I don't usually post on this forum, so forgive me if I did something out of the realm of "Natural".
After shooting some seagulls with my 200 mm lens (longest focal length that I own), I noticed the images were small and had a lot of empty space. Sure I could crop and get up close and personal, but I decided to combine serveral images that I shot within a few minuets from the same vantage point. So the question is: Is this acceptable, or not? After all, cropping as post-processing is always acceptable, I was just condensing, or cropping time.
I see no bad whatsoever. After all all our photos are "altered" in some way! as soon as you hit the contyrast or saturation we're already altering the reality so this is just another tool IMO
Let me start out by saying that it is not my intent to start an argument or a flame war. Louhand asked and I am just responding. What is allowed depends on what you plan to do with the photo. Entering in a wildlife\nature photo contest; this is definitely a no no. Adding or removing elements, other than cropping, is not permitted. This situation has and will be discussed at great length. It will not be resolved here.
I personally love to combine 2 or 3 landscape images into 1 giant panorama. Looks great on the wall but I would never consider entering it into a contest. Nor would I ever claim that it is a single photograph. Ultimately it is up to the photographer to determine what is proper for their particular image. My opinion: this is a doctored image, a nice image, but not a photograph. It does not show a specific instant in time.
When offering a photograph or picture I'd say a no-no. Journalism of any form.
When 'creating an image' do what you want. Art, painting with light.
I've several 'images' that I sell as framed prints. I've absolutely no problem removing a hydro wire, a boat from the water if it's not good for the comp. I've one very nice one looking east during a sunset with a cloud of seagulls in it. Removed all the seagulls but one and now it's a nice image.
I've another looking out over the water at dawn. A shiloutted tree is frame right. Removed or trimmed some unsightly branches. Also took out what I call wind lines on the water. Where small guts of wind leave some of the surface rippled and other areas totally calm. It's no longer a picture or a photograph. It's an image that I've created from a photograph.
zooloo wrote:
Let me start out by saying that it is not my intent to start an argument or a flame war. Louhand asked and I am just responding. What is allowed depends on what you plan to do with the photo. Entering in a wildlife\nature photo contest; this is definitely a no no. Adding or removing elements, other than cropping, is not permitted. This situation has and will be discussed at great length. It will not be resolved here.
I personally love to combine 2 or 3 landscape images into 1 giant panorama. Looks great on the wall but I would never consider entering it into a contest. Nor would I ever claim that it is a single photograph. Ultimately it is up to the photographer to determine what is proper for their particular image. My opinion: this is a doctored image, a nice image, but not a photograph. It does not show a specific instant in time....Show more →
I somewhat agree with you on this, however, I am not sure about you panorama example. To me the fact that you ran out of field of view on a view that existed in nature, shouldn't disqualify the panaorama, as long as you mention it is a panorama.
But what concerns me the most is that having viewed the wonderful works of Ansel Adams in San Fransico, and understanding the work behind his film processing and printing techniques. Should we dismiss these images because of his techniques? Is it possible that the dramatic views that Adam presents never occured and was something that came from his interpretation of reality?
I guess you're are right, nothing will get resolved here as there are too many variables to consider.
