Is this contest winning bird photo a composite?

[Sponge]

I follow the Nature Conservancy on Facebook and enjoy the photos they post. I just saw that they posted their annual photo contest winners but was surprised to see the Grand Prize winning photo since, to me at least, it looks like a composite . I'm no expert and have a hard time drawing much of a conclusion from a pic that's 800 pixels on the long side so I thought I'd get the opinions from the more experienced photographers here on CiC.

The doubts I have are mostly on the depth of field in the pic. Both birds seem to be in focus but the blur of the not too distant background seems rather sudden in relation to the second bird. Could this be a combination of the effect of compression from a long lens, that makes the background seem closer, and maybe also the low resolution hiding the fact that the second bird isn't completely in focus? Besides that, I wasn't sure about the likelihood of catching those two birds flying together or what might be slight differences in the lighting on the two birds.

Looking at the other winners I would guess that this photo has to be a single photo and I'm sure the judges would know much better than me, I'm just hoping to get some other opinions and learn something about what I'm seeing, or not.

The other photos are excellent as well, I especially like 'Bear' by Jim James, Wow!

[Colin Southern]

You'll never know

Probably the main reason why judges like to also see the original RAW captures, or at least a full-resolution shot.

Looking at the photo personally, I wouldn't like to say either way.

[Sponge]

Looking at the photo personally, I wouldn't like to say either way.

Well, at least I feel better about having doubts

[Stagecoach]

I suspect not. I base that assumption on the fact there was some great competition there and I would suspect the judges would not have chosen this image if it was a composite rather than being a fantastic capture at the time.

But I have absolutely no experience of how judging systems work.

Grahame

[Val Mansfield]

It is an interesting shot. I wonder if the background has been deliberately blurred to make the birds stand out. Maybe they have also been given a little more exposure?

[NorthernFocus]

I don't see anything to suggest that it's not a "real" photo. Somewhat surprised that it would be a contest winner but nothing that suggests that it's a composite. If a long lens was used DOF can drop off rather dramatically.

[chauncey]

It would be conjecture at this point without access to the RAW image.
And, without having a dog in this fight, it's none of my business.

[Bobobird]

RWBBs chasing much larger birds particularly in spring and early summer are pretty common occurrences. If one is set on getting this sort of image it can be had with lots of patience and time. Luck too. The smaller bird is slightly soft suggesting it was behind the big one but pretty close to the focal plane. I doubt it is a fake.

[William W]

. . . the Grand Prize winning photo . . . looks like a composite.. .
The doubts I have are mostly on the [apparent] depth of field in the pic.
Could this be a combination of the effect of compression from a long lens, that makes the background seem closer, and maybe also the low resolution hiding the fact that the second bird isn't completely in focus?. . .
I wasn't sure about the likelihood of catching those two birds flying together or what might be slight differences in the lighting on the two birds.

I concur about having doubt apropos DoF and also apropos the luck of timing of the shot.
I also concur that the compression of a very long lens could create that DoF as an illusion and also that 800 wide on a web compressed image is not a standard to judge whether the further bird is in sharp focus.
Also, I note that those “one in one hundred thousand” shots do happen if one is skilled and shoots enough - and to make that timing of the two birds, is most possible

*

Looking at the other winners I would guess that this photo has to be a single photo. . .

That is not a logical conclusion to draw.
Any other winning photo that does NOT seem to display the possibility of a composite image, does NOT confirm that Composite Images were not allowed.
The only way to conclude that Composite Images were NOT allowed would be to cite the Rules of Entry and Acceptance to the Competition.

*

If I were a Judge for that Competition and Composite Images were NOT allowed, I would ask to view the original digital raw file or the negative for that shot: as Colin has mentioned such is a common request and such a request does NOT imply any doubt on the entry but rather seeks to confirm that the Judges are doing a professional job.

WW

[Sponge]

Looking at the other winners I would guess that this photo has to be a single photo. . .

That is not a logical conclusion to draw.
Any other winning photo that does NOT seem to display the possibility of a composite image, does NOT confirm that Composite Images were not allowed.
The only way to conclude that Composite Images were NOT allowed would be to cite the Rules of Entry and Acceptance to the Competition.

*

If I were a Judge for that Competition and Composite Images were NOT allowed, I would ask to view the original digital raw file or the negative for that shot: as Colin has mentioned such is a common request and such a request does NOT imply any doubt on the entry but rather seeks to confirm that the Judges are doing a professional job.

WW

You're right of course, I can't assume that just because the other photos don't seem to be a composite that the winning one isn't. I didn't find anything about the contest rules so I don't know what standards the judges used.

Looking at the macro shots I was wondering whether focus stacking images would be allowed in a contest that doesn't allow composite images?

[William W]

Looking at the macro shots I was wondering whether focus stacking images would be allowed in a contest that doesn't allow composite images?

In my experience if the whole competition does not allow Composite Images: No.


Focus Stacking, by definition involves taking more than one image and merging them: the result by definition is a Composite Image.

However, there are competitions which have different rules for different sections of the competition.

I am not familiar with the Competition in question.

WW

[chauncey]

Having multiple birds and different species isn't that rare for birders...





Those are RAW...woulda been a whole lot more better with some "cut & paste".

[Jeff S]

I don't see anything to suggest a composite. I think the background can be achieved with selective blur filters.

[William W]

I think the background can be achieved with selective blur filters.

Of course that is a possibility.

But again, similar to the conclusion drawn by Sponge, that's not the point.

Just because it is possible to achieve the final image one way: does NOT exclude the possibility of the final image being achieved by another method, i.e. by a Composite.

WW

[Eli Vega]

Yes, it's definitely a composite. There are a few strong and subtle clues:

1) First, those two birds are way too sharp. Perhaps some serious sharpening?
2) The likelihood of those two different types of birds flying that close together is unlikely.
3) Even if I give the photographer credit for some super-human panning skills, the background would not only be blurred, but also show movement caused by panning. As it is, the background is stagnant.

I wish contest coordinators/administrators would have a separate category for what I call Computer Aided Design, like the one your ask about Patrick.

Eli Vega, Colorado/USA
www.elivega.net

[Nicks Pics]

The likelihood of those two different types of birds flying that close together is unlikely.

Having multiple birds and different species isn't that rare for birders...

No, it isn't uncommon to have two species together, but in this case it wasn't even coincidental, as "Bobobird" already mentioned. Red-winged blackbirds and Great blue Herons are both very common species and very commonly in the same habitat, speaking of which, the habitat in the background in that photo looks very typical for them both, and the activity pictured is also very common. Red-winged blackbirds are one of the most common birds seen chasing larger birds in nesting season.(though I wouldn't get too set on being able to catch a photo of it myself! ) I would not think it was a composite, just a plain point and capture.

[Black Pearl]

I find it a little sad that the first thing people think when they see a competition winning shot is that could be fake. Not that the photographer has spent x number of hours practicing and honing their skills, learning the habits of their subject and putting them into practice by being in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.

[John 2]

I find it a little sad that the first thing people think when they see a competition winning shot is that could be fake. Not that the photographer has spent x number of hours practicing and honing their skills, learning the habits of their subject and putting them into practice by being in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.

Agreed. I see absolutely no positive evidence of a composite. The fact that the sharpening halo is unbroken in each case suggests to me that probably no selection has been carried out although I accept that sharpening could have been applied post composite - but why would you. I also agree with Dan. I have seen more impressive shots on this site but that's another matter.

[Kodiak]

•
It is accepted at times to summit photography based imagery. The conditions
of the contest will in this case stipulate the acceptance of such work.

Here, some post have good arguments pro and con. I like very much the post
from Chauncey:

It would be conjecture at this point without access to the RAW image.
And, without having a dog in this fight, it's none of my business.

[ajohnw]

I reckon by looking at where the birds overlap something that both have been added to the base image but so what really other maybe that aspect could have been done a little bit better possibly. The background blur is rather precise too - can just see what it is, not an easy thing to do in it's own right.. Might be some sort of defocusing filter but I also get the impression that the colour balance is different in all 3 images. Selective work could have the same effect. But all together like this..........?

John
-