Subject: [Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awards
Date: Jan 25 18:03:47 2014
From: Paul Bannick - paul.bannick at gmail.com


Dear Tweeters,

Full disclosure is essential. I don't judge those who edit photos or shoot
wildlife models but if a photo is edited or if the animal is not wild, it
should be noted in the caption or with a disclaimer if a caption does not
work.

Personally, i do not EVER add or subtract elements from a photograph,
however tempting it might be to take out part of a bird, a branch, a twig,
a jess or some man-made object. I have entered contests and each limited
the manipulation to things that were historically done in the dark room.

Paul


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Vicki Biltz <vickibiltz at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>


--
Paul L. Bannick
Nature and Bird Photography
www.paulbannick.com
206-940-7835
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20140125/76c23996/attachment.htm