have you ever noticed how many photos with a line of birds flying in it, that have been added in photoshop make it on here? I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this!!!

Well Janos, I do not sway to a particular side in what will soon be a furious debate, however let me assure you that until the photoshop offices are burned down by angry photographic purists, that frantic little line of birds that generally look the exact same as the other photo you just had a look at will stay, and hooray for that.
While I would prefer if the birds were originally in the picture, I don't have much problem with people adding them in photoshop. If they are used creatively (take a look at Lucian Olteanu's photos for instance) that's great. If they are just added because that is what everybody else does, or to turn an ordinary photo into a work of fine art, then I don't see the point. The key for me is if they have been added to enhance the originality, and have been thought out before editing the photo.

Though I would never do it myself, it's OK for me to add a line of birds, as long as it's not noticed as added by the viewer. Editing should not be noticed, only serve to support the message of the image.
Nearly a purist opinion, I guess?

Lars :-)

Janos,

If you know any manipulated photos with added birds that are in the category "Nature" send an OEmail to a screener, e.g. Thomas Ljungberg (is that ok Thomas?) with your information so that the photos can be moved to another category.

I don't wish to continue a "purist" vs. "anything goes" debate, but I think it's nice if the category "Nature" is free from such manipulations and captive animals.

/Johan

Well it is fall/winter in the northern hemisphere. Birds do fly south this time of year? So more pictures with a line of birds makes sense to me ;-)

Scott

Yes i agree Scott but have you noticed the birds are heading North in most of the photos, that's whats confusing me!

Well, who said that photo's are or should be added WHEN they are shot. Ask King D. about that, for example. And how do you know what is north/south in a photo unless it's some famous landmark? And why be concerned? And how do profess to know it was Photoshop? Perhaps you should have the stones to offer some examples...

For example, do you think this line of birds was added in Photoshop?? And of course, please indicate the direction of travel.


Or this single bird?? Also indicate direction of travel.


I am more than willing to have a frank conservation about these examples, as they are mine.

From my location the group of birds are heading north!

Not sure about the bottom one as when i double click it it tells me the picture has been removed. But looking at the thumb it looks like its heading back to its nest.

External link to the Oceano Dunes image:

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2008/04/oceano-2/

Seems like there were some images removed a while back due to some server limitation.

Jacob, if you are listening, could you please rectify the problem created when you try to reference an image that was removed. I supposed the solution would be to remove the thumbnail and the id reference in the images list when you click the button to add an image to a post.

Clyde looks like its heading North West......... Am i close?

And by the way that a very nice photos.

Let's see what Janos and other think and then I'll divulge the "truth".

Clyde,

I have no agenda here, I don't care what people do in PS, I think everyone should do whatever they want with their photos. :-)

But, personally, I like to know whether a photo represents one frame or if it's "sandwhiched" or "copy/pasted". I tend to judge photos differently depending on shooting/PS conditions, but that's just my personal opinion.

Regardless, at 1x there's an agreement that manipulated photos (e.g. adding a line of bird to a landscape photo) or e.g. zoo shots should not be in the Nature category. I think it's a good idea to keep it that way.

/johan

I tend to agree with Johan here. I don't care about editing/manipulation with regards to photog itself, but as long as categories are defined here I think they should make sense. Because after all why not having an animal shot in a zoo and then copy/paste in the wild and categorized as 'Nature' ? Even if it is well done I think it is unfair.

well don't get me wrong here, i never said i didn't like these lines of birds and i am sure not against the use of photoshop to add details if the photo really needs them. I really only wanted to hear your opinion on the fact that there are quite a few of them on here, and i don't see their purpose in every of them except for the asthetics that some seem to see in them.

@clyde: i can not tell for sure if your birds have been added in ps, but they do look very natural, and therefore i have no problem with them, no matter if they were already in the scene or not.
The photos i am talking about are more of the kind where you can tell that they are only several shots of a single bird at first glance.

same here, i dont care if others use photoshop to stamp things in or out. i wouldnt do it. it would kill exactly what i love about photography.
as soon as i feel like removing or adding elements into my photos i would sell my camera and start painting.

very interesting thought remo!

so clyde! it is time to reveal the "truth" i think! :D

lol, i wish i could say so myself, but no-one would EVER be interested in my paintings! that's for sure.

OK here goes:


B&W conversion from D70s raw file. Birds as seen in nature, flying WNW, taken at Newport Beach, CA. A bit of one bird's wingtip was cloned out along the very left edge of frame, nothing else altered in this image.


B&W conversion from D70s raw file. Bird as seen in nature, flying W, taken at Oceano Dunes, CA. Nothing cloned or altered in this image.