C&C Request - original and photoshopped

[FlyingSquirrel]

I am experimenting with creative / artistic treatments of nature photos. My image style is continually becoming more artistic - I don't try to do "documentary" photos. Because of that fact, I am slowly venturing into more extreme Photoshop manipulation, which takes the photo away from the "real" scene and into a "photo art" category. I realize that not everyone agrees with doing this, and that's OK. Each person has to draw their own line in the sand, and mine is starting to get a little farther out.

The most important thing about this, in my opinion, is that, when possible, I add a disclaimer about any serious manipulations. I state things such as "scene modified," and "composite image," etc. I feel that being transparent about image manipulation is the ethical thing to do, because it is so prevalent these days, and people have no clue what they are looking at.

That said, I would like opinions, input, C&C, etc about the following images. Thank you.

"Normal" version



"Photoshopped" version, with light effects added. If I hadn't pointed out that this is Photoshopped, would you have suspected it? Does it look natural at all? Regardless of whether or not it looks natural, do you like it? Why or why not? Other feedback?

[IzzieK]

In this shot, I would have preferred the original. Why? Because the background to me emphasizes the lighting around the neck of the gooseling more. In the second one, the colour looks a bit muddy. This is just how I look at it. Manipulating an image in photoshop is not wrong in my opinion as almost everyone does it. If you did not mentioned it, no one would even suspect. But of course, it is expected here in this group and some need not apply for opinionating. It is just an accepted norm...until someone ask you "how did you that?!" then you have to explain, don't you? Manipulating an image makes an image pop some more. Not that I am an expert, far from it, but I enjoy studying image, manipulated or not. Just my opinion...others thoughts might vary...

[Shadowman]

I agree with Izzie, the original looks better and at least on this forum processing steps aren't necessarily needed but you can just mention you used a specific software and that will be enough. However, merely mentioning that you used Photoshop doesn't necessarily mean you manipulated the image, just sharpened or added contrast. Nice capture.

[PRSearls]

I agree with the above comments. To me, the background in the second photo is more distracting and looks like more of an oversight (I do this all the time). If you used some type of pattern background, then it would look more intentional IMO. I really like your low angle point of view, depth of field and composition. Good job.

[ionian]

I like the edit but think it would work better with a greener hue, with whiter bokeh balls. You probably don't need the bloom in the top left as the light isn't seen that way on your chick.

Yes I would have suspected it was an edit, but if you've made the picture represent what you want by editing then I'm all for it. Photojournalism and photo integrity has a very important place in the world, but life is short so make the pics you want to.

[John 2]

Same for me Matthew. It's a good composition and exposure against the light but I prefer the colour contrast of the first and find the highlight that you have introduced top left in the second, to be a bit distracting. What ever you do don't stop experimenting. It makes the job much more interesting.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Matthew I agree with the comments above and I prefer the original.

[chauncey]

I can't argue with my colleague's choice...I run everything thru PS.
FWIW, looking at the grass and duckling's fuzz, it looks as if your lens is front focusing a bit.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thank you very much, everyone. I greatly appreciate the detailed feedback. The things you said and pointed out are very insightful, and this has been immensely helpful! I think I am in agreement as well, that the first one is better. At least I tried

chauncey, I think the issue may be a side-effect of shallow DOF, downsizing, and post-processing. At 100% zoom in LR, the feathers look sharp. The focus point was on the chick's upper neck, and any point in the grass would then be in line with that. Thank you for your input

[JBW]

Thank you very much, everyone. I greatly appreciate the detailed feedback. The things you said and pointed out are very insightful, and this has been immensely helpful! I think I am in agreement as well, that the first one is better. At least I tried

chauncey, I think the issue may be a side-effect of shallow DOF, downsizing, and post-processing. At 100% zoom in LR, the feathers look sharp. The focus point was on the chick's upper neck, and any point in the grass would then be in line with that. Thank you for your input

Okay, the edits weren't great. But that doesn't mean the idea behind the edits isn't a good idea. It simply means that more refinement is needed.

[FootLoose]

Although I agree with others about the colour being a little muddy, I prefer the 2nd version because the bokeh lights make me think the scene is a frosty morning, which in turn makes the gosling seem 'warm and fuzzy'.