Photoshopping Nature

[ted_tahquechi]

<p>Hi,<br>

I live on the beach and do a lot of shooting there.. My question is what level of photoshopping to use when shooting birds. I mean gulls are great subjects and plentiful here, but areas they habit are generally covered with fecies. Im not opposed to photoshopping out the odd stain here and there, but in situations like the one I have incluided with this post what do you suggest? Is it worth it to try and clone out all the stains from the log? Or since this is part of nature should it be left intact. Of course noone would want to buy an image of a gull sitting on a log strewn with fecies, so I wanted to just get an idea of your thoughts on this subject. <img src="http://www.tahquechi.com/hosted/IMG_3385.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="334" /></p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>I guess I would start by asking yourself why you took the shot. If you took it to sell, as you noted above, you have some work to do. If you took it because you thought it was interesting, do as much work to it as you would like. I am putting together a photo album of 4x6 shots of a lot of photos I have taken, just for me. Some certainly aren't sellable, but I like them for one reason or another. Some I've put 5 minutes of post processing work into and some hours of work, but they are all memories for me, not to please anyone else. </p>

<p>As far as making things sellable, I am not a purist and I would remove an annoying stain or distracting branch if I thought it made a better shot. I am not one to add additional objects to an image, but find no fault in those that do that kind of work either. Make it sellable if you want, make it personal if you want, delete it if you want...it's all yours.</p>

[Two23]

<p>It's your photo. Do what you want. If someone is paying for it, you do what they want. This is very simple.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[mrossi]

<p>I personally don't like to remove things that are indicative if the true habitat of a bird. If they eat worms, fine, if they sit in brush, I'll try to get a clear shot. If they're falcons and they eat birds, why would I censor that? Take a double-crested cormorant for example. They destroy trees/habitat with their feces, I think it's quite relevent to the photo. It may not always look nice, but it's natural. Just my angle.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Fecies is a part of nature, I would leave as is in this case and I even think it adds a bit of context. In the end though, this is your photo and maybe you should try cloning the log just for comparison to help make up your mind.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>As long as you keep the original image untouched and work on a copy you can do whatever you like and go back to the original if your ideas change with time.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<p>If you were to do that it could not be used in scientific or news applications in good faith, but otherwise if it's just for personal use, you should do what you want. That would be an ambitous PS job if done properly, so it might be good practice. Personally I would never PS to that extent.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I'm not averse to removing scraps of paper or cigarette buts from an otherwise good scene. With this particular example, the delete key would be appropriate, unless you are documenting unauthorized dumping.</p>

[ted_tahquechi]

<p>Well Thank you all for the comments. I thought it might be interesting to hear some feedback from both sides of the photoshop debate. Mr. Ingold, I don't use my delete key lightly as you suggest. I think that every picture good and bad has merit. I also appreciate comments and suggestions as I am always trying to get better at phototgraphy. Granted, I would not consdier the image included to be one of my best images, but I would consider it a good example of an image that would require significant work to bring it up to par.</p>

[captainkimo]

<p>Well, this does not just apply to shooting birds but shooting any subject in general. If something seems to be distracting, I try to edit it out or at least do something to make it less distracting.<br>

Cheers!<br>

<em>Captain Kimo</em></p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>You saw the crap while you were composing the shot in the first place. If it bothered you that much, you should have composed your shot with less of it in the shot, perhaps framing a lot more tightly and oriented for portrait instead of landscape.</p>

[ted_tahquechi]

<p>Actually no, I didn't see it when I was composing. I'm legally blind 8) It is tough to see the details of the composition. I didn't actually see it until I was home and had the images on my PC.</p>

[pvp]

<p><strong>Only the print contains the artist's meaning and message.</strong> <em>Ansel Adams</em></p>

<p>Translation: Do what you need to do. It's <em>your </em> photo, and it should convey <em>your </em> message.</p>