographic part of the task is gathering digital info ready to make the finished image which they already have in their minds. Nothing wrong with that. Unless that is it's sold or implied that it is a captured photo. I would also say that Mr Adams did a lot of things to his negatives but he did n't (as far as I know ) insert an animal into his landscape that was n't there.

 

[forestB]

I would have to say if you are selling your composite as an actual photograph you're just plain dishonest. However if you are merely sharing the image with intent to fool your viewer you're kind of just cheating yourself. I mean the viewer gets a nice experience while you really never had the experience to begin with. If you happened to catch an amazing moment remotely we get to experience it together, I mean who does want to see what those critters are doing when we aren't there!!!

 

[Mr F Stop.]

This is one of those issues that I see debated over and over every few months in various forums. There are always as many opinions as there are members, and nothing gets resolved. I feel you should conduct your photography as you see fit, but be honest about how your present or represent your work to others.

It's funny you seem to imply there was no hope of a definitive answer and then wrote best line here so far. You should conduct your photography as you see fit, but be honest about how you present or represent your work to others!! Brilliant. I feel I have a duty to my viewers to be honest, this I feel builds up a following and trust. There are very few bear in Bulgaria now, the chances of seeing one are very slim. Getting a photo of one is even harder, but I did and I posted it and no one question the photo. I think the guy that inserted the Chamois and later admitted it will regret it because his viewers will never trust him 100 % again.

 

[pochito]

I was wondering when someone would march Mr Adams out. I would say he was an artist creating his art through photography.

There is a reason for that:
Adams is widely known and one can expect that putting him as an example would help most people to understand what one is trying to say. If I use one of the modern landscapists one must probably google them.
And you can read about his methods from his books, he was also a teacher.

Unless that is it's sold or implied that it is a captured photo. I would also say that Mr Adams did a lot of things to his negatives but he did n't (as far as I know ) insert an animal into his landscape that was n't there.

Maybe you didn't notice but I answered and quoted dtibbals.
The subject in this quoted paragraph was landscape, dramatic images, "being better at Photoshop (or, in analogue photography, "darkroom") than photography..."
No mentioning of "inserting" anything in that exchange
Sorry for the misunderstnding

 

[Mr F Stop.]

There is a reason for that:
Adams is widely known and one can expect that putting him as an example would help most people to understand what one is trying to say. If I use one of the modern landscapists one must probably google them.
And you can read about his methods from his books, he was also a teacher.




Maybe you didn't notice but I answered and quoted dtibbals.
The subject in this quoted paragraph was landscape, dramatic images, "being better at Photoshop (or, in analogue photography, "darkroom") than photography..."
No mentioning of "inserting" anything in that exchange
Sorry for the misunderstnding

I think your probably talking above my pay grade. This post is about folk insert things that were n't there when the photo was taken, that has nothing to do with a past master as you so rightly pointed out.

 

[pochito]

...
Anyway, as I pointed out before, it was in response to something another forist put on the table in this very topic.
I expect that respectful disgressions are allowed like in any other conversation among people with similar interests.

 

[Viathelens]

O' no...you mean that image of a Toucan I have that is actually the toucan in flight but from two different images in that flight that I took is suspect? I took them both...Darn! Ha! Ha! As for remote shoots, David Yarrow is a well-known wildlife photographer who often shoots with a remote camera set up in a particular site. The camera is most often right on the ground. He waits for the animal to arrive and then takes the shot from the confines of his wildlife cage or vehicle (lots of Africa work). He gets well over $100,000 a pop for his work and has an entire staff to assist him.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

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.

I agree. My personal opinion, but there is photography and there is digital art. I'm not an artist, my goal is to for my images to represent what was actually there. That makes me a messenger. I leave the digital art to others.

 

[Steve]

I agree. My personal opinion, but there is photography and there is digital art. I'm not an artist, my goal is to for my images to represent what was actually there. That makes me a messenger. I leave the digital art to others.

Agree - and I also think that two aren't mutually exclusive. I just want to create the art based on what's actually there instead of adding elements to the scene. I think there is so much beauty out there, I don't feel any need to create it on the computer

 

[Mr F Stop.]

O' no...you mean that image of a Toucan I have that is actually the toucan in flight but from two different images in that flight that I took is suspect? I took them both...Darn! Ha! Ha! As for remote shoots, David Yarrow is a well-known wildlife photographer who often shoots with a remote camera set up in a particular site. The camera is most often right on the ground. He waits for the animal to arrive and then takes the shot from the confines of his wildlife cage or vehicle (lots of Africa work). He gets well over $100,000 a pop for his work and has an entire staff to assist him.

Sorry I have no idea what point you were trying make. First case your conning the viewer, the second case everyone knows how he does it, he not hiding anything?

 

[pochito]

-

 

[Mr F Stop.]

There are lots of different points of view. So be it.
But I have a problem with harsh language "conning", "cheating", "lying"...

I don't think that the matter is really worth discussing. Can get out of hand. Cui bono?
Make your stuff and be happy. Don't judge the others.

Just MHO

Having a problem with descriptive words is just that, your problem. If you don't feel the matter is worth discussion you have wasted a lot ink joining in. Oh and I thought the whole point of photography, capturing that moment was to share with others? Lastly I am not judging others just saying I would rather have a level playing field for our viewers.

 

[pochito]

I have deleted it but you reacted before I did.
Sorry about that.
But since you mention it, I'll explain: the "descriptive words" you are using are insulting, not only descriptive. That is not MY problem, Mr Stop.
And I don't understand what would give you the right to treat fellow photographers in that way.
I don't take it personally, I absolutely don't fall in that category you call "cheaters" or "liers".
Hope this helps

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I have deleted it but you reacted before I did.
Sorry about that.
But since you mention it, I'll explain: the "descriptive words" you are using are insulting, not only descriptive. That is not MY problem, Mr Stop.
And I don't understand what would give you the right to treat fellow photographers in that way.
I don't take it personally, I absolutely don't fall in that category you call "cheaters" or "liers".
Hope this helps

I guess because of you and your HO this thread will get locked any time soon which is a shame. Your a strange one, you say you don't fall into the category of cheaters and liers but you insist on defending them? The whole point of the thread is that these people are not fellow photographers but are presenting them selves and their work as one. feel free not to reply as I understand and respect your view point.

 

[Ralph]

Very interesting discussion. In the end it comes down to disclosure. If you are open about the photograph and disclose what you have done, I have know problem with it. But, if you are fraudulent about it than I do. Its also tough to decide where you draw the line. When I first started reading about digital photography way back when most people were using film including myself, I felt any type of digital manipulation was cheating. Boy has my perspective changed.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I agree. My personal opinion, but there is photography and there is digital art. I'm not an artist, my goal is to for my images to represent what was actually there. That makes me a messenger. I leave the digital art to others.

Right there is the quote of the thread. My hat is off to you sir.

 

[Capturingtheunseen.com]

Right there is the quote of the thread. My hat is off to you sir.

Thanks. I can always use another hat.

 

[pochito]

I guess because of you and your HO this thread will get locked any time soon which is a shame. Your a strange one, you say you don't fall into the category of cheaters and liers but you insist on defending them? T

I'd be very surprised, MrStop, Sir.
This is just an exchange of opinions. I am never discourteous nor insulting.
And most of it is just answering your own comments
I presume that you don't like disagreement. Well, who does?
But there is the so called right to express one's own opinion, albeit between limits.
Let's leave it at that and remain friends. OK?

BTW I don't understand "your HO"

 

[Steve]

Just a reminder to please keep this friendly or I will lock the thread.

 

[Viathelens]

I tried to inject some humor to lighten the discussion but I obviously failed and was "put in my place" by the poster. O' well...he seems to like to do that for some reason. I think he might be better suited to the UHH site...hmmmm.....

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I tried to inject some humor to lighten the discussion but I obviously failed and was "put in my place" by the poster. O' well...he seems to like to do that for some reason. I think he might be better suited to the UHH site...hmmmm.....

Hey I love a joke, your post was n't funny, and did n't really have a point at all. You obviously posted your comment to get a reaction, you got it! Now you want me out the group? PDH.