blonde Camera Club

[ManuelsMum]

Wp Tony

I love Wildlife Photographer of the Year, loads of inspiring stuff.
Never considered that retouching question, I'm sure it's taken into account, and they probably look for as little of it as possible. Maybe dust-spot removal is ok.
I do know that they like the 'Wildlife' bit in the title, one guy won with an incredible shot of a wolf jumping over a fence. Then the biologists etc who knew of such animals came forward and said that they just wouldn't do that. Turned out, the guy had used a 'trained' wolf, lost his prize.

For the second pic Tony used "Canon EOS 20D + Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 lens at 300mm;

Lots of space between shooter+swans = loads of nice snowflakes, as we were discussing.

That sounds a bit tough, even if you train the wolf to jump its surely the taking of the photo that wins the prize.

A bit tough, yes, however the others have to brave freezing weather etc and the vagaries or chance to get great shots, a staged shot would be much easier




Jumping wolf photographer loses wildlife prize

By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News


The judges concluded that the wolf was probably a trained model

The winner of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year award has been disqualified after judges ruled that the featured wolf was probably a "model".
The 2009 winning image, dubbed the storybook wolf, was taken by photographer Jose Luis Rodriguez.
Mr Rodriguez strongly denied that the wolf was a trained animal, according to a statement from the organisers.
His photograph was chosen out of more than 43,000 competition entries in October 2009.
Louise Emerson from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition office explained that the judging panel had been "reconvened" and had concluded that it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that could be "hired for photographic purposes".
This, she said, was in breach of the competition rules which are made available to all entrants.
"The judging panel looked at a range of evidence and took specialist advice from panel judges who have extensive experience of photographing wildlife including wolves," continued Ms Emerson.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470962.stm

[Geo the Sarge]

A sentence from the passage that Manuelsmum put up with the glorious swans pic says it all for me:

To photograph the swans in their environment meant I had to endure the same conditions

I get far more pleasure having to put myself out to get a pic, knowing that it just wouldn't be the same without having done so.

Editing/cropping etc doesn't really do anything for me at all. Whilst it may provide a really good end result, the pic will always be tainted in my mind.

Geo

I didn't realise you were such a purist Geo.


And here's me thinking you used that 21X zoom lens to artificially get 21 times closer to your subject, and then used a vast array of automatic in-camera processing features like auto light metering, auto focus, auto white balance, auto noise reduction etc before going on to use a computer programme to electronically re-size your photographs ready for uploading...   


Seriously though Geo, all photographs are "Edited".  Even when film is developed the photographer or technician has to decide how big to print it and how long to leave in in the fluid.

Cropping is exactly the same as taking a pair of scissors and cutting a bit off a photograph before pasting it into the album.

Maybe not worded it properly but will have a go again.

The camera/lenses and other accoutrements are the tools for attempting to capture the "right" picture and the challenge is to use that equipment and then defeat other challenges such as subject's avoidance, elements and other barriers.

Much like sportsmen who have their equipment/tools for their sport which they use to achieve as much as they can and at as high a level as they can. Some choose to "cheat" by using drugs

Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho

I have seen some amazing images over the years and unfortunately learned later that they had been enhanced on editing suites and not merely gained by the cameraman's skill in using the basic tools created to "take" an image but has deemed it neccessary to alter the image to receive praise.


Geo

[Graham C]

"Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho"

Really?  I agree that taking a car and photoshopping it on the moon is cheating but I see nothing wrong with enhancing colours or taking out unsightly things that are unwanted in a photo (for example)

[Geo the Sarge]

"Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho"

Really?  I agree that taking a car and photoshopping it on the moon is cheating but I see nothing wrong with enhancing colours or taking out unsightly things that are unwanted in a photo (for example)

But surely the challenge is to be able to capture the picture without the unsightly things, not to just take pics then sit on an editing suite to produce fakes??

Geo

[RED-DOG]

A sentence from the passage that Manuelsmum put up with the glorious swans pic says it all for me:

To photograph the swans in their environment meant I had to endure the same conditions

I get far more pleasure having to put myself out to get a pic, knowing that it just wouldn't be the same without having done so.

Editing/cropping etc doesn't really do anything for me at all. Whilst it may provide a really good end result, the pic will always be tainted in my mind.

Geo

I didn't realise you were such a purist Geo.


And here's me thinking you used that 21X zoom lens to artificially get 21 times closer to your subject, and then used a vast array of automatic in-camera processing features like auto light metering, auto focus, auto white balance, auto noise reduction etc before going on to use a computer programme to electronically re-size your photographs ready for uploading...   


Seriously though Geo, all photographs are "Edited".  Even when film is developed the photographer or technician has to decide how big to print it and how long to leave in in the fluid.

Cropping is exactly the same as taking a pair of scissors and cutting a bit off a photograph before pasting it into the album.

Maybe not worded it properly but will have a go again.

The camera/lenses and other accoutrements are the tools for attempting to capture the "right" picture and the challenge is to use that equipment and then defeat other challenges such as subject's avoidance, elements and other barriers.

Much like sportsmen who have their equipment/tools for their sport which they use to achieve as much as they can and at as high a level as they can. Some choose to "cheat" by using drugs

Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho

I have seen some amazing images over the years and unfortunately learned later that they had been enhanced on editing suites and not merely gained by the cameraman's skill in using the basic tools created to "take" an image but has deemed it neccessary to alter the image to receive praise.


Geo

But a camera equipped with all that technology isn't a basic tool.

You use your 21x zoom to get close to your subject. Someone else uses a 12x zoom, and crops to the same level. You both took the photograph from the same distance, under the same conditions, but he's a cheat and you're not....

What if you alter your camera's colour saturation, or sharpness setting, is that enhancing?  

What if you use your camera's on board crop feature?

I think we will agree to disagree on this one Geo.

[Graham C]

It's not always possible to capturer perfect shot. Imagine I see a Golden Eagle flying around just out of reach from my zoom lens, then it perches down but right behind it is a skip full of rubbish (it's just an example)  I'm sure as hell gonna photoshop that unwanted bird out of my shot to capture my subject correctly.  It could be a grey day where the colours and light aren't so good, a quick touch up in Photoshop will sort that out to save a dull image.

Those shots with the swans will have been taken as they are, just enchanced for our pleasure, everything in there is real.

What about digital vs film cameras?   

[Geo the Sarge]

A sentence from the passage that Manuelsmum put up with the glorious swans pic says it all for me:

To photograph the swans in their environment meant I had to endure the same conditions

I get far more pleasure having to put myself out to get a pic, knowing that it just wouldn't be the same without having done so.

Editing/cropping etc doesn't really do anything for me at all. Whilst it may provide a really good end result, the pic will always be tainted in my mind.

Geo

I didn't realise you were such a purist Geo.


And here's me thinking you used that 21X zoom lens to artificially get 21 times closer to your subject, and then used a vast array of automatic in-camera processing features like auto light metering, auto focus, auto white balance, auto noise reduction etc before going on to use a computer programme to electronically re-size your photographs ready for uploading...   


Seriously though Geo, all photographs are "Edited".  Even when film is developed the photographer or technician has to decide how big to print it and how long to leave in in the fluid.

Cropping is exactly the same as taking a pair of scissors and cutting a bit off a photograph before pasting it into the album.

Maybe not worded it properly but will have a go again.

The camera/lenses and other accoutrements are the tools for attempting to capture the "right" picture and the challenge is to use that equipment and then defeat other challenges such as subject's avoidance, elements and other barriers.

Much like sportsmen who have their equipment/tools for their sport which they use to achieve as much as they can and at as high a level as they can. Some choose to "cheat" by using drugs

Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho

I have seen some amazing images over the years and unfortunately learned later that they had been enhanced on editing suites and not merely gained by the cameraman's skill in using the basic tools created to "take" an image but has deemed it neccessary to alter the image to receive praise.


Geo

But a camera equipped with all that technology isn't a basic tool.

You use your 21x zoom to get close to your subject. Someone else uses a 12x zoom, and crops to the same level. You both took the photograph from the same distance, under the same conditions, but he's a cheat and you're not....

What if you alter your camera's colour saturation, or sharpness setting, is that enhancing?  

What if you use your camera's on board crop feature?

I think we will agree to disagree on this one Geo.

Yeah no probs, I'll stick to basics, it's like the arguement over should poker players use tools to gain an advantage in a poker game I suppose, some will say yes, others will disagree and say they shouldn't be allowed

Geo

[RED-DOG]

A sentence from the passage that Manuelsmum put up with the glorious swans pic says it all for me:

To photograph the swans in their environment meant I had to endure the same conditions

I get far more pleasure having to put myself out to get a pic, knowing that it just wouldn't be the same without having done so.

Editing/cropping etc doesn't really do anything for me at all. Whilst it may provide a really good end result, the pic will always be tainted in my mind.

Geo

I didn't realise you were such a purist Geo.


And here's me thinking you used that 21X zoom lens to artificially get 21 times closer to your subject, and then used a vast array of automatic in-camera processing features like auto light metering, auto focus, auto white balance, auto noise reduction etc before going on to use a computer programme to electronically re-size your photographs ready for uploading...   


Seriously though Geo, all photographs are "Edited".  Even when film is developed the photographer or technician has to decide how big to print it and how long to leave in in the fluid.

Cropping is exactly the same as taking a pair of scissors and cutting a bit off a photograph before pasting it into the album.

Maybe not worded it properly but will have a go again.

The camera/lenses and other accoutrements are the tools for attempting to capture the "right" picture and the challenge is to use that equipment and then defeat other challenges such as subject's avoidance, elements and other barriers.

Much like sportsmen who have their equipment/tools for their sport which they use to achieve as much as they can and at as high a level as they can. Some choose to "cheat" by using drugs

Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho

I have seen some amazing images over the years and unfortunately learned later that they had been enhanced on editing suites and not merely gained by the cameraman's skill in using the basic tools created to "take" an image but has deemed it neccessary to alter the image to receive praise.


Geo

But a camera equipped with all that technology isn't a basic tool.

You use your 21x zoom to get close to your subject. Someone else uses a 12x zoom, and crops to the same level. You both took the photograph from the same distance, under the same conditions, but he's a cheat and you're not....

What if you alter your camera's colour saturation, or sharpness setting, is that enhancing?  

What if you use your camera's on board crop feature?

I think we will agree to disagree on this one Geo.

Yeah no probs, I'll stick to basics, it's like the arguement over should poker players use tools to gain an advantage in a poker game I suppose, some will say yes, others will disagree and say they shouldn't be allowed

Geo

You mean the way you use your 21X zoom to gain an advantage over the man with the 3X zoom?

[Geo the Sarge]

A sentence from the passage that Manuelsmum put up with the glorious swans pic says it all for me:

To photograph the swans in their environment meant I had to endure the same conditions

I get far more pleasure having to put myself out to get a pic, knowing that it just wouldn't be the same without having done so.

Editing/cropping etc doesn't really do anything for me at all. Whilst it may provide a really good end result, the pic will always be tainted in my mind.

Geo

I didn't realise you were such a purist Geo.


And here's me thinking you used that 21X zoom lens to artificially get 21 times closer to your subject, and then used a vast array of automatic in-camera processing features like auto light metering, auto focus, auto white balance, auto noise reduction etc before going on to use a computer programme to electronically re-size your photographs ready for uploading...   


Seriously though Geo, all photographs are "Edited".  Even when film is developed the photographer or technician has to decide how big to print it and how long to leave in in the fluid.

Cropping is exactly the same as taking a pair of scissors and cutting a bit off a photograph before pasting it into the album.

Maybe not worded it properly but will have a go again.

The camera/lenses and other accoutrements are the tools for attempting to capture the "right" picture and the challenge is to use that equipment and then defeat other challenges such as subject's avoidance, elements and other barriers.

Much like sportsmen who have their equipment/tools for their sport which they use to achieve as much as they can and at as high a level as they can. Some choose to "cheat" by using drugs

Editing suites are the "drugs" of photography imho

I have seen some amazing images over the years and unfortunately learned later that they had been enhanced on editing suites and not merely gained by the cameraman's skill in using the basic tools created to "take" an image but has deemed it neccessary to alter the image to receive praise.


Geo

But a camera equipped with all that technology isn't a basic tool.

You use your 21x zoom to get close to your subject. Someone else uses a 12x zoom, and crops to the same level. You both took the photograph from the same distance, under the same conditions, but he's a cheat and you're not....

What if you alter your camera's colour saturation, or sharpness setting, is that enhancing?  

What if you use your camera's on board crop feature?

I think we will agree to disagree on this one Geo.

Yeah no probs, I'll stick to basics, it's like the arguement over should poker players use tools to gain an advantage in a poker game I suppose, some will say yes, others will disagree and say they shouldn't be allowed

Geo

You mean the way you use your 21X zoom to gain an advantage over the man with the 3X zoom?

Yeah, pwned obviously

Geo

[RED-DOG]

I love you Geo.

[Machka]

Its a beautiful clear night.
Come on Machka, Get tha' camera aht fo' t lads!

I missed it last night, but I'll keep checking.

[tikay]

Its a beautiful clear night.
Come on Machka, Get tha' camera aht fo' t lads!

I missed it last night, but I'll keep checking.

 

[Tractor]

Quite like the idea of a birds theme, swans is perhaps a bit too specific.  If I lived in the tundra or the northern most parts of somwhere cold I'd be up for it but the only swans around here are on the brown Thames and are pretty uninspiring.

Any one agreeing on a theme for this month, I think Birds is a good theme.

[Jon MW]

Fakery

... not to just take pics then sit on an editing suite to produce fakes??
...

I think Red Dog did a pretty good description of why editing on a computer is no different to editing on a camera and that is no different to editing with developer fluid and scissors in a dark room. But the odd thing to add...


It's all fake

Photographs are all covered in the same way Magritte covered this:


If for example you take a photo of a harbour arm you will get what the camera saw as the colour of the sea and the sky

Click to see full-size image.

But you were there - so you might think, actually it was darker and bluer than that - and you can make the picture represent what you saw

Click to see full-size image.

If that looks more like it actually was - is it more fake because you've edited it?
Or if the camera doesn't quite capture the colours correctly - is that fake because that's not exactly how it 'really' looked?

Nearly all of the time I use any editing software for photo's it's to make them look more like how I saw the image to start with - and I can't see any argument for that being any more fake than if you just left it as the camera 'saw' it.

[RED-DOG]

Nearly all of the time I use any editing software for photo's it's to make them look more like how I saw the image to start with - and I can't see any argument for that being any more fake than if you just left it as the camera 'saw' it.

This!

It's only fake if you start adding stuff that wasn't actually there in the first place.