Those of you who follow this blog and/or have traveled with me on a photo tour here in Costa Rica know that I strive to capture the best RAW file possible and that I consider only a perfect (or near perfect!) RAW file to be a full success in my own photography. I don’t pretend that every photographer should adopt this standard in his or her own work; photographers have different goals and purposes for their images. Nonetheless, I do believe that we have come to a point in nature photography where disclosure of how a photo was processed is a necessity to ensure public trust in nature photography and to establish a baseline for viewers evaluating the merit of nature photographs taken by professionals and amateurs alike. I also think that striving for RAW perfection will generate personal rewards in terms of self-satisfaction and photographic growth for the nature photographer in his or her own photography. As a nature photographer, I am interested in expressing my vision through my skill as a photographer, employing all of the tools that are available to me, in the field. When I view the work of other photographers, I have the same interest. The photographers that I most admire are able to use their photographic equipment, patience, knowledge, and creativity in the field to give us fascinating and unusual glimpses into the natural world. In this article, I explain the criteria I think are necessary for success, and I discuss the benefits to be reaped from following this approach.
I have started to write this article in my head, on paper, and on the computer a number of times but then worried about it being a bit too polemical. We as photographers often have strong feelings about how to approach the imagemaking process, and that’s understandable but it’s important to respect other positions as well. So, please understand that this article’s intent is to express my thoughts on the subject and to stimulate some healthy discussion but is not in any way meant to condemn particular nature photographers or particular approaches to nature photography, neither in the field nor in the digital darkroom. Many will disagree with the ideas presented here, and many will find loopholes in the logic. I respect your right to disagree, and I recognize that there are loopholes in the logic. But please read this with an open mind and in the spirit in which it was written – to make us think, to improve our own nature photography, to maintain a positive public perception of nature photography as a field, and to allow us to recognize the true masterpieces of nature photography as they are captured.
I think that many people today, myself included, are skeptical of nature photographs. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb here and admit that I’ve come to the point where I assume any image has been altered substantially from the RAW file unless the photographer demonstrates otherwise. This is unfortunate but understandable. I think that striving for perfection in RAW files will be of benefit to the photographer in his or her own photography and will encourage creativity in the field, leading to more truly exceptional images. I also believe that full disclosure of post-processing techniques on personal websites and especially on nature photography forums will level the playing field for professionals and lead to realistic expectations for amateur photographers and will also help us to treasure the truly exceptional images captured by pros and amateurs alike. Finally, I think that striving for RAW perfection and disclosure of post-processing techniques will help to restore the public’s apparently eroding trust in nature photography. In the article below I draw on conversations with a number of well-known professional photographers with whom I lead tours here in Costa Rica and also conversations with many tour participants to outline some of the issues, pro and con, related to my approach to striving for RAW perfection.
I’ll start with a definition of what I consider a successful nature photograph in terms of in-camera capture and post-processing. To me, a fully successful nature image is one that requires no cropping whatsoever (that is, it was captured full-frame in-camera), does not have any cloning applied (either taking things away or adding things, including added canvas), and has only a minimum of post-processing adjustments applied (I consider this to mean normal adjustments in saturation, tones, exposure, recovery, noise reduction and of course sharpening). This doesn’t mean that I don’t do any of these things (I do on occasion) but I make it a point to rely on these only as a last resort, and I consider the images that I manipulate in this way to be second-tier, not among my very best images. OK, I can already hear the objections out in the ether, so let’s consider these criteria separately before moving on to the rest of the article 
There are a number of threads out on the nature photo forums discussing this (e.g. how much do you crop?, how much should you crop?, what is an acceptable crop?) and to my mind the thrust of the discussions always becomes sidetracked by the issue of how many pixels we need to make a certain size print. Indeed, you might be thinking right now that someone with a 21 MP camera and a full-frame sensor, which has higher quality/larger pixels (say a Canon 5DII) could crop quite a bit and still produce an image of equal or higher quality (especially at higher ISO values) than someone with a Canon 7D, which has 18.7 megapixels and also uses a smaller sensor with smaller/lower quality (e.g., less light gathered per pixel) pixels. Or someone might be thinking that they are only making small prints or posting to a website or web forum so they don’t need that many pixels and can actually crop quite significantly. Even some of the big contests apparently will accept cropped files. So, these files must be good enough to make big prints. Indeed, I have no quarrel with the logic behind this. Modern cameras are plenty good enough to make big prints, and upsizing software such as Photoshop or Genuine Fractals makes enlarging painless. I have made 24×36 prints from Canon 20D images, and they looked great. So, my decision not to crop is not based on image quality considerations (though I do think that striving for full-frame images will lead to better big prints no matter what camera is being used).
Alternatively, there are issues in the field that might make cropping attractive or necessary. For instance, some subjects are simply harder to compose in-camera than others. Is it fair to apply the same no cropping standard to a bird in flight photographer as to a landscape photographer? Probably not but my issue with this line of thinking is that making cropping a matter of course and not openly disclosing it can lead to two unfavorable outcomes. First, I see with many photo tour clients a tendency to rely on cropping as an excuse for lack of attention to detail and craft in the field. Rather than trying to approach a bit closer, putting on a teleconverter, choosing a different camera body, or paying close attention to composition, people may be more apt to resort to cropping in the computer. I realize that one can’t always afford the luxury of trying to get exactly what they want in-camera (particularly when traveling in a group and coming across an animal that may give the visiting photographer only one brief chance at a photo) but falling into the trap of relying on post-processing to do things that could have been taken care of in the field is a bad habit. (Check out the online photo forum posts and you are sure to read “cropped for composition” or “cropped to vertical from horizontal” along with the tech specs of many images posted there.) I assure you that you will be more proud of yourself for getting what you want in the field than doing so in post-processing. Second, even though it can be difficult to compose in the field, if we as viewers are bombarded with perfectly composed photos, perfection becomes mundane. It’s likely that only a very few of these great photos out there were actually composed in-camera. As in making a good choice for purchasing a car or a camera or organic vegetables, we need information to evaluate nature photographs. If we don’t know which photographs have been cropped, how are we to recognize and appreciate those instances where skill, patience, and luck combined for a photographer to produce those truly special images?
Another argument relates to different sensor sizes. What if I am out with a full-frame camera (say a Canon 5DII) and a 500 mm lens and next to me is a photographer with the same lens but a smaller sensor/crop factor camera (say a Canon 7D)? I have a better camera (in terms of straight image quality) so why would I be penalized for cropping if I get the same quality as the 7D shooter next to me who is filling the frame with the bird? Does the photographer next to me have more skill because he or she composed in-camera with a 7D while I shot the exact same image with my 5DII but had to crop in post-processing to produce the same composition? This is a tough one but I would say yes. The photographer with the 7D chose the right tool for the job and had the added task of composing precisely in-camera. In this case, I would have enjoyed the luxury of composing in post-processing through the use of the crop tool.
Another issue has to do with getting too close to wildlife and the potential to adversely affect our subjects. What if my no cropping standard tempts me to disturb wildlife unduly in order to produce a full-frame image? Would I not be better off staying back and cropping the image later? This is an issue where responsible nature photography is the answer to the question. No matter how obsessed we are with getting an image, we need to respect our subjects. If composing in-camera will cause harm to the subject, the image simply is not meant to be or, alternatively, you shoot as best you can, crop in post-processing, and disclose the cropping later when presenting the image online or in print.
There is also an important last point to be made with regard to trying to compose in-camera. There are some situations where we absolutely can not get close enough (no matter what camera and lens combination we have available) to fill the frame with a subject. Is this a problem? On the contrary, it’s a fantastic opportunity to be creative and look for more interesting compositions in-camera. Step back, include some environment with strong leading lines, and your images will be much more dynamic and have more impact than any standard frame-filling stock shot would be. Capturing images of this sort is actually more difficult but the rewards can be great.
This one should provoke little argument. It’s a standard rule in photo contests and seems quite logical in applying criteria for a successful nature photograph. I would argue that putting something in (e.g., cloning in a wingtip, adding canvas, changing a background by major blurring or even replacing a background or adding a flower to a picture) is more egregious than removing something (e.g., cloning out a few bits of floating detritus from water, cloning a distracting branch from the background, removing an electric wire from a landscape). But in the end, I think most would agree we should strive to position ourselves in such a way, choose lenses, apertures, and lighting in such a way, and compose in such a way that cloning is not necessary to improve things. Note that I take this position not from a reality standpoint (I make in-camera choices all the time that distort reality from what what our eyes see) but because I again am interested in those special images where the conditions all come together favorably.
This is probably the hardest criterion to define due to the simple fact that it’s tough, if not impossible, to say how much is too much. And there’s also a slippery-slope element to this issue; once we do one post-processing task, why not do another, and another? Many nature photographers will limit post-processing work to the things done in the traditional darkroom by film photographers. And while that’s a pretty good rule, many photographers (e.g., Ansel Adams) did quite a lot of post-processing, reportedly even cloning things out by masking. My take on this is that, for a successful nature image, the viewer should look at our final image as presented and then be able to see the RAW image without being surprised at the difference. That is, the viewer shouldn’t perceive that we have majorly manipulated an image – subjective and messy I know, but it seems to me to be a good common sense guide.
As mentioned in the previous section, there are a number of arguments in favor of relaxing or ignoring one or all of the three criteria above. All of these arguments have merit but none of them, singly or together, sways me from my insistence on striving for a “perfect” RAW file. Why? The main reason is that I simply am not satisfied with my own effort unless I get exactly what I want in-camera. And I think the viewer of my images will appreciate the dedication to photography out in the field and will place more merit on an image that closely resembles what came out of my camera than they would on an image that has been cropped, cloned, and otherwise heavily manipulated in post-processing. I believe that this evaluation stands whether the viewer is a casual fan of nature, a potential print buyer, a potential Costa Rica photo tour client, a contest judge, or a magazine editor or other potential stock photo buyer (though in the world of advertising this is probably unrealistic).
I apply the same mindset when I view other photographers’ work. When I see an image that meets the above three criteria I am impressed by the skill of the photographer. Don’t get me wrong; there is a lot of skill that goes into good post-processing, and people who are really into Photoshop have a lot of talent and ability. When enjoying nature photography, I’m simply more impressed by a good photographer than I am a good digital photo processor.
Given the above discussion, you may have guessed that I want to know what has been done to any photo I view. And I am all about sharing what I have done to my photos. But why? I explained above that the main reason I strive to get the RAW file I want is for reasons of personal satisfaction and pride in my work. Nonetheless, I think knowing what has been done to a photo has some very important ramifications for both professional and amateur photographers alike.
First, professional photographers are competing for attention, whether simply for prestige/reputation or for stock sales, print sales, and photo tour and workshop clients. In fact, these four areas are nearly inextricably intertwined for today’s professional nature photographer. More prestige or better reputation can lead to more stock sales, more print sales, and more tour and workshop clients. And then more sales in terms of prints, stock, and tours leads to more prestige. Photography is a competitive business, and I believe the playing field is not level if one photographer is presenting images that closely adhere to the RAW file while another is presenting images that have been substantially digitally manipulated or enhanced without disclosing that fact.
Most of the major nature photography forums have stated guidelines to disclose post-processing and technical specs when posting images for critique. Nevertheless, it seems that full disclosure is rarely offered. People post images both to receive feedback and to gain recognition for their work on these forums. I think it only fair that the viewers know what they are looking at.
By a similar token, when choosing a photographic tour or workshop, I believe that potential clients want to know what they are seeing when they view a leader’s photography. In addition, I think it is important for images from a certain part of the world to accurately reflect what kinds of photographs are possible in order to avoid unrealistic expectations on the part of the participants. If presented images are wildly different from the RAW files actually captured in the field, problems could arise.
And finally, I think the general public, the consumers of nature photography, would benefit from knowing what has been done to an image so that they can feel confident that what they see is what they get.
For all of these reasons, I propose that nature photographers try to disclose as fully as possible what post-processing has been done whenever an image is presented on the web. This may be more difficult to do on personal portfolio/showcase websites where style and layout considerations are very important but on photographers’ blogs it is quite easy to point out what post-processing has been done. And on the photo forums, I think it would make sense to have a rule to post a jpeg straight from the RAW file along with the presented image in critique forums. This way viewers will have the information at hand to judge the photo according to their own standards. Viewers will feel differently, of course, about what level of post-processing to abide, and that’s fine. But at least they will have the information necessary to make an informed judgement.
As I stated at the outset of this article, I don’t pretend to have all of the answers or that my approach is the only or correct approach. Nevertheless, I do feel that striving for perfection in RAW files and disclosing post-processing techniques will bring multiple benefits to the individual nature photographer, the business of nature photography, and the larger nature photographer community. I have read numerous times on the web that digital manipulation is OK; those images that are heavily manipulated simply become fine art images, as if for some reason only nature photographs that depart from a literal representation of a subject constitute art or that non-literal interpretations can only be produced in the computer. I could not disagree more strongly with this point of view. I (hopefully!) pursue fine art nature photography, which means photography that intends to fulfill or express the creative vision of the photographer. To me, as a photographer, that vision is expressed through the tools I have available to me in the field. So, I make use of different lenses, different apertures, unusual perspectives, flashes, limited dynamic range, and chiaroscuro principles to try to make images that are different from what our eyes see but hint at the essence of my rainforest and cloud forest subjects. To my way of thinking, the photographer is both artist and craftperson, and I most admire those who can use their tools to create fine art in the field. And when a good photographer is able to put everything together — their skill, their technical knowledge, their patience, their creativity, and a bit of good luck — we can celebrate those truly incredible and special images of the natural world.
By the way, the images presented along with this article fully fit the three criteria elaborated here; I consider them to be among my successful nature images!
Cheers,
Greg
great blog templates for photographers
the best software to drive your portfolio
All content © 2013 by Deep Green Photography
site hosted by DOTEASY, a great service!
Yes, this is a rather long article!
But is loaded with some true observations. I will say that I have learned a lot just by seen your work, and in fact is that what have inspired me to try to get the best image in camera, not an easy task though. In the last year I have visited a lot of web sites that teach us exactly the opposite that you point out in your article. And I am aware that I have used most if not all of the tools mentioned here. In the moment they were there to help, as they are now, and I was not so sure if those particular tools were the ones I wanted to use but after applying so many try and error tests, I can say that finally I have started to savor and understand these tools. As a serious snapshooter, I have learned that is better, (so much better!) to spend the time in the field, in contact with nature than behind the monitor playing with Photoshop. I will state right here that I am not against the manipulations mentioned in your article, but of course I do prefer to see a ‘less’ manipulated image that does not go beyond the boundary and I strive to achieve it in my own work, after all photography is fun, but establishing a boundary is not an easy job. I guess it is up to every one to know how far we want to go in terms of manipulation.
I think you make valid points, but as a photographer who is just learning, to try and achieve this is way out of my reach, But is a goal definately to strive for. I was really inspired ( and intimidated !!!) by the work of Dale Franz in the recent ICF competition.
Good things to think of for sure, but not for the beginning, average ‘tog IMO.
I have read you article with alacrity and I am not in contention with many of your comments. I think your points are valid and praiseworthy. You have gone into some considerable depth to explain your reasoning and whilst I concede there are some counterarguments to be considered I do agree with your stance. That does not mean however that I am against digital manipulation. I think there essentially two different viewpoints here that are worthy of exploration: to capture the perfect image that would require little manipulation in terms of levels contrast colour etc. is one thing and provided one has a reasonable camera with good lenses and a degree of photographic competence one could see a reasonably level playing field – for brevity I will not expand further- I think you get my point. I would also argue that to capture the perfect image – i.e. right place right time right equipment right skills is really the point. To get the “right ” image all these skills need to come together and this is not a fortuitous circumstance – the photographer needs to know his subject and there is usually a lot of preparation that goes into the capture of a “perfect” image.
So far I think I am entirely in keeping with your stance, now there is also a great swell of people whose primary concern is to not only to capture a perfect image but also to create a perfect image. The two situations are not quite the same but the end result would look in many ways similar, though the real point is that they are not the same. I think it is doubly rewarding to capture an image that requires little or no manipulation – it can indicate a great deal of skill or preparation went into the capture, but having said that the image is an artefact and is made presentable – or perfect through artificial means. If these artificial means are exploited it could be argued that this is equally praiseworthy. Having made this point my personal preference is more in line with capturing the image “perfectly” there is a certain satisfaction that is derived from seeing the image as the scene was and not needing to crop or clone. I must admit however that I have no reservations in cloning out distracting features if it means that the image is improved considerably and it does not alter the essence of the capture, e.g. I would never produce an image of a captured animal and try to claim it was wild. Honesty is a key issue in digital photography, we all create images, we have to be open and honest in terms of just how creative we have been in producing the image!
Hi, Juan Carlos, Jackie, and Johnathon. Thanks very much for taking the time to read and comment on the article. I found your comments to be very interesting. Healthy discussion, along with taking the opportunity to explain my approach and thoughts on the issue, was a principal reason I wrote and posted this.
Let me just say a few things. First, Jackie, I see this as exactly a goal. We don’t achieve it all of the time but I think it is a mindset that will help you to improve your photography. Don’t get discouraged as those “perfect” images are indeed few and far between but being in the mindset of trying to capture what you want in the field will pay off! When it doesn’t all come together even though you’ve tried your best, use the digital darkroom tools available to you to improve your image, share it and simply disclose the steps you took to improve things.
Second, Juan Carlos and Johnathon, I want to make clear that I am not against digital manipulation in the sense that it renders an image invalid. I agree that sometimes cloning out a branch, for instance, can greatly improve an image. I’ve done it myself and I’m sure I’ll continue to do so for certain images. And there is a great amount of skill needed to process or optimize images well in the computer. The people who are good at this have my respect, and I, like many photographers, learn a lot from them. My feeling is simply this — if I were judging a contest and I see two identical images and then learn that one was presented pretty much straight from the RAW file and the other was cropped, cloned, etc. I will give more merit to the image that was captured better in the field, e.g. that took less work in the digital darkroom to get to the final image. As you mentioned, Johnathon, others may find an image that has undergone heavy post-processing to be equally praiseworthy — perhaps because they admire the skill it takes to do substantial post-processing well. This isn’t wrong; it’s just not my preference.
That leads to my third point, which I think is actually the most important. Since there is a broad range of feelings and preferences on post-processing, it is key that we respect different opinions. But I still think it is key that we know what we are looking at so that we, as viewer, can make our own evaluation of any given photo. That’s why I think disclosing post-processing would be so helpful. You may judge a photo differently than me, and that’s fine, but we will both have the info at hand to make an informed decision according to our own preferences. Jackie, I think your comment on D. Franz’ ICF contest portfolio mirrors this point exactly. He made some great images, and I think you and I and many viewers are all the more impressed by them because we know by the contest rules that they were created in-camera with only a minimum of post-processing.
Oh, and Johnathon, it was good you mentioned the captive animal/truth in captioning issue. I totally agree and didn’t bring that into the article here for the sake of keeping things focused on the post-processing side of things. But I think it correlates with what we are discussing here. I see nothing wrong with photographing captive animals, but the photographer definitely should disclose this when presenting images. There was an article in a very popular US nature photography magazine not too long ago where the article led readers to believe that a couple of pictures taken in Costa Rica were wild captures but seeing them, I would bet quite a bit of money that they were taken at the frog pond/snake zoo in Monteverede. This kind of thing isn’t good for the photographer, the magazine, or the readers!
I look forward to reading more thoughts. I’m especially interested in what you would all think about the idea of posting a jpeg straight from the RAW file (or a screen capture of the RAW from within Lightroom or Photoshop or Elements or whatever software is being used to work with RAW files) along with the presented image in nature photo forums? Good idea? Bad idea?
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg,
Purism is great as a matter of pride in your work and always striving to obtain a photo that is close to what you had in mind as you snapped the picture is a glorious goal with one caveat. The finished product should not be judged better just because it had less post-processing. When I take a picture i have 2 things in mind-make a work of art which captures the moment. Ansel Adams worked hard in the darkroom to produce a print that captured the moment as he saw it in his mind’s eye. If you ever have the opportunity, take a look at prints made of the famous moonrise negative. Last year I saw an exhibit of several prints made at different times of his life.
As he grew older, each was a little darker than the previous ones.
In the old days, one worked hard to make a beautiful piece of art in the dark room. It wasn’t how many maneuvers you had to make but the finished product that determined it’s value. One of my favorite prints in my home is one of my wife in the 40′s. I took the photo in BW of course, developed it in the darkroom then used Thompson’s oils to color it (very much frowned upon by the purists in those days). I’m looking at it now, 60 years later, and it still gives me pleasure and frankly looks better than all the color prints made in the following years. Don’t forget the Art critics refused to let Monet exhibit because he didn’t follow the rules. So I say strive for the best raw shot but don’t throw it out because you didn’t see that little twig or line that shouldn’t be there. Today we are so fortunate that everyone can have a darkroom and have complete control over the final print. Strive to get it right but don’t make it a fetish and end of photography. For me the goal is beauty, the goal is Art. I haven’t achieved it yet but I will, I will.
John
Amen, Greg! I admire your photographic goal and as I have said before, really admire your work. One simple way to look at this subject is like this: If an average person off of the street (not a photographer) were shown a beautiful wildlife photograph, and then told it was digitally created, greatly cropped, captive, etc, what would their response be? I think that in almost all cases it would be some level of disappointment. The average viewer, likeley someone who does not get to experience scenes like this themselves, wants to beleive that this really exists, that the photographer really experienced it, and had skill and patience to capture the scene as depicted. This is why of so many publications out there, those such as National Geographic are held in such high esteem. Sure there are many situations where deviating from this goal can be justified, but it does not mean that it is not something to strive for.
Hi to John and Milo and thanks so much for your comments. Milo, I think your example encapsulates precisely the assumption behind this article and my approach to nature photography.
John, I’m glad that you appreciate the RAW file goal as well. I certainly take your point about personal enjoyment of a piece of art not being bound by how it was created. I think I would differ in your interpretation simply because I’m coming at it from a slighlty different angle. That is, I am thinking specifically in terms of “nature photography” and how nature photographs are perceived and evaluated by the public, be they other photographers or the readers of nature-oriented magazines. The criterion I am applying for success is the skill of the photographer in the field and the ability to create an end-product that is the result of that ability. I think that in your example the underlying criterion is different so the conclusions are bound to be different. Does that make sense?
Cheers!
Greg
Interesting reading. I almost stopped at No Cropping but decided to keep an open mind and read it all as well as the comments. I think getting everything right in the camera is a goal for most all photographers, regardless of genre. I decided to focus on birding and nature stuff earlier this year and it has been a huge learning process for me. I’m not to a point, skill wize, where I can get the perfect RAW image in camera and do rely on cropping quite a bit to fine tune the image during post. The majority of my cropping is to align the subject using the rule of thirds, etc. If I perform a severe crop then I’ll be sure to state so when posting the file to my blog or to flickr but don’t if I just crop for rule of thirds.
I suck at photoshop so cloning out stuff isn’t an issue for me
. Same for heavy post processing. When I import into LightRoom I use the AutoTune preset and normally leave it as is. From time to time I’ll try little tweaks such applying noise reduction and clarity.
2 out of 3 ain’t bad as they say so I think as my skills as a photographer progress I’ll one day be able to achieve RAW perfection at least once.
Hola Greg,
You write a great article that stimulates thought and discussion. Personally I strive to achieve the best possible in camera RAW file that my talent or skill level allows me and that is what pushes me to take my work to the next level. Basically, I follow your philosophy on what you describe as RAW perfection. I am never satisfied with an image that requires heavy cropping, but I will crop if the image is deserving but never to the extreme of cropping to vertical from horizontal. I have cropped up to 40 % in my early days and even though the end result looked great, I was simply not satisfied with taking that drastic approach to achieve the result. As you say…I consider these images “second tier” and strive for improvement for the next shot.
While I’m fine with cloning out catch lights when photographing hummingbirds with multiple flash set ups and even removing debris such as sensor spots, a spot of dirt on a frog or a distracting leaf from an image, I do have some ethical issues with heavily manipulated images. As a photo tour client, I always judge the integrity of a tour operator by the images he or she uses to sell a tour. Wouldn’t you be disappointed to spend all that money to travel to an exotic destination to capture those great moments only to find out then that the backgrounds and images were completely manipulated and the area was nothing like the images that sold you the tour in the first place? I know I would. As far as post-processing goes…The question I ask myself is could this have been done with film and in the darkroom? To me this is the essence of photography in the digital world.
For me, the most important part of this whole discussion is disclosure and maintaining not only the reputation but also the integrity of all nature photographers, professional and amateurs alike. I have great respect for those who express “digital manipulation” or “composite image” in their posts. If one is going to post an image of a deadly Fer-de-lance or a palm pit viper and write about “extreme nature photography”, then that image should represent just that…crawling on the ground or getting face to face with the dangers of photographing these species in the wild. To state that a subject is wild or even imply that it is wild where clearly it is not is un-acceptable…at least to me.
Having said all that, I think it boils down to personal tastes and each photographers own personal goals and how far they are willing to go and accept an image as satisfactory. Through my journey and learning process, I will probably resort to cropping and cloning some images as I mention above. I continually study, admire and try to achieve those qualities that I love about the style of every photographer I am influenced by. Mixing all that together, through my lens and my vision, I hope to capture images in a way that express my own creativity and the art I see in nature. In the end, I will continue to strive for that “RAW Perfection”.
This is…simply…my opinion. =^)
Nos vemos muy pronto!
Fab
Zack, thanks very much for your comment, and I’m glad you kept reading! Sounds to me like you are on a good path to success. As you’re out in the field I would encourage you to try to compose in-camera when possible. When I use autofocus I try to select the point that best corresponds to where I want to place the subject in the frame. Maybe someday Canon will actually put AF points right on the thirds!
Fab, good to read your comments. I think we share the same basic philosophy, and I’m glad to read your thoughts here. Hope you’re enjoying the Canadian summer!
Here is a very interesting and well-written article by Canadian landscape photographers Darwin Wiggett and Samantha Chrysanthou:
http://jaygoodrich-blog.com/2009/08/guest-columnists-samantha-chrysanthou-and-darwin-wiggett/
I think they encapsulate the debate surrounding digital post-processing in nature photography quite well. Where my article differs is that I am interested most in the skill of the photographer to use the tools at hand in the field in order to produce what they want, be it an artistic photograph and/or a faithful representation of how the human saw the scene. But what I like about the article in the link above is an echoing of the call for disclosing what has been done to a photo in recognition of the fact that there is a broad range of preferences out there regarding digital post-processing. I agree with them that looking for some universally agreed upon standard is probably a waste of time; opinions related to aesthetic issues are not right or wrong. So, I stick with the call for disclosure so that each viewer can evaluate according to his or her own preferences.
Anyway, I hope that the article I wrote here has stimulated some healthy thinking and discussion!
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg – I enjoyed reading your article and I agree with most of your points. I too almost stopped at the first section “No Cropping” because even though I try to get my composition perfect in the field, I almost always find myself cropping a bit before conversion to JPEG. Also, I like to use different aspect ratios now and then and it is easiest to obtain them through cropping. I do agree with a previous respondent that heavy crops never make me happy so that is always the limiting factor. Regarding the rest of the article, it all made sense to me as a “low tech” nature photographer. I do all my PP in Canon DPP and if I can’t do it there I’m done with the image….better luck next time. I rarely even notice “annoying distractions” in my images or the images of others so I don’t even think about removing them. As far as the addition of canvas, wingtips, and other attributes I can only say…….yikes — not my thing. Take care.
Danny Brown
Hi, Danny. Thanks very much for your comment, and I’m glad you enjoyed the article. Of course, I’m also happy to hear that you agreed on most counts. But whether people agree or not, I just tought it was an important issue to write about.
On the no cropping, well, it’s a goal in my opinion but doesn’t have to be an absolute. I didn’t mention different aspect ratios (e.g., more square or a pano crop), but that certainly is a case where you just can’t get what you want with a DSLR so if you shoot the scene with your final aspect ratio in mind, that’s fine with me.
Danny, you’re from Missouri, right? I’m originally from St. Louis and gave a talk to Missouri Nature Photographers Network (?? MONEP) in January when I was visiting for my exhibit at the MO Botanical Garden. Didn’t you just give a talk to them recently? Anyway, hope it went well, and maybe we’ll meet up sometime in Missouri.
Cheers,
Greg
Yes I’m from Missouri and I recently gave a presentation to MONEP. What a group of talented and inquisitive photographers — I had a blast! I work closely with MOBOT at Shaw Nature Reserve where I photograph extensively, and I make my images available to them for free use in their books, brochures,etc. as I do with other non-profits. My wife and I planned on taking in your exhibit and then didn’t make it. I could kick myself in the butt now for missing that one. Nice to talk to you, Greg — I really enjoy your unique images.
DB
Hi, Danny. Good deal. I worked at the Mo Bot. Garden while I was in school up in St. Louis years ago and always loved Shaw. If I were back in St. Louis that’s definitely where I would be spending my photographic time.
By the way, apparently my exhibit will be up again at the Garden in January/February 2011. I have lots of new images I would love to include but I think they’ll be using the same prints from earlier this year.
All the best,
Greg
Hi Greg,
Always a fan here.
After reading your article I’ve arrived to the same conclusions many others here have.
In my case, I completely agree that the perfect image, through knowledge, preparation and equipment is the most valid of nature type photos. And honestly, I think it applies to other kinds of photos, for instance, my water splash photos. It seems the splashes can now even be generated in CGI 3d applications, and in that case you have complete control over not only the final image output, but the splash itself.
Having been a photo-editor for much longer than what the stage I consider myself to be in now in photography, an amateur photographer turning into a medium quality photographer, I have a pretty good perspective from the side of things that involves MAKING the perfect image out of scrap, low quality images, or even high quality images for the sake of the image itself, or an application of the result (commercial or otherwise).
But sticking to the topic and the argument. I have to mention a very specific case which involves my own circumstances.
I believe in being what artists (at least here in Costa Rica) call a “purist”. Meaning, you stick strictly to what the formal specifications of a genre determine have to be put into practice to make a specific work or project valid, as a pure representation of that genre. If you don’t follow this list of specs, or even if you miss some of them, you fall out of the formal category and you stray into other genres or what could be called, mixed-genre or mixed-media.
I strive to try and get that perfect shot, the RAW purity.
But for instance, I haven’t been able to send my camera bodies to have them cleaned, and both have a good amount of dust in them. I know, this should not be an excuse, but instead, something to solve for many reasons.
Thing is, in San Jose, there’s only one decent place that does this: DIMA, and they only receive equipment office hours, and they don’t open saturdays. Photography for me is not a way to make a living, it’s a very expensive hobby I’m VERY passionate about. I wish it could be a way to make a living, I would drop my current day job as a designer and dive completely into photography.
But for now, it isn’t.
So… the end result to all these circumstances is that I use dust particle covered mirrors and other sensitive areas in my equipment when I shoot my photos (I’ve tried cleaning them with the right cleaning stuff, but I’ve only made it worse), and thus, a lot of times, since I like doing long exposures and macros, I get a lot of dust in my shots.
I have to clone the dust out.
Does this make the shot less valid to me? Honestly, yes. But in the end, the image I deliver, minus the cloned out dust is still as valid and real to those I show it to, as it should be. I haven’t changed the essence of the shot, just literally cleaned it.
Still, this would be considered major editing to a “purist” (including myself).
Hi, Oscar. I’m glad to see you post here, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments. The sensor dust issue is interesting. I think there are two ways to look at in terms of purity.
First, many nature photography purists take a view that the final photo should faithfully represent what you saw through the viewfinder. Thus sensor dust wasn’t actually present in the scene so cloning it out is not in any way changing reality. I actually think this is a valid way of looking at it. Nonetheless, since I personally don’t subscribe to this reality view, I can’t in good conscience use it as an excuse to clone out sensor dust. That is, it wouldn’t seem right to pick and choose the parts of an argument only when they are convenient for me! As I’ve mentioned, I use different apertures, lenses, and flashes to produce creative results so I’m not at all worried about faithfully representing “reality.” In fact, I think nature photography is all about presenting fresh and interesting perspectives of nature to the public — but that this should be done in-camera to the greatest extent possible.
Thus the second way to look at purity in nature photography is the one that I believe you and I share — using all of the photographic tools at one’s disposal to produce a basically finished product in the field. In this case, purity is valued because we are celebrating the creative and technical skills of the photographer in the field. Looking at it this way, we might say that failure to keep your camera sensor free of dust is a shortcoming in a similar vein to not achieving proper exposure or the composition you wanted. As someone who has subscribed to and has espoused this view of purity I should adhere to it and say that if I have to clone sensor dust then the image will not be a complete success. Nonetheless, I’m just not willing to go that far simply because it is difficult to keep our sensors clean here, as you point out. So, I try my best to keep my sensor clean but if I have to clone out sensor dust spots I don’t consider that to devalue my image. That’s just me but I do understand your point and think it’s a good thing to strive for in producing “RAW perfection.”
By the way, the Canon store near Parque Morazon in San Jose also will clean camera bodies, including sensors — but only Canon I think. And I don’t think they do a very good job, especially considering the cost and the hassle of taking your camera and walking through downtown San Jose to drop it off and then having to pick it up a few days later.– just as you described for DIMA. And as you know I live a couple of hours away from the capital city so for me it’s an even bigger hassle! So, I use a number of little gadgets to clean my sensor at home or in the hotel room when I’m out on trips. Basically, I use a rocket blower first. If that doesn’t work I go to a static-charged brush. And if that still doesn’t do it, I go to a sticky pad thing that a photo tour client gave me. There are also a number of wet cleaner solutions that would be an alternative for this third step. I have read that this is basically what they do in the authorized dealer shops that clean camera sensors so the DIY way makes a lot of sense for us here in Costa Rica.
Cheers!
Greg
Hi Greg:
I have really enjoyed your web postings over the last 6-12 months. This article was also enjoyable because it is a regular topic of discussion between my good friend Danny and I (he already commented above). You certainly run into people from all parts of the spectrum on this issue, and to top it off, most feel quite strongly about their opinion in this area. It seems that on many of the sites I visit, some more than others, it has become the norm to suggest removal of “distracting” objects, blades of grass etc. And while I guess I can understand the urge, it seems to me that this approach sanitizes the random chaos of nature that makes it so attractive to begin with, if that makes any sense. My approach is to make subtle adjustments (I know, it’s all relative) to my photos in order to better capture the moment I saw but perhaps didn’t because of the limitations of the LCD screen or abilities of my camera (or me), etc. I will however, make adjustments via cropping in order to “polish” my composition — this can be a requirement for me, especially when there’s not a focus point exactly where it needs to be that didn’t allow me to compose the photo exactly as I would have liked. This can also happen when I don’t have exactly the right lens for the situation, although I hope to rectify tis problem by acquiring more gear!
Thanks for the interesting article. And I just found out that I may be traveling to Costa Rica next February for work. Your web site certainly has me excited about that!
Hi, Mike. Thanks very much for your kind words on the blog. I’m really glad that it’s been enjoyable for you. I’m glad too that you read this article in the spirit in which it was written, to make other photographers think a bit more about their shooting goals and styles and how that translates into what they do back at the computer but not to say that any particular photographer or approach is wrong. That said, though I respect all styles, and I will crop and even clone when need be, I think having the goal of getting what you want in-camera as much as possible is a good one. And then all I ask is that we disclose what we’ve done in post-processing when presenting on a blog or in a forum or whatever so that each viewer has all of the relevant information to evaluate the photo according to his or her own criteria.
I think you are taking a good approach. My one recommendation based on your post is to try to still get the focus where you want it in-camera to avoid having to crop. You’ll have more pixels to work with to print, and you’ll have more satisfaction when you see that print
That said, I’m guessing you shoot Canon because I’ve been annoyed for quite a while that they don’t put AF points on the power points/thirds as an aid to composition. I use the back button (*) for autofocus; that is, I decouple AF completely from the shutter button. The shutter button is only for metering (when depressed halfway) and taking the picture. This allows you to focus using the closest AF point and then recompose easily to frame how you want but without having the camera try to refocus when you press the shutter button. Perhaps you already do this, but if not, I hope this tip helps. Depending on the camera you have, this will be set via one of the custom functions. If you have a 7D, Doug’s Brown setup guide on this blog goes through it, and will be a similar process on most Canon cameras.
Let me know if you will be headed down to Costa Rica. Perhaps we can meet up. I’ve always admired The Nature Conservancy’s work, so if there is ever anything I can do for you as photographic support for TNC projects in Costa Rica, I would love to be involved.
Cheers,
Greg
Thanks Greg — I will definitely let you know if we have our meeting there (I really hope so). I have always wanted to visit and your web page has only made it worse! I had a chance to see the Llanos of eastern Colombia a few years ago — wow! What a fantastic place. And thanks for the offer to help. I cannot tell you how a photo can spark someone’s interest in a project! I will find out more and get back to you.
I shoot with a Nikon D300. Although it has 51 AF points, I still occasionally have an issue where I’m trying to do something a bit different composition-wise. It is MUCH better though than with the D50 I used to shoot with. I agree with you — I try as much as possible to get it right the first time. And this often involves taking quite a few pics of the same thing with several different versions (vert vs. horizontal for instance). It seems as though I always have a few different comps in my head as I approach a shot. Of course, sometimes you only get one chance to catch the subject before it decides to move on.
I think you can do something similar with the D300′s custom button refocus. I will have to take a look. Take care, Greg. Good chatting with you.
Hi, Mike. Do you use back button focus on the D300? I still think it’s a great way to shoot wildlife as it really does help you to be able to compose in-camera. In the D300 menu, I recall it being pretty easy to take AF off the shutter button and move it onto that AF-ON button on the back. It takes a few days to get used to but I’m guessing that once you get the hang of it, you won’t go back.
I do pretty much the same thing as you when I approach a subject. I usually have one thing in mind that I think will be the best image in terms of composition so I try to work that. If I can, I’ll then take other compositions that might be interesting as well as thinking about compositions for stock (vertical for covers, horizontal with lots of space for text).
Please do keep in touch. It would fun to meet up down here to shoot with you and also to collaborate with TNC in some way if there’s interest.
Cheers,
Greg
Interesting idea!!! I never thought about that. I might give it a try — I can always change it back.
I will keep you posted on the trip.
Regards,
Mike
Indeed, Mike. You can always change it back but I think that once you get used to using that back button for AF you’ll stick with it.
Cheers,
Greg
Gregg:
Interesting blog. Carefully crafted and thought out with recognition for different views.
I crop many of my images to 11×14 inches because that is the size I usually shoot. My Nikons give me a bit more than I need.
I also appreciate your concern about not disturbing wildlife. I’d rather walk away that endanger a species, even if it means losing a great shot.
I’ll look forward to having you get me into a position where I don’t have to do anything but snap the shutter. Should be fun and I’m looking forward to the challenge one day.
William
Hi, William. Thanks very much for stopping by, and I’m glad you found this article interesting. I do understand about cropping for different sizes of paper. That obviously is something you can’t control in the field with 2:3 aspect ratio DSLRs. What I like to stay away from is shooting and then relying on composing in the computer via cropping just because I neglected to do so at the moment of capture.
BTW, I will be back to you today via e-mail regarding Costa Rica plans.
Cheers,
Greg
Very interesting read and wonderful site.
On the issue of cropping, when we frame a subject in the field, aren’t we already employing a degree of choice in what we reveal? If for example when you frame a bird from the right as opposed to the left for better background contrast; or if you sit down and change your angles; aren’t you already in some sense altering the reality of how the bird would look in a normal stroll through the forest? Essentially, my question is what is the privileged frame of reference?
The issue then isn’t what is in-field cropping or post-processing cropping, or the relatives merits of either; but what kind of cropping illustrates your subject the best – in its natural environment. That can be both in-field or post, they can be equally misleading or equally useful in portraying your subject.
On a somewhat related note, here is Michael Nichol’s take on the ethics of photography, http://michaelnicknichols.com/article/ethics/
Hi, Vinay. Thanks for your post and I’m glad you are enjoying the site.
I totally agree with you that we alter reality (via our chosen composition, choice of lens, use of flash, creative exposures, etc.) from the moment we press the shutter button. If you are starting from an assumption of reality as the primary criterion, than I certainly understand the argument that cropping is cropping, whether done by composing in the field and thereby excluding present elements that we don’t want to include or cropping later in the computer.
My issue, however, is not with adhering to “reality”. Rather, my issue with cropping is simply this: I place much more value on a photographer’s ability to compose in the field than I do in cropping after the fact when you have the luxury of sitting down at the computer. So, my main concern with this article is a photographer’s skill in the field and not whether an image adheres to reality as we might view it in the field.
Does this make sense?
Thanks very much for the link to Michael Nichols’ article; that’s an interesting read.
Cheers,
Greg
Thank you, thank you, thank you Greg, I am so happy with this article because that has been my fight with some fellow photographers for quite some time now. I always say that PS killed all the great photographers, every one now thinks that you go to the field take a lot of “film” and when you get to your “dark room” will fix everything. I am sending this link to my friends as soon as I finish writing this note.
Thanks a lot again Greg.
Hi, Juan Diego. Thanks so much for stopping by and for the good words on the article. Like I said, I think it’s important to respect different approaches in photography but I won’t lie; it’s great when someone agrees with you too!
Where are you located, Juan Diego?
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg,
I live in Colombia. Another paradise
Now, your page is a must every single day. Thanks a lot for all your lessons. If you happen to come to Colombia please tell me and I will be more than happy to take you to some really great spots to take great shots.
Thanks again Greg,
Juan D.
Hi, Juan Diego. I have heard great things about Colombia’s natural world. I would love to get down there someday. Let’s be sure to keep in touch.
Saludos!
Greg
Yes it makes much more sense since I have got my first SLR(7D+50mm) and began shooting, just 5 days ago; earlier it was merely optimistic theorising:)
At first I would just put the center focus square on my subject(usually my poor cat) and take the picture, and I quickly realised I was not composing well at all and relying on post-cropping a lot. Using all those autofocus options on this camera will certainly take practice, but I am loving the challenge of working with composition, angles and height. The idea of post-cropping can make one complacent. And you are definitely correct about how sweet the in-field effort feels.
Also, having only a prime lens forces you to compose and zoom with your feet, but it is such fun!(can’t afford wildlife zooms yet.)
Hi, Vinay. Thanks so much for reporting back. I’m glad to read that your experiments are going well. I think of photography as an art. As such, I think composing in-camera is a fundamental component of a successful picture. Not that I never crop, but it’s a good goal to get the composition you want in the field whenever possible.
Since you recently bought at 7D, you might find my friend Doug Brown’s 7D setup guide interesting. It’s on the blog here:
http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2009/12/setting-up-your-new-canon-7d/
You also might find this post interesting:
http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2010/08/canon-7d-setup-and-menu-videos-courtesy-of-b-h-photo-video/
Cheers,
Greg
Ah those links are how I found this website..
Doug Brown’s setup was particularly useful, the techniques for birds are readily applied to most things that move fast – my cats and if you have ever been on the streets of India, sometimes people
.. and since he also gives reasons for his choice, you can infer what settings to use in other non-bird situations.
There are some spectacular places near where I live in India, none like the rainforests of Costa Rica to be sure, but against the wintry sky blue, the hills turn into a leaf-litter bronze, great landscape possibilities; I hope to borrow some lenses.. Ever been to India?
Cheers.
Hi, Vinay. No, I haven’t been to India but I’ve been seeing some really nice nature photographs from there recently. Looks like you have some amazing places too.
Cheers,
Greg
Hello Greg,
Your article about raw perfections is thought provoking. I complement you on a clear and entertaining writing style. I certainly agree with much of what you have written but I have a few disagreements, too. First, I find some inconsistency with the ideas of in camera composition: Taken in isolation it is hard to quibble, but is it logical to denigrate post hoc cropping when it appears customary in many bird photos to “stage” the event so that the bird is enticed to a particular location and lit by a phalanx of speedlites? In other words, is it any less pure to crop than to stage the shots in the first place? I don’t feel that either way is more pure; for me, the most important thing would be the expressive, artistic result. Second, I feel that restricting post processing is a bit too arbitrary. As you say, there is a slippery slope and there is certainly the matter of good taste and restraint. But in addition, I think a lot of it comes down to whether one is seeking to make a documentary photograph or an artistic statement. In the case of documenting nature, I would agree that pure is required. But in the case of an expressive photograph, I say anything goes. I would be willing to use HDR techniques, focus stacking, cloning, whatever it takes convey to the viewer how the scene affected me.
Hi, Nat. Thanks very much for stopping and for your kind words on the article. In regard to your two points, I certainly understand where you’re coming from but I will stick to my guns
First, concerning cropping, I agree that some people may indeed place more value on a shot with natural light and without the aid of feeders or other wildlife attractants, even if that first shot has less than ideal lighting and/or was cropped after the fact to improve the composition. As long as the story behind the image is disclosed then each viewer can make up his or her mind, which was one of my main points in the article above. But in either case, a totally “wild” shot or an image taken near a feeder, composing in-camera is, to my way of thinking, part and parcel of a successful image. Since photography is an art, leaving composition to be taken care of in the computer seems strange to say the least.
This leads to my thinking on your second point. I certainly strive, and I think largely succeed, to achieve artistic images. I’m not concerned with purity in terms of representing a scene as our eyes see it but rather in making an artistic photograph with the tools that I have available to me in the field. A good photograph can be either artistic or documentary, and I don’t think one needs to go into the computer to make an image artistic. One can certainly do so, as you’ve indicated, but I make a distinction between an artistic photograph and digital photo art. I place higher value on an image that has artistic quality straight out of the camera than I do on an image that only seems to take on an artistic quality once it has been post-processed. Obviously every image will be optimized in post in some fashion but if the “art” isn’t there in the image captured in the field, than it’s simply not my favorite cup of tea.
Again, people will agree or disagree, and that’s why it’s good for viewers to know the story behind an image. I stand strongly by my view, however, that pursuing an artistic image does not mean you’ll be applying “a lot” of post-processing. I try to capture the image as artistically as possible in the field and most appreciate other nature images where the photographer has taken a similar approach.
Cheers,
Greg
[...] some thoughts on this over at Jay Goodrich’s blog. (Also, see Greg Basco’s thoughtful post on RAW Perfection over at Deep Green Photography.) My thoughts were drifting more toward the photo contest side of [...]
As an aspiring bird photographer, I’d love to never crop my images. The problem is that I don’t have $5,000 to drop on a 500 4.0L or a 400 4.0DO for kayaking. Even with a blind, photographing waterfowl with a 400 5.6L and a 50D is nearly impossible without cropping. And after losing my day job, I can’t even afford to rent these lenses on even a semi-regular basis.
When someone wants to buy one of my cropped images, I simply tell them that my 50% crop probably won’t look good enlarged and suggest something else.
I like to think of photography as art and your criteria for a good photograph is stifling to the creative process. Your article is full of things you would not do therefore closing the door on creativity.
It is true that a lot of bad photographs get polished over with extensive photo editing. However, the sky is the limit for a good photograph and exceptional editing skills.
I bet Ansel Adams would be thrilled with the tools available now.
Hi, Dorothy. Thanks very much for stopping by. I think I’ve done a very poor job of explaining myself if this is what you’ve taken away from my article.
I certainly think of nature photography as an art, and I hope that my images of Costa Rican nature go beyond the merely documentary and into the realm of art. I simply am more impressed when a photographer produces art in the camera than in the digital darkroom (or a traditional darkroom for that matter). If the creativity only begins in post-processing then I consider that to be photo art but not artistic nature photography.
If anything, I hope this article has opened the door for more creativity in the field with our cameras, lenses, flashes and our own originality in working with light and composition to produce images that are fresh and original.
Another of the major points of this article is that I think nature photographers should disclose what has been done to a photo in post-processing. That way each of us can evaluate the image according to our own specific criteria and preferences.
Cheers,
Greg
Just to keep our thinking going, here are a couple of links related to this topic from around the we.
Landscape photographer Guy Tal has an interesting little post related to the subject of art and photography:
http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/02/lie-like-you-mean-it/
Canadian photographer Samantha Chrysanthou also has an interesting article on the subject (with a nice link to my article here as well):
http://samsrant.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/why-isnt-photography-art/
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg
Im afraid I stopped reading the article as I do not agree with a lot of you points. A raw file is supposed to be processed its the nature of the beast. Some people still like to shoot in jpegs does that mean their photos are invalid as they have parameters added to them by the camera.
I also stopped reading and started to look at many of your images. There’s no doubt your a very talented photographer, but for me I find some of your images lack that life giving contrast which can be a problem when a raw file is not processed in my opinion very well and make the image look flat which in reality is not what our eyes see at the time of taking the shot. You are a very successful photographer and its purely my opinion and I would rather use post processing to get an image more to how I remember the scene being, as to keeping it unchanged because thats what an unprocessed raw file is showing. All camera manufactures state that if you shoot in raw it should be processed on a computer, that doesn’t mean just changing file format. When a raw file is downloaded in Lightroom it automatically adds a profile you can change this profile or turn it off. Do you turn this off so no profiles are added.
I agree with you in principle that its always best to get as much right in camera as possible but thats where it stops. I have no issue with cropping quite often especially in wildlife photography unpredictable and amazing things can happen out of the blue and not where you were expecting and you may well have to turn quickly to grab that shot that you may never get a chance to see again. If I have to crop and straighten that image after the fact to show some unusual animal behavior so be it.
Hi, Trevor. Thanks very much for stopping by and for your comments. I think if you read the entire article you would see that I am all for optimizing RAW files so that they look their best. As for the look of my images, perhaps our monitors vary. I do tend to like lower contrast and saturation for some scenes — all depends on what I want out of the image.
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg
Thanks for replying to my comments. The one thing I love about photography is that we all have our own opinions and styles and thats what makes it so exciting. Posting your blog is great for discussions and opinions of all kinds to be aired. None of my comments were meant to be derogatory as I do think many of your images are truly stunning, and glade you did not take them that way.
Cheers
Trevor
Trevor, no, all is good! I hope that you do read the entire article though. I want you to understand that my main point is tied not to documenting reality as our eyes see it but rather that I value, above all, the skill of the photographer in the field to capture what he or she wants. To wit, if I see an image presented a certain way and then see that the RAW file actually looks nothing like what was presented (I’m not talking color and tonal tweaks but major stuff like cloning and changing backgrounds and the like, the latter of which seem to quite common these days), I’m disappointed.
I try to depart from a literal interpretation of a subject as much as possible but strive to do so using the photo gear available to me in the field.
Cheers,
Greg
There is an interesting thread related to this issue at the Bird Photographers’ Network site. You can check it out here:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/86030-How-much-post-processing-digital-manipulation-do-you-think-is-acceptable-and-why
Cheers,
Greg
Dear Greg,
Love your photography! Lately I’ve been reminding myself to make room for different paper shapes in my photography; when I see the image I want in my viewfinder I snap, but then back it off just a bit if I get a chance so I can use different image shapes without losing essential elements.
Thanks, Allena. I’m glad you enjoy the site!
Cheers,
Greg
Lovely Photographs….i like your pictures
Not me. I dodge, change backgrounds, I do everything, but do not touch the bird.
Actually I enjoy Photoshop as much as I enjoy birding.
Just a great past time and hobby. Bottom line is, do what ever makes you happy.