Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Forums · UKNP

Crestie Repost & Confession & Questions

Discussion

16 replies
Posted by Nick Mckeown on January 22, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Crestie Repost & Confession & Questions
Nikon D7000 300mm f4 ISO 200 1/640s at f5.6 handheld

Taken today at Rorhiemurchus, Speyside. Very interested on your comments on this one.

Nick :wavey: :smile:
Posted by John Robinson on January 22, 2012 at 6:47 PM
Hi Nick
Errrrr ? Not sure about this one. Try the high Dynamic lighting on the D7000 :biggrin: :biggrin: :toast: :toast:
Just off to bed . I'll have another look in the morning after post Bells traumatic stress. :biggrin: :smile:
John
Posted by Bob Johnson on January 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM
I am a fan of silly wets and this one is a cracker Nick :wink:

Bob :smile:
Posted by David Sewell on January 23, 2012 at 5:16 AM
Other than I find the bird a little large in the frame, I think it is a great image.

David
Posted by Craig Jones on January 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM
Works really well, and well done for something different :wink: :wink: :wavey:
Posted by Matt Cole on January 23, 2012 at 7:12 AM
it's a nice silhouette Nick. I would also prefer it slightly smaller in the frame, but otherwise I like it.

Matt :toast:
Posted by keith mitchell on January 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Nick it looks great to me.

Keith. :smile:
Posted by Sandra Hendrikse on January 23, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Works well for me, but like Matt, I would also prefer it a bit smaller in the frame.
Posted by PhilH on January 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Yep, smaller in frame maybe? It works very nicely as it is clear what the bird is... nice one.

:toast: :toast: :toast: :wavey: :toast: :toast: :toast:
Posted by Robert Lawrence on January 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM
No doubting what it is so it definitely works as a silhouette. Nice and different.
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on January 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Very nice, but would prefer it smaller. :toast: :toast:

Oscar :wavey:
Posted by Nick Mckeown on January 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Confession time. The image of the Crestie is not all it seems. As you can see from the original there is no sunset and the perch is not a tree but a feeder. I have several questions to put to you and I would be very interested in your answers. Q1. Did you take the picture for granted i.e. it is of a Crestie on a tree with a lovely sunset or did you suspect it had been manipulated? Q2. Has it changed your view of the picture now that you know that the image has been manipulated or does it not matter? Q3. Is the manipulation process still photography or, as I tend to believe, computer wizardy of a photographic image? For the record I would not try and pass off a photo like this as natural if it had been manipulated and would state the manipulation at the outset but I was curious to see the reactions.
Nick

:wavey: :smile:
Posted by Ian Mason on January 23, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Aha! Right. Firstly I agree too big in frame. Secondly, I did think it was a tree, but that I would have preferred some finer branches to make a stronger graphic. Thirdly, I wasn't convinced about the orange colour - because I tried that myself once and got a similar result. BUT - I like the idea a lot.
Posted by Debbie Yarra on January 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Nick,
Remember you are the artist! I like what you did with the sunset colors and fake tree. All of it is photography. Remember, Ansel Adams spent countless hours in his darkroom MANIPULATING his images to make them into what his vision of the scene was. I bet he would love Photoshop and this image. Blessings, Deb :smile:
Posted by John Robinson on January 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM
I thought it was underexposed :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :toast: :toast:
If I had one of these on my feeders there would be some perches going up damn quick !!

One thing comes to mind. Some people might be slightly embarrassed after posting comments ?? Just a thought
JR
Posted by Nick Mckeown on January 24, 2012 at 5:14 PM
John, it was not my intention to embarass anyone nor deceive them and if I have then I apologise. Its odd that whilst I feel the image was well received I had no pleasure in "creating" it because it felt like I was cheating. My aim was to see what the thoughts are in alterating an image to that extent and if it is still seen as photography. I truly hope I haven't offended anyone and if it was seen as a cheap trick then again I apologise sincerely.
Nick.
Posted by Phil Ellard on January 25, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Nick, i do not believe using the available tools as a photographer (whether in camera or post camera) is cheating. I believe in trying to create a pleasing image. Other peoples philosophy may be differant ... well done for thinking creatively :toast: :toast: