[Tweeters] Current Issue of Audubon Magazine-Photoghahy awards and Disqualification Discusion

Paul Bannick paul.bannick at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 18:03:47 PST 2014

Dear Tweeters,

Full disclosure is essential. I don't judge those who edit photos or shoot
wildlife models but if a photo is edited or if the animal is not wild, it
should be noted in the caption or with a disclaimer if a caption does not

Personally, i do not EVER add or subtract elements from a photograph,
however tempting it might be to take out part of a bird, a branch, a twig,
a jess or some man-made object. I have entered contests and each limited
the manipulation to things that were historically done in the dark room.


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Vicki Biltz <vickibiltz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tweets, this is a subject I have often thought about, and asked a

> couple pros about in the past. Mostly Paul Bannick. When I first started

> digiscoping, I made a comment about how to remove a branch. He replied

> very politely, something to the affect, "You don't. Take a better picture."

> Altho I sometimes do play with enhancement, I really don't know how to

> remove things from photos. I do enhance the colors, sometimes saturate, as

> much is lost with a crop, or dark, or overexposed photos. MY goal to to

> capture what I saw. Not always captured by the camera.

> I have a Canon 7D, so the crop factor does not allow the light that I

> often want, especially for something like birds, which requires a higher

> ISO, and causes noise in the photo when there is action.

> Aside from cropping, and a bit of finish work, which is required for all

> photos shot in RAW, thats really all thats needed. I do soften the edges,

> or play with the vignette sometimes, but only to enhance the actually bird

> photo itself. Or landscape. I have messed with AND messed UP the colors

> on some as well. Just my two cents, I don't join contests, nor expect any

> prizes. But I do like things to be as natural as possible.

> My motto?

> Take a better picture!

> Vicki Biltz

> Bonney Lake, WA 98391


> vickibiltz at gmail.com

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/saw-whets_new/




> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM, ELIZABETH THOMPSON <

> calliopehb at comcast.net> wrote:


>> Oh how I debate this with myself. I love photographing birds. I have had

>> some really nice shots and some really bad ones. Mostly focus. I do crop

>> my pics sometimes but that is all i have ever done. I recall last summer

>> taking photos with a similar camera and lens as some other

>> birder/photographers and my pics looked not so nice as theirs. We were at a

>> birding outing at the same time.

>> I can only assume a couple things. Better at stabilization, better camera

>> equipment or better at photoshopping.

>> More than likely the first two options.


>> Either way, I still take pictures of birds and every once in a while, I

>> get a nice shot.

>> Happily birding,

>> Beth Thompson

>> Arlington, WA



>> On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:04 AM, ck park <travelgirl.fics at gmail.com> wrote:


>> I suppose it depends on your definition of "photograph" versus "digital

>> image".


>> mine definition? if i clone away dust bunnies, crop, or maybe apply a

>> bit of sharpness, to me it's still a photograph. the image is as i saw it.

>> if, however, i alter the shape(s) of something, alter colours (obvious

>> saturation, HDR, etc) and/or clone away distracting poles, buildings,

>> trees, etc, what you would see is no longer as i saw it, and therefore,

>> while it may be beautiful, interesting, etc, it is a digital image, an

>> interpretation that is no longer a photograph.


>> this definition is mine, and while shared by many, is not a universal

>> definition. as well, some folks today believe "photograph" == "digital

>> image", that there may be no inherent difference between the two.


>> your mileage may vary.


>> 00 caren

>> http://www.ParkGallery.org <http://www.parkgallery.org/>

>> george davis creek, north fork



>> On 25 January 2014 03:04, <notcalm at comcast.net> wrote:


>>> Hello Fellow Tweeters,


>>> There is an interesting discussion regarding alteration of bird

>>> photographs and rules for the Annual Photo Contest in the current issue

>>> (January, 2014) of Audubon magazine. A great image was disqualified. I am

>>> interested in what Tweeter's community members think. I think it is an

>>> interesting question.


>>> Many of our best single images of birds and humans are now modified and

>>> enhanced to varying degrees. This a now a routine practice for images of

>>> female models in fashion magazines. The controversies in many fields,

>>> including bird photography include: when should it be disclosed; at what

>>> level of change, including enhancement; and what image enhancements should

>>> be considered in photo contests. The Audubon Editor asks for feedback.


>>> Thanks,

>>> Dan Reiff

>>> Mercer Island


>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Tweeters mailing list

>>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters




>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters




> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters



Paul L. Bannick
Nature and Bird Photography
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20140125/76c23996/attachment.html>

More information about the Tweeters mailing list