First go at textures - which is better?

Pookeyhead said:
That's not a composite shot though... he's not taken a bird in captivity and made out it was a shot in the wild. He's merely moved the bird in the frame. Something perhaps just as easily, and better done in Photoshop incidentally. He could have also just framed the shot as he wanted it in camera if he was a better photographer. However.. taking a single horse from a herd, from what's pretty obviously a coral or other man made environment, and dropping into an icy, snowy wilderness to make it look like a shot in the wild, is quite simply, so far as wildlife photography goes... cheating.

Putting animals in different locations digitally is just bad form in wildlife photography, where half of the skill is understanding the animals environment, tracking it... getting to know the species you're shooting etc. Any prat can shoot in captivity and then drop it in digitally... so sorry.. Jeff Wendorff is a s**t wildlife photographer.
Click to expand...


Actually that is not a captive bird that is moved to a new image, but rather a shot that I wished I could have re-composed in the camera. It wasn't possible. The whole story is that I didn't do anything with the image after I took it because of the composition. I was looking for an image to play with while learning more about Topaz ReMask and rediscovered that picture that I took in 2010. Yes it could have been done in Photoshop, but I don't know about better or faster. The point however for me to do it in ReMask. I don't claim it as a photograph nor offer it as such. these manipulations fall in to what I call digital art and no longer a photo. BTW there is a statement to this in the blog post. As such and as mentioned previously it would not be able to used in competitions or the like.

Regarding the horse yes it a captive horse herd used by cowboys doing cowboy things. Again the photo as shot was not usable so I chose as I said in the blog post to take it out of the photography world and in to the art world. Again in the blog post is it is described as art and not a photograph.

Regarding being a "s*** wildlife photographer", I would beg to differ, unless of course you are using it in the colloquial as in Jeff is the s*** and then I would just smile and say thank you.

At any rate, in my opinion we are actually on the same page. We can argue semantics about using the word photo or art, but fraudulent manipulation of images and saying looking at me I'm the s*** for taking this amazing photo, please shower me with accolades...umm no, that is not acceptable...

and to the OP, Sir SR, sorry to hijack your thread. I also prefer the texture...
 
I never said it was a captive bird Jeff.

Well.. Of course you'd disagree with me that you're a s**t wildlife photographer... LOL.

I would also argue that moving a bird within the frame does not make it art though... how does what amounts to cropping an image make it art Jeff? :)

Comping in a new background does not take it out of the photography world, and into the art world at all. It's a photo of a horse... it's not art. In what way is it no longer a photograph? :) You have some strange ideas about art. It's very much still a photograph... it's also cheating where wildlife photography is concerned. You just don't try to portray captive animals as wild... it's the cardinal sin of wildlife, and a wildlife photographer that thinks ""Sometimes nature just gets in the way."... LOL. We'll have to differ in opinion then won't we.

Jeff Wendorff said:
I agree that makes me queezy...get it right in the camera.
Click to expand...

You're the one endorsing this company Jeff... LOL
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I never said it was a captive bird Jeff.

Well.. Of course you'd disagree with me that you're a s**t wildlife photographer... LOL.

I would also argue that moving a bird within the frame does not make it art though... how does what amounts to cropping an image make it art Jeff? :)

Comping in a new background does not take it out of the photography world, and into the art world at all. It's a photo of a horse... it's not art. In what way is it no longer a photograph? :) You have some strange ideas about art. It's very much still a photograph... it's also cheating where wildlife photography is concerned. You just don't try to portray captive animals as wild... it's the cardinal sin of wildlife, and a wildlife photographer that thinks ""Sometimes nature just gets in the way."... LOL. We'll have to differ in opinion then won't we.



You're the one endorsing this company Jeff... LOL
Click to expand...

I apologize I misread "he's not taken".
 
Sadly yes - I'll edit my comments back (although they now look much worse than they were :)) and try to return it to your thread - a real shame as I really do like your shots too.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Sadly yes - I'll edit my comments back and try to return it to your thread - a real shame as I really do like your shots too.
Click to expand...

I was being a bit tongue in cheek and to be honest, David's helpful post was the lightbulb moment for me in this thread -I'm pretty new to photoshop!

Threads develop and go in new directions - don't apologise and no need to edit your comments - I'm fairly laid back and hard to offend!

Shaheed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top