Compositing

[ChrisStamp]

I'm interested in the current etiquette around compositing photos. I'm learning photoshop just now and as an exercise I made the attached composite, but I'm not sure what are acceptable uses for it. I took the common blue picture, but it was originally on a thistle and I wanted an image with an orange flower to bring out the blue in contrast, so I found a suitable background on Shutterstock and did various edits to both background and butterfly image until I felt it looked like a natural shot (unless you start to examine it).

Is it ok to, for example, post an image like this on the Facebook group, and if so would it be expected to declare that it is a composite, or do people just want to enjoy the images however they are made? I don't see other people declaring compositing,but I'm not sure if that's because they don't do it or don't declare it!

How about competitions? I haven't seen rules about compositing or post-processing generally, but presumably there is assumed etiquette? Can judges always tell what has been done, and if so how do they react to evidence of post-processing? Is there a line not to cross?

Any guidance welcome!

[Tony Moore]

A very interesting subject - i shall be interested to read member's opinions. Personally, I think that all but basic tweaking should be declared, and such images should absolutely not be countenanced in any competition.

Tony M.

[bugboy]

In general the etiquette would be to always be honest. If posting in a Facebook group I'd check the rules and perhaps message a group admin to check, but even if it's allowed some purists still completely lose it upon clapping eyes on a composite
image so be prepared to get a lot of notifications!

I think the majority of photo competitions ban this kind of photographic manipulation. Basic editing such as cropping and exposure adjustment are pretty standard and perfectly acceptable though.

In reference to the attached image I can't see the 'join' but then I'm no expert on this kind of thing

[Testudo Man]

You bring up an interesting subject ChrisStamp..................go take a look at last years annual competition winning top 12 images ..........tell me what you think?
One is clearly a composite, another is questionable??
I'll come back later on in the day, to answer/give my opinion on - "should composite/image layering be acceptable in competitions"???
Cheers Paul.

[ChrisStamp]

Paul, I would indeed say that some of the competition winners used compositing to some extent, and as you say maybe fairly openly in some cases. But I didn't want to suggest it myself just in case I was underestimating in-camera skills

I'm assuming a good compositor could make it undetectable, given that I am a novice and can already make it difficult for most people to tell.

Focus stacking is another technique I've been trying with good results - not sure if that counts as 'basic editing' and is perfectly acceptable and expected, or is also considered a kind of cheating.

The lines are no doubt very blurred these days, but as a newcomer to post-processing I was wondering if there were any common expectations on what is acceptable and when

[Testudo Man]

A very interesting subject - i shall be interested to read member's opinions. Personally, I think that all but basic tweaking should be declared, and such images should absolutely not be countenanced in any competition.

Tony M.

I would agree with Tony M. above here. ^^^^^^^^^^^^...Unless the competition states, that there are no limits whatsoever, do what you like, use what you like, create what you like, using anything you like(even if the the material/images are not yours to begin with).

[Testudo Man]

Paul, I would indeed say that some of the competition winners used compositing to some extent, and as you say maybe fairly openly in some cases. But I didn't want to suggest it myself just in case I was underestimating in-camera skills

I'm assuming a good compositor could make it undetectable, given that I am a novice and can already make it difficult for most people to tell.

Focus stacking is another technique I've been trying with good results - not sure if that counts as 'basic editing' and is perfectly acceptable and expected, or is also considered a kind of cheating.

The lines are no doubt very blurred these days, but as a newcomer to post-processing I was wondering if there were any common expectations on what is acceptable and when

I dont think focus stacking is basic editing Chris...If your "stacking" more than one image, then its not exactly cheating as such.
There are people out there who stack 100's an 100's of images into one image (seems like a lot of hard work to me??!!). Most people who show stacked images online, genarally say that they have stacked.
Personally for me, if i view a simliar image/subject from say, two people, im going to generally choose the person who shot the subject using just a single image, rather than the person who stacked a ton of images...but thats just my preference/opinion. As long as the person states that their image is stacked, then its not a problem, after all, im the 1st one to say- "There are no rules, we make our own rules in photography". Besides, stacked images do have that look about them...most of the subject is in focus, then the rest of image falls way out of focus...Depth of fields an all that.

Butterflies/moving insects are very difficult to acheive overall focus. Spiders are even worse, you cannot really expect to get the whole of the Spider, its legs/body in focus, hence the reason a lot of top macro Spider images are well an truly "stacked"

Edit - if you havent guessed already, i dont stack images, all my images are singles..............I have dabbled in photoshop/editing/layers etc...but if i entered a comp, i would say what i had done to my image, if it went beyond very basic editing, such as - colour balancing/sharpness/noise/contrast/lightness/darkness etc.

[Testudo Man]

I'm interested in the current etiquette around compositing photos. I'm learning photoshop just now and as an exercise I made the attached composite, but I'm not sure what are acceptable uses for it. I took the common blue picture, but it was originally on a thistle and I wanted an image with an orange flower to bring out the blue in contrast, so I found a suitable background on Shutterstock and did various edits to both background and butterfly image until I felt it looked like a natural shot (unless you start to examine it).

Is it ok to, for example, post an image like this on the Facebook group, and if so would it be expected to declare that it is a composite, or do people just want to enjoy the images however they are made? I don't see other people declaring compositing,but I'm not sure if that's because they don't do it or don't declare it!

How about competitions? I haven't seen rules about compositing or post-processing generally, but presumably there is assumed etiquette? Can judges always tell what has been done, and if so how do they react to evidence of post-processing? Is there a line not to cross?

Any guidance welcome!

Thats a pretty good image Chris...but shame on you for using someone elses image for your background
Theres nothing wrong in learning about PP/Editing, but most people would expect you to be honest about how you "made" an image. People frown upon any kind of "cheating". It could go something like this -" Hey look what i have made from sticking a couple of images together, the butterfly is my image, but i borrowed the background from someone else" all feedback/critque welcome...or - "yeah mate, its a single shot, its all my own work/image, as you view the image, is exacty how i saw the image in the wild".

A few years ago, i joined 500px, it seemed a good site for macro/insect/butterfly images photographers etc...However, a lot of the images are really heavily photoshopped, some of the butterfly images were not of the real world, there were scenes of fantasy/reflections/fantastical lands an beasts.
I didnt stay on 500px for too long, it just wasnt for me.

I think Chris, that there are many lines not to cross, it really depends what you want out of your chosen style of photography/subjects. I get the impression that you are "fishing" for what might be acceptable on this forum, more specifically, what might be an acceptable butterfly image, that you may want to enter in the Annual Comp?? If so, just ask Admin/a Moderator what the guidlines might be.

[ChrisStamp]

All seem well-balanced comments to me Paul and interesting stuff, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I wouldn’t enter a composite into a competition, but probably would assume that focus stacking and selective editing on was what the others were likely to be doing. Regarding the UKbutterflies competition, I didn’t see any technical comments accompanying entries?

[Testudo Man]

All seem well-balanced comments to me Paul and interesting stuff, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I wouldn’t enter a composite into a competition, but probably would assume that focus stacking and selective editing on was what the others were likely to be doing. Regarding the UKbutterflies competition, I didn’t see any technical comments accompanying entries?

Cheers Chris, Im guessing the reason you havent seen anyone including "tech specs" along with their UKbutterflies Comp entries, is probably because 99% of the forum members on here, are not really that interested in tech specs. They are here for the love/interest in Butterflies, they are not that "into photography". Look around you, this part of the forum is "dead" for the most part, not a lot of traffic comes to this section of the forum...an apart from you an I replying to each other on this thread, only 2 other forum members have shown an interest in your thread?!

I must admit, tech specs/Exif data does not always interest me, but if someone asks me about the Exif data on one of my images, i have no problem in sharing my exif data with them................................I havent entered this years annual comp yet, but when i do, i will include my "tech specs" with my entries, after all, i do include that sort of info. when i upload on other forums...but they are photography forums...this forum is quite different.

I might even upload a couple of images on this thread, showing the original image, an also the finished image, explaining exactly what i chose to edit/pp that image.................who knows, it could be fun..................maybe others will join in......................but i doubt it

EDIT - just checked the forum, an you have already entered your 3 images in the Annual Comp. my apologies for what i wrote previously to you...never assume hey

[MikeOxon]

As someone who believes that post processing is an integral part of photography, I'm always aware of the potential for taking things too far!

Way back in film days, techniques such as 'dodging and burning' were part of the photo printer's art and, indeed, the preparation of a good print was considered an important skill. My aim, when working on a photo, is to try and overcome the limitations of the camera in seeing a scene, as it appeared to me, and to bring out those aspects that made me think the subject was worthy of a photograph.

For example, we perceive the world around us in 3D, as a result of clever post-processing, in our brain, of two different images received by our two eyes. This ability can make a subject stand out in a way that disappears when rendered into a 2D photograph. To some extent, the difference in emphasis can be restored by modifying the light and shade between 'subject' and 'background', or even by applying judicious blurring to the background. Obtaining the correct emphasis may also involve altering colour saturation in parts of a photograph.

The whole business of 'sharp focus' is something that we are rarely mindful of in the 'real world' and often we have to make adjustments for this by controlling 'depth of field' by skilful use of the aperture control. When this isn't possible, then focus-stacking is, in my opinion a justifiable technique, especially in macro photography, when it can be the only way of capturing more than a narrow sliver of the subject.

Similarly, a camera perceives shadows or, more general light and shade, differently from how our 'mind's eye' perceived them, so lightening shadows and darkening highlights may be necessary to restore an impression of 'reality'.

I consider one of the huge advantages of digital photography is that it allows the user to examine their images while the memory of the original scene is still fresh in the mind. My approach to post-processing is to try to recover as much as possible as that original impression of the scene: i.e why I took the photo in the first place.

Sometimes, of course, the photo contains distracting objects that spoil the main subject. As far as possible, I aim to compose the image to minimise distractions but sometimes they have to be modified. Often a brightly coloured distraction can be removed, simply by de-saturating the offending object or by modifying its hue. More contentious is the use of the clone tools to 'repair' that part of the image. On the whole, I feel that providng the subject is represented correctly, then some 'tidying up' can be justified.

I think it goes beyond 'post processing' when we re-arrange the elements of the scene, or alter colours and other features that directly affect the main subject. I think we are then entering a world of pure imagination, which is not really what photography is about. The image becomes an individual artwork, containing more information about its creator than the original scene of the photograph. It can be fun and creative to do such things but I would always declare the end product as 'based on a photograph', rather than as a photographic image.

Mike

[ChrisStamp]

Thank you Mike - a good summary I think. The implication here I think is that what is acceptable is somewhat subjective, as how everyone perceives a scene (including colours) is subjective. But you describe a good set of principles for where the blurred lines are I'd say

Chris

[ChrisStamp]

Paul, I had indeed posted my photos already. One of them features focus stacking and some modest editing to bring the picture more alive and capture how it felt to see the butterfly, in the way that Mike describes. The other two are natural, except that I used a trick I learned that where one antenna is blurred it is often easy to copy and paste the sharp one over the blurred one and end up with two sharp ones!

I have no real expectation of doing well in the competition being a relative novice, but I am curious as to how people do win

[ChrisStamp]

Just to further the topic of compositing, attached is an image (Black Hairstreak) that I created in which I took NONE of the source photographs (credit to Peter Eeles for most of it). The result is obviously a lot different from any one of the original pictures and is greater than the sum of its parts, but it is definitely art and editing skills, not photography, on my part. And no controversy about cheating as it is not intending to be anything other than a composite.

The Purple Hairstreak image is composited from my own photos but the Oak leaves are from Shutterstock.

[MikeOxon]

I think those are beautifully created artworks Chris, of which any illustrator would be proud. There are now Field Guides that use modified photographic images to ensure 'realism' of their subjects. I think yours have considerable artistic merit and you should be proud of them

Mike

[Testudo Man]

Mike has made some brilliant points above, an summed it up quite well(certainly better than i could have wrote).

Just to further the topic of compositing, attached is an image (Black Hairstreak) that I created in which I took NONE of the source photographs (credit to Peter Eeles for most of it). The result is obviously a lot different from any one of the original pictures and is greater than the sum of its parts, but it is definitely art and editing skills, not photography, on my part. And no controversy about cheating as it is not intending to be anything other than a composite.

The Purple Hairstreak image is composited from my own photos but the Oak leaves are from Shutterstock.

These really do look rather well done indeed Chris, as Mike has said, worthy of illustrator material. I think you "sell yourself short" your PP/Editing skills are beyond basic/beginner



Right, i said i would show/explain how i edit my images, all rather basic, an each image would take less than 5 minutes(normally) to complete.
Im affraid my Adobe photoshop is a real old version, i use CS2!!...I always shoot in Jpeg, handheld, an for this image i was using a Panasonic FZ330 Bridge camera, 12 MP. I always use close up filters attached to the camera lens(which tends to blur the background). Either the Canon or Polaroid 500D close up filters. I use a stronger Canon 250D close up filter on my pansonic G80 (but thats another story).

Exif data is - 1/320sec f/5.6 ISO 100, 34mm lens zoom, Camera Manual setting mode. Date 21/8/21 at 5.54pm. Original image size would be 3000 x 4000, 4.8MB. But i always save to a much smaller size file for the web, such as 600 x 800.

As i said, i dont stack images, so all my images are singles, an for the most part , i rarely ever crop, i try to get the composition right in the 1st place, so no need to crop(especially with 12 PM camera, an a tiny sensor!). So the image is of a 2nd brood male Adonis Blue, which was basking on a natural perch, i knelt down on one leg, crouched down low to make the shot. Im happy that i got most of the butterfly in focus, all 4 wings, head/body/antennae.

Both images then, the SOOC (straight out of camera) original, an then the edited version. Images are not cropped, just downsized to a smaller file for web. I confess to rushing the clonning out sections...i could have done a better job with the clone tool, but this is just a quick example.

Original.

PP/Edited version.

Editing went something like this - Duplicate image, clone out anything that might detract/distract/highlights etc. Smart Sharpen, Reduce noise, Colour balance, Brightness/Contrast...save for web (smaller file size)...all done, quick an easy.
Happy to answer any questions about my editing methods, the gear i used, camera settings, why i did what i did etc. Cheers Paul.

[ChrisStamp]

Interesting stuff - thanks for sharing and I learned a couple of things. A very light touch I'd say - only a real hardliner could object to that process and the skill is definitely in the photography

[Testudo Man]

Interesting stuff - thanks for sharing and I learned a couple of things. A very light touch I'd say - only a real hardliner could object to that process and the skill is definitely in the photography

Cheers Chris, much appreciated, an sorry for not replying to this thread sooner

Just posted my 3 entries into the annual comp, an as i said i would, ive given some basic tech specs to accompany my images.
Cheers Paul.