Hi Tweets, this is a subject I have often thought about, and asked a couple
pros about in the past. Mostly Paul Bannick. When I first started
digiscoping, I made a comment about how to remove a branch. He replied
very politely, something to the affect, "You don't. Take a better picture."
Altho I sometimes do play with enhancement, I really don't know how to
remove things from photos. I do enhance the colors, sometimes saturate, as
much is lost with a crop, or dark, or overexposed photos. MY goal to to
capture what I saw. Not always captured by the camera.
I have a Canon 7D, so the crop factor does not allow the light that I
often want, especially for something like birds, which requires a higher
ISO, and causes noise in the photo when there is action.
Aside from cropping, and a bit of finish work, which is required for all
photos shot in RAW, thats really all thats needed. I do soften the edges,
or play with the vignette sometimes, but only to enhance the actually bird
photo itself. Or landscape. I have messed with AND messed UP the colors
on some as well. Just my two cents, I don't join contests, nor expect any
prizes. But I do like things to be as natural as possible.
My motto?
Take a better picture!
Vicki Biltz
Bonney Lake, WA 98391

vickibiltz at gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saw-whets_new/



On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM, ELIZABETH THOMPSON
<calliopehb at comcast.net>wrote:

> Oh how I debate this with myself. I love photographing birds. I have had
> some really nice shots and some really bad ones. Mostly focus. I do crop
> my pics sometimes but that is all i have ever done. I recall last summer
> taking photos with a similar camera and lens as some other
> birder/photographers and my pics looked not so nice as theirs. We were at a
> birding outing at the same time.
> I can only assume a couple things. Better at stabilization, better camera
> equipment or better at photoshopping.
> More than likely the first two options.
>
> Either way, I still take pictures of birds and every once in a while, I
> get a nice shot.
> Happily birding,
> Beth Thompson
> Arlington, WA
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:04 AM, ck park <travelgirl.fics at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose it depends on your definition of "photograph" versus "digital
> image".
>
> mine definition? if i clone away dust bunnies, crop, or maybe apply a bit
> of sharpness, to me it's still a photograph. the image is as i saw it.
> if, however, i alter the shape(s) of something, alter colours (obvious
> saturation, HDR, etc) and/or clone away distracting poles, buildings,
> trees, etc, what you would see is no longer as i saw it, and therefore,
> while it may be beautiful, interesting, etc, it is a digital image, an
> interpretation that is no longer a photograph.
>
> this definition is mine, and while shared by many, is not a universal
> definition. as well, some folks today believe "photograph" == "digital
> image", that there may be no inherent difference between the two.
>
> your mileage may vary.
>
> 00 caren
> http://www.ParkGallery.org <http://www.parkgallery.org/>
> george davis creek, north fork
>
>
> On 25 January 2014 03:04, <notcalm at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello Fellow Tweeters,
>>
>> There is an interesting discussion regarding alteration of bird
>> photographs and rules for the Annual Photo Contest in the current issue
>> (January, 2014) of Audubon magazine. A great image was disqualified. I am
>> interested in what Tweeter's community members think. I think it is an
>> interesting question.
>>
>> Many of our best single images of birds and humans are now modified and
>> enhanced to varying degrees. This a now a routine practice for images of
>> female models in fashion magazines. The controversies in many fields,
>> including bird photography include: when should it be disclosed; at what
>> level of change, including enhancement; and what image enhancements should
>> be considered in photo contests. The Audubon Editor asks for feedback.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan Reiff
>> Mercer Island
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tweeters mailing list
>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20140125/b97c7c2c/attachment.htm