Took a birding tour with friend who is a professional photographer .? We both photographed the same deer from the same place at the same instant.? His was a wonderful picture , mine not bad.? Equipment had something to do with it, the actual set up of shutter, aperture, ISO were very important, and then editing.? It all adds up.? As I have learned about set up i have? gotten significantly better shots.? Same with equipment upgrade.
?
But, the real art, I think, comes from how one edits; that is where the art comes in.
Hal Michael
Olympia WA
360-459-4005 (H)
360-791-7702 (C)
ucd880 at comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "ELIZABETH THOMPSON" < calliopehb at comcast.net>
To: "ck park" < travelgirl . fics at gmail .com>
Cc: "tweeters at u. washington . edu " <Tweeters at u. washington . edu >
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 5:16:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awards????????and Disqualification Discusion
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
george davis creek, north fork
On 25 January 2014 03:04, < notcalm at comcast.net > wrote:
<blockquote>
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
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u. washington . edu
http ://mailman1.u. washington . edu /mailman/ listinfo /tweeters