Hello Mark, I've been watching your RUclips videos lately and I am enjoying it! My response to your question is as follows. We shoot in RAW and at least some work is required to make the image look appealing. What I see you do to enhance or finish your images seam totally fine in my opinion. I belong to a local camera club and these techniques with wildlife/nature photos are accepted in post process editing.
Hmm, interesting techniques. I do occasionally remove twigs and branches from images. Techniques 2 & 3 are much to advanced for my Photoshop skill level 🙈. I do try and soften backgrounds in Lightroom though by dropping the contrast, texture & clarity
I often use the object removal tool to get rid of twigs and such like in my images to improve composition. The other two techniques I have never considered, and don't have the Photoshop skills to apply. What I do if subject is too close to edge of frame is use the generative fill to extend canvas. I find it works well for backgrounds with bokeh. I have also tried using generative fill a couple of times when I have cut off small part of subject with mixed results, so not usage I would recommend.
Thanks so much for the comment and for watching. I agree, a simple distraction removal with the removal tool works so well in improving the composition. I've yet to really dive into the generative fill, but I can see how it makes fixing compositions a bit easier than manual work in photoshop, but I'm skeptical that I'll ever use it.
Hi Mark, These edits do not alter the reality in a way that the subject or context are totally changed. If you were in another place / time with that same subject it would look exactly the same, but the background and elements like sticks would have changed. As long as you stay true to the subject I wouldn’t lose some sleep over it. I personally do not remove big objects or do background/sky replacements, but minor cleanups like small branches in photo one should ba acceptable. For a lot of photo contest these minor removal / adjustment are a no go though. The second image I had the most "problems" with, even though it doesn't alter any reality in a big way. Its more like fixing a personal "fault" In the end photography is an art form and everyone could do how they please The intended use should be a guideline. There is a big different between art, documentation etc
Hi Richard, Thanks so much for the feedback. I absolutely despise sky replacements, I just don’t understand why people do it, but by all means, everyone to their own. I 100%, stay true to the subject, and for me that includes the the animal and the sky, as well as the general landscape the subject is in. In the first example, I was border-line about to leave the sticks as it is quite a change, but for demonstration purposes I felt it was good to do. Absolutely, competitions won’t allow a lot of this stuff and I love that. It levels the playing field and you really have to get it right in camera. Thanks again for the feedback, hope you’re well.
In PSSA Salon enteries for Wild Life and Monthly Club Judging you can only Crop out a element like a Branch and Sharpen , Lights & Shadows and thats it
Hi Peter, definitely a common theme when it comes to competitions of every kind, it’s good that way because it levels the playing field and it’s more about the photo than it is about the processing skills.
Hi Mark, I think that every photographer sets boundaries for himself in the processing of photographs or does not set them at all. The main thing is that both he and the audience like the result. For me personally, I don't add objects to the frame or change the sky.
Thanks for your video. I feel that technique 1 alters the reality more than 2 or 3. I have made such changes myself, but would consider them unethical if I had taken the photographs for documentary purposes. These techniques are fine for showcasing animals.
Thanks so much for the comment. Interesting to hear your opinion, and I do agree that for documentary purposes none of these techniques would be suitable.
Hi Mark This is a really interesting question, and judging by the comments below, it can also be quite divisive. My 2 cents worth.. 1. For competition this is clearly a big "NOT ALLOWED" - as stated in many of the comments and conditions of entry, it is about the photographer and not about the editor. That said though, maybe there should be competitions that are geared towards this type of manipulation as an art form. 2. For photos with the purpose of resale and/or own use I don't really think it matters. As long as the creator believes that the edits convey the feeling or emotion they desire or felt at the time, who cares? Is that not the purpose of art? Thanks for another great video. Cheers Justin
Hi Justin, thanks so much for the comment and for watching. Absolutely, competitions would more than likely disqualify photos if such techniques are used. I also agree on the "art" part of the comment. It doesnt matter really, as long as the buyer likes the print. The new owner will draw a new connection from the image no matter what went into making it.
Interesting topic & one that could go on for days:) I like the way you have described it. The follow up question would be where do you stop? Do you push a little more next time? What your thoughts on this?
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. Personally, I wouldn’t go further than this. This is at the extreme limit of what I allow in my own photographic philosophy. The most important aspect of a photograph for me is the connection I feel to it, and when too much is changed, I lose that connection. The experience of taking the photo is what I love, and the photo needs to represent that experience.
Hi Mark, Interesting question. We had a large long-standing local competition cancelled this year as they grapple with the issue of AI and how much is admissible in future competitions. My own take on the photoshop changes you demonstrate is that we might be on a slippery slope of in-camera composition vs post processing. Does it improve ones skill as a photographer if errors in composition can readily be fixed in post? Understanding that some changes like noise reduction etc. are currently acceptable. And, at what level are they acceptable? How do competitions view the use of post-processing to 'improve' the quality of an image? How about when images are sold. Is the customer receiving value for the photography skills, or the post-processing skills? So, no answers, just more questions. Cheers, Garnet
Hi Garnet, so good to hear from you and thanks for the comment. I must say, a lot of this new AI stuff coming out puts me off a lot! I like the AI only really for denoise and sharpening. The generative fill, I'm not a fan! I do agree that there is a slippery slope one can go down, but everything in this video is about as extreme as I would go to try fix an image. I don't spend a lot of time out in the field and I would love to get compositions 100% correct in camera, but sometimes I just love a certain photo that adjusting a composition in a small way doesn't bother me, but we are all different :) The main thing for me is to not lose the connection I feel to an image, and I can easily lose a connection to a photo through post processing. I like what you've said about does it improve one's skill if compositions can just be fixed... there is a lot of merit to that comment - we should always strive to be better and not rely on fixing in post. I think most competitions allow AI noise reduction, and sharpening. I don't think many competitions allow a lot of what get done to images nowadays. Regarding whether the customer buying a print receives value whether a photo is as the RAW was taken or manipulated? I know I would feel way more value if a photo is very close to what the RAW file is, but being a photographer I'm more inclined to feel that way. Someone in the general public, not sure? Thanks again for the comment and the continued support.
For my own use, I will do the same small changes, but mark images as such.. i add ‘manip’ to the name so that I do not accidentally enter it. For competition I do not enter those images , as RAW is requested in wildlife competitions and manipulation is not allowed. The secret is not to add or remove elements that change the story…The photographic societies and Competitions always have clear rules. As a judge that sometimes has to sit through 1000images in a salon, the spidey senses usually tingle very fast once you have done it for a while and AI stuff can be spotted. People leave artifacts and are sloppy with ‘select subject’.. 😅 The remove tool is the best invention since sliced bread. In terms of background blur, the new lens blur function in LR and Camera Raw is amazing….I always used to brush in negative clarity and neg sharpness.. also for that carmine shot ( well done for whole bee eater😂 and not just tail that i usually get) I just use the content aware crop and expand the image and then re crop….saves all the masking and painting,cos my PS skills suck. I also just use “select subject” rather than the other selection tools ,when the subject is like that Bee eater. Oh and I now run every image through AI denoise on LR.. another great invention. Thanks for a great video😅
Hi Erwin, thanks for watching and for the detailed comment. I think you nailed with a perfect short sentence - The secret is to not add or remove elements that change the story! I like that! Haha I agree, the remove tool is fantastic! I havn't had a lot of success with the new blur tool yet, but I'm trying to learn the capabilities a bit more, but it does come down to how good the blur tool selects areas. AI Denoise is also superb, love that Lightroom has that feature. Thanks again for the comment!
Are you using a mouse or a pen when selecting? I do use Ai for removing unwanted items and generate to increase the size of the background if there is not enough for the bird to fly into. Agreed minor adjustments are ok 👍🏼
Hi Roger, thanks for sharing your point of view. I use a mouse. I do use a pen on my Wacom tablet if I am using a brush for detailed work. How have you found the “generate” function. I’ve found the details of the generated section don’t match my initial image. Mainly the noise pattern.
Thanks for sharing your views Gary. I’m very happy that competitions check RAW files. Because then it’s all about the photographer and not about who is best behind a computer.
I am okay with the removal of distracting elements…it sure beats the days when photographers carried around a saw with which to cut off tree limbs thereby damaging the environment. I am not okay with creating an entirely new composition. Modern technology has two edges, both sharp! On the one hand it empowers photographers and photography by making it possible to produce very high quality images. On the other hand it so overpowers the challenges of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right light, and the right background that it poses the very real danger of making our presence behind the camera almost optional. Seriously when things become so automated and so powerful that the very difficult challenges that make photography worthwhile disappear our art becomes trivialized.
Thanks for the comment, some very valid points. I am 100% for being in the right place at the right time, and pointing my camera in exactly the right place, and your comment gives me a lot to think about. I never want photography to become trivialized and it's actually quite scary what advancements are being made with AI and such. I think I will make a follow up video to this one, and if you don't mind, mention your comment? Is that ok? Because I think you hit the nail on the head!
@@MarkDumbleton Mark you made my day! As a one time (long ago) photojournalist I am almost paranoid about the maintaining the integrity of the photographic process. I have debated the pros and cons of the ever advancing technological side of photography countless times on RUclips and yours is the first positive response I've ever received from a site creator. Most accuse me of being a modern times version of the Luddites. I prefer to think of myself as someone protective of the very essence of the photographic process… Hard as that may be to precisely define. You are more than welcome to refer to my comments, I greatly enjoy your videos and have great respect for your stance on things photographic. Best, Winston Shaw
@@MarkDumbleton Mark I got to thinking about all this and remembered something I wrote awhile ago in response to a documentary on Henri Cartier-Bresson. I know it's not usually cool to quote oneself but here goes: "Excellent video both thought provoking and challenging! Today's spray and pray style of photography would not have been possible in HCB's time because the available technology would not have allowed it. In that HCB enjoyed a real advantage over photographers today. Lost somewhere amidst the never ending succession of auto features and multiple frames per second is the somewhat intangible but nonetheless all important satisfaction of being sufficiently in tune with the moments of life so as to be able to capture in a single image both the process leading up to as well as the actual "moment" somehow defining the essence of the event. There is a world of difference between holding down the shutter button for 5 seconds and 50 frames and then selecting the best frame and standing quietly in keen anticipation of the decisive moment and confidently pressing the shutter button when it happens.
It really does. I think there is a lot out there that is way different from RAW capture. But I guess at the end of the day it’s art and people can do what they want. There’s definitely been a ton of discussion about it on forums etc.
For Insta, FB it doesn't matter, everybody does this nowadays, its more of a personal choice. None of these edits changed the reality anyway. Adding stuffs like butterflies to where a lion is looking or a small bird. That kind of stuff seems unethical.
Thanks for your input. I agree, adding in a butterfly like you mention is totally unethical. I feel like the changes I’ve made in the video are in the same ball park as perhaps converting to black and white or going for a very artistic edit.
Thanks for the feedback. If you do think about it later, come back and comment 😊 it’s always good to hear the opinions of other photographers, because it helps evolve my way of thinking and that’s a good thing. Appreciate the comment.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello Mark,
I've been watching your RUclips videos lately and I am enjoying it! My response to your question is as follows.
We shoot in RAW and at least some work is required to make the image look appealing. What I see you do to enhance or finish your images seam totally fine in my opinion.
I belong to a local camera club and these techniques with wildlife/nature photos are accepted in post process editing.
Thanks so much for watching and sharing your thoughts. I agree that RAW files do need some form of processing.
Just brilliant!
Thank you so much for the comment! I really appreciate it 😊
Hmm, interesting techniques. I do occasionally remove twigs and branches from images. Techniques 2 & 3 are much to advanced for my Photoshop skill level 🙈. I do try and soften backgrounds in Lightroom though by dropping the contrast, texture & clarity
Thanks for sharing your opinion Jackie. Thanks for watching. Using the softening method you mentioned is always a good way to adjust the background.
Quite inspiring lesson about the techniques. I couldn’t figure out how to create a phot as described . Many thanks
Thanks so much for watching.
I often use the object removal tool to get rid of twigs and such like in my images to improve composition. The other two techniques I have never considered, and don't have the Photoshop skills to apply. What I do if subject is too close to edge of frame is use the generative fill to extend canvas. I find it works well for backgrounds with bokeh. I have also tried using generative fill a couple of times when I have cut off small part of subject with mixed results, so not usage I would recommend.
Thanks so much for the comment and for watching. I agree, a simple distraction removal with the removal tool works so well in improving the composition. I've yet to really dive into the generative fill, but I can see how it makes fixing compositions a bit easier than manual work in photoshop, but I'm skeptical that I'll ever use it.
Hi Mark,
These edits do not alter the reality in a way that the subject or context are totally changed. If you were in another place / time with that same subject it would look exactly the same, but the background and elements like sticks would have changed.
As long as you stay true to the subject I wouldn’t lose some sleep over it.
I personally do not remove big objects or do background/sky replacements, but minor cleanups like small branches in photo one should ba acceptable.
For a lot of photo contest these minor removal / adjustment are a no go though.
The second image I had the most "problems" with, even though it doesn't alter any reality in a big way. Its more like fixing a personal "fault"
In the end photography is an art form and everyone could do how they please
The intended use should be a guideline. There is a big different between art, documentation etc
Hi Richard, Thanks so much for the feedback. I absolutely despise sky replacements, I just don’t understand why people do it, but by all means, everyone to their own. I 100%, stay true to the subject, and for me that includes the the animal and the sky, as well as the general landscape the subject is in. In the first example, I was border-line about to leave the sticks as it is quite a change, but for demonstration purposes I felt it was good to do. Absolutely, competitions won’t allow a lot of this stuff and I love that. It levels the playing field and you really have to get it right in camera. Thanks again for the feedback, hope you’re well.
In PSSA Salon enteries for Wild Life and Monthly Club Judging you can only Crop out a element like a Branch and Sharpen , Lights & Shadows and thats it
Hi Peter, definitely a common theme when it comes to competitions of every kind, it’s good that way because it levels the playing field and it’s more about the photo than it is about the processing skills.
Hi Mark, I think that every photographer sets boundaries for himself in the processing of photographs or does not set them at all. The main thing is that both he and the audience like the result. For me personally, I don't add objects to the frame or change the sky.
Thanks for your opinion. I 100% agree, it’s up to the individual to set their own boundaries for what is ethical. No rights or wrongs.
Thanks for your video. I feel that technique 1 alters the reality more than 2 or 3. I have made such changes myself, but would consider them unethical if I had taken the photographs for documentary purposes. These techniques are fine for showcasing animals.
Thanks so much for the comment. Interesting to hear your opinion, and I do agree that for documentary purposes none of these techniques would be suitable.
Hi Mark
This is a really interesting question, and judging by the comments below, it can also be quite divisive. My 2 cents worth..
1. For competition this is clearly a big "NOT ALLOWED" - as stated in many of the comments and conditions of entry, it is about the photographer and not about the editor. That said though, maybe there should be competitions that are geared towards this type of manipulation as an art form.
2. For photos with the purpose of resale and/or own use I don't really think it matters. As long as the creator believes that the edits convey the feeling or emotion they desire or felt at the time, who cares? Is that not the purpose of art?
Thanks for another great video.
Cheers
Justin
Hi Justin, thanks so much for the comment and for watching. Absolutely, competitions would more than likely disqualify photos if such techniques are used. I also agree on the "art" part of the comment. It doesnt matter really, as long as the buyer likes the print. The new owner will draw a new connection from the image no matter what went into making it.
Thank you for sharing mark. Great tips here.
Thanks a lot Kobus, thanks for watching.
Interesting topic & one that could go on for days:) I like the way you have described it. The follow up question would be where do you stop? Do you push a little more next time? What your thoughts on this?
Hi Richard, thanks for the comment. Personally, I wouldn’t go further than this. This is at the extreme limit of what I allow in my own photographic philosophy. The most important aspect of a photograph for me is the connection I feel to it, and when too much is changed, I lose that connection. The experience of taking the photo is what I love, and the photo needs to represent that experience.
Hi Mark,
Interesting question. We had a large long-standing local competition cancelled this year as they grapple with the issue of AI and how much is admissible in future competitions. My own take on the photoshop changes you demonstrate is that we might be on a slippery slope of in-camera composition vs post processing. Does it improve ones skill as a photographer if errors in composition can readily be fixed in post? Understanding that some changes like noise reduction etc. are currently acceptable. And, at what level are they acceptable? How do competitions view the use of post-processing to 'improve' the quality of an image? How about when images are sold. Is the customer receiving value for the photography skills, or the post-processing skills? So, no answers, just more questions. Cheers, Garnet
Hi Garnet, so good to hear from you and thanks for the comment. I must say, a lot of this new AI stuff coming out puts me off a lot! I like the AI only really for denoise and sharpening. The generative fill, I'm not a fan! I do agree that there is a slippery slope one can go down, but everything in this video is about as extreme as I would go to try fix an image. I don't spend a lot of time out in the field and I would love to get compositions 100% correct in camera, but sometimes I just love a certain photo that adjusting a composition in a small way doesn't bother me, but we are all different :)
The main thing for me is to not lose the connection I feel to an image, and I can easily lose a connection to a photo through post processing.
I like what you've said about does it improve one's skill if compositions can just be fixed... there is a lot of merit to that comment - we should always strive to be better and not rely on fixing in post.
I think most competitions allow AI noise reduction, and sharpening. I don't think many competitions allow a lot of what get done to images nowadays.
Regarding whether the customer buying a print receives value whether a photo is as the RAW was taken or manipulated? I know I would feel way more value if a photo is very close to what the RAW file is, but being a photographer I'm more inclined to feel that way. Someone in the general public, not sure?
Thanks again for the comment and the continued support.
For my own use, I will do the same small changes, but mark images as such.. i add ‘manip’ to the name so that I do not accidentally enter it. For competition I do not enter those images , as RAW is requested in wildlife competitions and manipulation is not allowed.
The secret is not to add or remove elements that change the story…The photographic societies and Competitions always have clear rules.
As a judge that sometimes has to sit through 1000images in a salon, the spidey senses usually tingle very fast once you have done it for a while and AI stuff can be spotted. People leave artifacts and are sloppy with ‘select subject’..
😅
The remove tool is the best invention since sliced bread.
In terms of background blur, the new lens blur function in LR and Camera Raw is amazing….I always used to brush in negative clarity and neg sharpness..
also for that carmine shot ( well done for whole bee eater😂 and not just tail that i usually get) I just use the content aware crop and expand the image and then re crop….saves all the masking and painting,cos my PS skills suck.
I also just use “select subject” rather than the other selection tools ,when the subject is like that Bee eater.
Oh and I now run every image through AI denoise on LR.. another great invention.
Thanks for a great video😅
Hi Erwin, thanks for watching and for the detailed comment. I think you nailed with a perfect short sentence - The secret is to not add or remove elements that change the story! I like that! Haha I agree, the remove tool is fantastic!
I havn't had a lot of success with the new blur tool yet, but I'm trying to learn the capabilities a bit more, but it does come down to how good the blur tool selects areas.
AI Denoise is also superb, love that Lightroom has that feature.
Thanks again for the comment!
I think sticking to the original content is fine (not bringing stuff from elsewhere). It’s all part of the”developing.”
Thanks Peter. I agree, it’s all part of the developing process.
Are you using a mouse or a pen when selecting? I do use Ai for removing unwanted items and generate to increase the size of the background if there is not enough for the bird to fly into. Agreed minor adjustments are ok 👍🏼
Hi Roger, thanks for sharing your point of view. I use a mouse. I do use a pen on my Wacom tablet if I am using a brush for detailed work. How have you found the “generate” function. I’ve found the details of the generated section don’t match my initial image. Mainly the noise pattern.
@@MarkDumbleton I’ve found the generate fill to be fairly good, although extra work is sometimes needed but the results are seldom useless.
I’m fine with all of these techniques. Just wish I could do them🥴🤣
Thanks for commenting, and at least you have this tutorial to look back on if you do feel up to learning it :)
Competition entries or private portfolio? Rules for one and none for the other.
Thanks for sharing your views Gary. I’m very happy that competitions check RAW files. Because then it’s all about the photographer and not about who is best behind a computer.
I am okay with the removal of distracting elements…it sure beats the days when photographers carried around a saw with which to cut off tree limbs thereby damaging the environment. I am not okay with creating an entirely new composition. Modern technology has two edges, both sharp! On the one hand it empowers photographers and photography by making it possible to produce very high quality images. On the other hand it so overpowers the challenges of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right light, and the right background that it poses the very real danger of making our presence behind the camera almost optional. Seriously when things become so automated and so powerful that the very difficult challenges that make photography worthwhile disappear our art becomes trivialized.
Thanks for the comment, some very valid points. I am 100% for being in the right place at the right time, and pointing my camera in exactly the right place, and your comment gives me a lot to think about. I never want photography to become trivialized and it's actually quite scary what advancements are being made with AI and such.
I think I will make a follow up video to this one, and if you don't mind, mention your comment? Is that ok? Because I think you hit the nail on the head!
@@MarkDumbleton Mark you made my day! As a one time (long ago) photojournalist I am almost paranoid about the maintaining the integrity of the photographic process. I have debated the pros and cons of the ever advancing technological side of photography countless times on RUclips and yours is the first positive response I've ever received from a site creator. Most accuse me of being a modern times version of the Luddites. I prefer to think of myself as someone protective of the very essence of the photographic process… Hard as that may be to precisely define. You are more than welcome to refer to my comments, I greatly enjoy your videos and have great respect for your stance on things photographic. Best, Winston Shaw
@@MarkDumbleton Mark I got to thinking about all this and remembered something I wrote awhile ago in response to a documentary on Henri Cartier-Bresson. I know it's not usually cool to quote oneself but here goes:
"Excellent video both thought provoking and challenging! Today's spray and pray style of photography would not have been possible in HCB's time because the available technology would not have allowed it. In that HCB enjoyed a real advantage over photographers today. Lost somewhere amidst the never ending succession of auto features and multiple frames per second is the somewhat intangible but nonetheless all important satisfaction of being sufficiently in tune with the moments of life so as to be able to capture in a single image both the process leading up to as well as the actual "moment" somehow defining the essence of the event. There is a world of difference between holding down the shutter button for 5 seconds and 50 frames and then selecting the best frame and standing quietly in keen anticipation of the decisive moment and confidently pressing the shutter button when it happens.
Thanks so much Winston. I appreciate the follow up comments. I’ve just started writing the script for the follow up video :)
Of course you can use Photoshop for any form of art unless it's photojournalism
Absolutely agree there. Thanks for the comment.
Makes one think about how many wildlife images could be manipulated in Photoshop!
It really does. I think there is a lot out there that is way different from RAW capture. But I guess at the end of the day it’s art and people can do what they want. There’s definitely been a ton of discussion about it on forums etc.
For Insta, FB it doesn't matter, everybody does this nowadays, its more of a personal choice.
None of these edits changed the reality anyway. Adding stuffs like butterflies to where a lion is looking or a small bird. That kind of stuff seems unethical.
Thanks for your input. I agree, adding in a butterfly like you mention is totally unethical. I feel like the changes I’ve made in the video are in the same ball park as perhaps converting to black and white or going for a very artistic edit.
@@MarkDumbleton Yes.
IMO 1 and 2 are cheating but I can't really explain why. Just feels off.
Thanks for the feedback. If you do think about it later, come back and comment 😊 it’s always good to hear the opinions of other photographers, because it helps evolve my way of thinking and that’s a good thing. Appreciate the comment.