It's scary Click. The remove function is probably fair for removing distracting objects from images.Amazing. Excellent results.
I doubt if many on this forum are fans. Of course there is a broad range of what individuals may find acceptable. I am at the conservative end. I don't remove or add anything to images and limit my editing.Personally I am not a fan of this tech. In my view it goes too far beyond image editing and into image creation/fabrication (which, to be fair, is what Photoshop is about) in a way which seems different from graphic design as we have known it and seems to be essentially a replacement for, rather than complement to, the photographic process. I may be in the minority for all I know (if viewers like an image, at least in some situations maybe that is all that matters?), and I accept the line between editing and creation/fabrication has never been crystal clear. However, I'd be just as happy with editing software which does not have this tech, and I don't see myself using it much if at all. The genie is out of the bottle though, of course, so I am sure we will this tech will be used in lots of images we see in the near future.
But, I do understand the value of these techniques for commercial work (advertising, etc.) where the photograph is viewed as more of an illustration, rather than a document....all submitted Photographs must depict birdlife (i.e., contain at least one bird or bird part) and accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder (a “Photograph”). Normal processing of the original file is acceptable. That includes:
● cropping
● minor adjustments to color, white balance, tone, lighting levels and curves, shadows and highlights, saturation, contrast, sharpness
● moderate dodging and burning
● removal of dust spots and moderate reduction of image noise
Photographs that have been digitally or otherwise altered beyond standard optimization will be disqualified. That includes:
● HDR frame stacking
● stitched panoramas
● images that have been manipulated by the addition, removal, or alteration (painting over, cloning, or blurring) of anything in the original subject and scene that were photographed
● borders, signatures or watermarks
● changes in color so significant that the processed colors are widely different from the original colors
● changes in density, contrast, color and/or saturation levels and dodging and burning that significantly alter content by obscuring or eliminating information in the picture
I've started removing branches/reeds/grass from images this summer and I'm happy with the results. It's not something I'd do most images, but it can save images I'd otherwise delete:It's scary Click. The remove function is probably fair for removing distracting objects from images.
Audubon rules are good. Art Morris, who does produce some wonderful bird photos, does a lot of manipulation. He's just posted one of two birds and described how he constructed it out of two images with the birds heads at different angles to give a more desirable composition. He has a particularly good eye and feeling for composition, and does it well. But, he doesn't enter them into competitions.I doubt if many on this forum are fans. Of course there is a broad range of what individuals may find acceptable. I am at the conservative end. I don't remove or add anything to images and limit my editing.
Basically following the guidelines set out in the Audubon contest rules (which are typical of many other contests and publications):
But, I do understand the value of these techniques for commercial work (advertising, etc.) where the photograph is viewed as more of an illustration, rather than a document.
Of course, the internet is filled with overdone, overedited photos. Unfortunately, many people prefer images that reflect a fantasy world rather than the real thing.