The effects of creative cropping on an image can sometimes be more negative than positive.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 320, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed this juvenile Short-eared Owl yesterday morning in northern Utah as it launched from a metal fence post. I like many things about the image including the angled flight posture of the bird, the creamy background, the dangling feet and the way the vegetation at bottom anchors the image.
But I’ve never been fond of metal posts in my photos, especially when they’ve been painted. I don’t like cloning elements out of my images so I decided to experiment (just for fun) and see if a little creative cropping could make that post disappear.
This is the result. To achieve it I rotated the image quite severely and then added canvas up top for composition. The rotation allowed me to avoid cloning the metal post out of the image. The amount of rotation I did can be determined by comparing the indistinct dark line running across the image in the background in the first image to the one in the second. That line is horizontal in the first version of the image.
My manipulations had the following effects on the image (I’ll refer to the first version as A and the second one as B).
- the metal post is gone in version B
- the owl is larger in the frame in B than it is in A
- the flight angle is less angled and dramatic in B than in A. The true flight angle is depicted in A
- in version B I’ve lost most of the anchoring vegetation at bottom that I like
- the dark line in the background is no longer horizontal (as it should be) in version B
- the overall background colors in the background have been altered by the addition of canvas in B
Even with the metal post in the image I prefer version A – the manipulated version of the image just doesn’t seem quite honest to me, even though I didn’t have to clone out the post. Since version B isn’t what I saw through my viewfinder (especially the flight angle of the owl and the added canvas) this little experiment was just an interesting exercise for me.
However, if version B had been presented to me with no explanation as to what was done to achieve it and if I had never seen version A I’m pretty sure I’d have liked the image a lot.
To me that would have been deceptive (that’s my take on it all but some may feel differently…).
Ron
If you don’t mind cropping out parts of an image and cloning in canvas for composition, why do you object to cloning out the part you don’t like in the first place?
I think if you are doing journalistic photography then that is verboten, but so would be adding canvas.
I never combine elements from different images in my nature photography, if I clone out an element I’ll just note that in my description.
I think so much of this depends on how one presents or markets the photo — which goes along with the idea of full disclosure. Wildlife photography as documentation is similar to photojournalism in the sense that we show what we saw, and claim a degree of authenticity about that scene. If we’ve changed what actually happened through image manipulation, then saying so is obviously in order (even if it’s not regularly done). Obviously, presenting something false as real can be harmful to the animals by altering perceptions, or contributing toward exploitative industries (e.g. game farms) or practices (owl baiting). I wish every image of an owl flying *at* the photographer, for instance, had an honest statement about whether or not the owl was baited.
For me, if you’d cloned out the post, it really wouldn’t have changed the accuracy of the owl’s image or behavior. But, I understand maintaining more of a purist’s ideal in the face of these gray areas. As Laura wrote in a separate comment, knowing that the documentarian is being truthful is part of the circle of trust. Having said that, I appreciate the freedom of expression that cameras and post processing tools offer, and I’ve seen lovely work that takes wildlife documentation into the realm of fine art. In the fine art category of wildlife photos, I dispense with any expectations of realism and believe photographers, like any other artists, should have a lot of leeway to create beauty as they envision it.
As you say: disclosure.
I like the fence post. Just saying.
Every picture tells a story. Some stories are strangers to the truth. And, unless I am aware from the start a story is fiction, I have a fondess for truth.
And I really don’t mind the pole. It anchors the bird. And if the bird doesn’t mind it, why should I?
And owls are always a joy. Thank you (and Mia) for starting my day smiling.
(At first light I plan on going out to see if I can freeze soap bubbles.)
I keep forgetting it’s your winter down there, EC – until you remind me…
Definitely winter. And I am loving it.
I like A, I like the vegetation at the bottom. I don’t like the angle of the head in B, to me it does not look natural. Fun experiment though. I am looking forward to more owl photos from the trip.
“I don’t like the angle of the head in B, to me it does not look natural”
I agree, April.
Like them both…in one owl is looking straight ahead, in other, looking up…so what? No big deal either way…..
Thanks, Patty.
If you know what that dark line is, it would be clear that the second photo had been manipulated. I like the first one better for several reasons, one of which is that it makes more sense. I also like the fact that the first photo gives context to the Owl. I like the background vegetation and am not at all bothered by the post. I expect a post or tree or bush when looking at a takeoff shot. The question for me is what the dark line is: mountains? or some other major land feature? If it is, then you’ve corrected it to look like some shots I take that are very badly horizonally challenged… 🙂
I’m not sure what that dark line is, Susan. It may be a road but I can’t remember for sure. I spent almost an hour and a half with five different owls in this area and much of my experience with them just blurs together in my (faulty) memory.
Hmmmm….well, my take is that pictures sometimes…not always…tell a story. The first photo told me that the owl had either just taken off from this post, or was flying low to the ground. With his wings and head cocked the way they are in the first photo he wasn’t just soaring but had his mind on something else. Having said that….photo two gave me a perfectly great close up of this owl. I am probably in the minority here, but I don’t always need the picture to tell me a story, sometimes I just like to see the owl….presented….to me, where I can observe it closely. I’m probably not saying this well. I totally agree about the manipulation going on where a photo can’t be trusted to depict the truth, but unless you are putting an eye where you want it to be, or adding feathers to the wings…etc then I don’t see this background manipulation as a deceiving thing. Manipulation yes, but still telling the truth. I’m sure as has been said here…it’s a fine line. I too appreciate Ron, that you attempt to show an honest depiction, but my story about what the picture is depicting may certainly differ from others. I always love your work.
Thank you, Carol, for providing your interesting perspective on all of this.
I’m with Carol…
The post provides a reason for the dangling feet and makes the image more coherent.
Agreed, Dave. Plus, the angle the owl is looking in version B just doesn’t quite ring true for me.
I think the image with the post is fine.
But I’m curious. To clone out the post is simple and really does little or nothing to distort the owl or the background vegetation. Adding canvas and rotating the image are HUGE manipulations. And the rotated owl really looks weird. Why is it okay with you to do that and not okay to simply erase a post that isn’t touching either the owl or the background vegetation?
Sallie, none of those manipulations are “ok with me” – I’d prefer not to do any of them but to me some are worse than others. I don’t see rotation necessarily as manipulation because it’s often done to level an image as it should be when the camera wasn’t held level when the photo was taken (that is a very common occurrence, especially when you’re not shooting from a tripod).
But you’re right about adding canvas. Adding canvas is just another kind of cloning – you’re just cloning something in instead of something out.
But for me cloning something out of an image is the most offensive manipulation of the three – especially when it isn’t disclosed. It’s a judgment call and that’s just mine…
IMO, the most important thing is this – significant manipulation should always be disclosed!
“YEPERDOODLE” RON…. “YEPPERDOODLE….” ;-)))
The post is a part of the “habitat” of the owl… the vegetation conveys a feeling of
how close the bird is to the ground… I prefer the dark line to be horizontal… I prefer
the sharper angle of the owl’s wings in A… for me, nature photography is capturing
what “is there,” not just creating a “pretty picture,”… painters do that… sooo, for
a variety of reasons, I prefer version A.
“for me, nature photography is capturing what “is there,” not just creating a “pretty picture”
Yup, that’s why it’s called “nature” photography, Roger.
Ron I absolutely love your photography and your honesty. It’s one of several reasons why I look forward to opening your blog every morning.
Personally, I just hate the ability we now have to manipulate photography in nearly any way we wish. In MY world, that manipulation, whether minor or extensive, is a deliberate deception that creates a basic dishonesty and overall lack of integrity between the photographer/artist and the viewer that results in the fact that we can no longer trust ANY image, unless like you, the photographer/artist discloses the deception. We’re cheated into a false sense of perfection that simply isn’t real–one that does not exist. To stray into fashion photography, for example, people (largely women) strive to a false perfection that just cannot be achieved. Instead, it’s an electronic fabrication. Obviously, this is a far more important/critical issue in the world of journalism/reporting than anywhere else, but it’s still part of the overall move away from basic honesty. Again, that’s in MY world. I’m sure that view is NOT held throughout the rest of the world, but there you have it.
Life is messy. It just IS and we humans need to accept that reality and move forward (again, in my world where the sky is often weird colors). It’s NOT perfect, and while it’s good to strive for perfection, manipulating reality is NOT the way to achieve it. It’s a shortcut, a smoke-and-mirror deception that eliminates the factor of hard work and diligence so that when it does happen, the magnificent of that moment is diluted to nothing.
Now I’m sure there will be all sorts of arguments about how we manipulate our environment to our (perceived) benefit in all sorts of ways, however, I would respond that just because we CAN manipulate our environment does not necessarily mean that we SHOULD. Stepping off my soap box now to achieve another cup of imperfect coffee 🙂
“manipulating reality is NOT the way to achieve it”
That’s my philosophy too, Laura, although when processing images it can be a very fine line indeed. Each photographer has to make a decision about where we’ll draw that line and many will not agree where it should be. That’s just the way it is…
Yeah, I know that’s “just the way it is.” I was just tilting at windmills again…I do that regularly. I keep wanting that perfect world, which isn’t available 🙂 Oh and I forgot to add that I like A a lot better, just because the post provides context. And it’s honest.
Interesting change in the pictures from A to B. B is beautiful and as an “art” piece would be great. BUT, I much prefer A with the post (which isn’t a distraction to me) as I enjoy the context showing where the bird was. Just my 2 cents worth. 🙂
And I appreciate your 2 cents, Judy. Thank you.
Ron,
I would clone out the post. When the viewers see the owl, do they really see the post? In my humble opinion, they do not see the post, they are focused on the owl. So it is ok to remove it. The image is a more honest representation of reality. Just saying.
Thanks for your feedback, Richard. Different strokes.
If viewers don’t see the post I guess I see no reason to clone it out…