Please share your immediate response to the image before reading the photographer’s intent (obscured text below) or other comments. The photographer seeks a genuinely unbiased first impression.
Questions to guide your feedback
The top photo is the original, the second one is a composite with the end of the wing and some background added to complete the bird in flight. The “new” wing-tip came from a frame taken about a second earlier in a series of the owl flying towards me.
I have serious reservations about manipulating shots to this degree and have never previously done it, but on this occasion I think that it does make a pretty good image look a lot better. The join is “quick and dirty” (that’s my guilt!) but could obviously be improved. I would never seek to pass off the image as an original, happy to say what I have done.
Not sure if there are any protocols around this?
I have other pictures from the series that show the whole bird but this one had best focus on the face. Image manipulation/improvement is a subject that we obviously think a lot about in the group. So a simple question:
1 Is the second image significantly better than the first?
Other Information
Please leave your feedback before viewing the blurred information below, once you have replied, click to reveal the text and see if your assessment aligns with the photographer. Remember, this if for their benefit to learn what your unbiased reaction is.
Image Description
Taken a few weeks ago late afternoon as the sun was setting. I see the this Owl occasionally but this composition with such a complimentary (in my opinion) background is a very rare occurrence
Technical Details
OM System Olympus OM-1
Panasonic Leica 100-400 @ 400
f 6.3
1/800 sec
ISO 1250
Ryan, simple answer: Yes. I certainly think that completing the wing and adding some space improves the image. With respect to the ethics of image manipulation, IMO it depends on how the photo will be used. I’m no expert, but if I had only seen the edited image, I would not have suspected that it had been manipulated. Nice job enhancing a photo in a way that I would not have thought of!
Hi Ryan, initial reaction is that’s a fine catch with the prey and good job on the processing. The second image is a nice improvement. The owl seems a bit soft to me though. Still a fine catch and nice image.
Hello Ryan, nice catch and great work on the second one. I think as long as you acknowledge that it’s a manipulated shot, then it’s fine. I do a lot of focus stacking with my landscape images. Those are manipulated too, and I always let the viewer know…
I don’t have any problem with combining two shots like this as long as it’s stated. It’s essentially equivalent to a panorama in landscapes and no one objects to them. I would probably have an issue if it were done with AI generative fill because then it wouldn’t be yours. And, yes, I do think it’s a definite improvement over the first.
I’ve been doing a series of articles on the history of photography for our camera club newsletter and the excerpt below is from “A History of Photography” by W. Jerome Harrison published in 1888 (pdf downloaded from Google Books and a very good book on the subject). So this stuff goes way back to the beginnings of photography.
Definitely an improvement, and a fine image because of it. I see no problem with compositing from a shot you made of the same subject at almost the same time. And of course, acknowledged.
I will use content-aware fill to add a small amount of canvas to an edge, which would sometimes extend a branch or possibly repair clipped primaries. I will also clone from a related image, but as much as I strive for an artistic result, I don’t think I will ever use any sort of AI fill, even in an abstract image. For me, the limit is that the result is my art, not someone else’s.
Thanks for all of the comments, much appreciated, it’s good to have a level of agreement/understanding on this. But as Dennis shows us I am about 140 years late to the discussion!
The world of photography, digital manipulation and AI in which we now live increasingly seems to require one thing above all else. Integrity.
Here’s another shot of the same Owl taken in this series. It captured the whole bird and I like it, but I had to add a bit of background on the left and when enlarged the face isn’t as sharp as the one I posted… which still isn’t quite as sharp as it could be (thanks Allen).
