Personal Fave Black Bear to-date

[xpatUSA]

I just spent several minutes registering for this forum. From what I see here, I am not sure I want to stay. A little news for you indoor folks, bears live where sticks and stones abide, and I'd rather see an honest bear pictures, sticks, stones and all, than some doctored up picture with the reality removed.
Nature photography, in my world, is documenting nature, not playing in Photoshop.

A bit fierce for a first post, @teton! There could be some crushing responses coming at you ...

However, it is often suggested here and elsewhere that I remove the "bob wahr" from this one:

[Manfred M]

I just spent several minutes registering for this forum. From what I see here, I am not sure I want to stay. A little news for you indoor folks, bears live where sticks and stones abide, and I'd rather see an honest bear pictures, sticks, stones and all, than some doctored up picture with the reality removed.
Nature photography, in my world, is documenting nature, not playing in Photoshop.

That's not an uncommon view and there are a number of photographic genres where removing anything in an image is considered to be a bad very practice. The is particularly true in documentary photography, doing so will damage one's career.

In a forum like this one, we generally look at the aesthetics of an image and unless the originator has a very specific reason for leaving a distracting element in the shot, people will tend to point that out. Retouching has always been part of photography. If you look at the great masters; Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Karsh, and so on, they always understood that human vision does not work the same was as the camera does and their output was always handled so that the viewer saw what they wanted them to. Cropping, dodging and burning have been with us almost from the very beginning of photography. More heavy handed techniques are a much more recent invention and do have their place.

[Astro]

Nature photography, in my world, is documenting nature, not playing in Photoshop.

Interesting comment...didactic, and I suspect intended to be provocative.

I would be interested to know which tools/software you use for your photography, and to what extent you use them to present your images.

Your term 'in my world', suggests an agenda other than just photography? Maybe you would consider some clarification?

It would also be instructive to see an image you have taken and consider to be an appropriate example of the genre!

This forum is essentially a photography forum, with an emphasis on learning and support.

The image below was 'processed' using both Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop CC. Nothing was 'removed', unless you have an opinion against cropping.

However I did consider it necessary to adjust brightness and contrast somewhat and apply a degree of sharpening.

It would be fair to say that much of the subsequent 'detail' in the image was not immediately apparent to me at the time since I was concentrating on capture of the puffin, so I had to rely on my memory somewhat in creating the final image.

I suppose it could be somewhat brighter, or more vibrant than was actually the case at the time.
Personally, I think it is a good reflection of the 'reality' I experienced.

Had there been minor detritus floating in the water I might well have cloned it out if it was minor and distracted from the image of the subject. I would still consider it entirely appropriate to present it as a nature shot!

But I am also interesed in the observations of other members of this forum on the effectiveness of the image both in terms of subject matter and the way I have presented it...



Puffin

[Wavelength]

A wonderful image!!!

[Astro]

Thankyou Nandakumar

[Manfred M]

But I am also interesed in the observations of other members of this forum on the effectiveness of the image both in terms of subject matter and the way I have presented it...

James - while it is an interesting image of one of those strange little puffins, I find the whole scene to be far to busy to be particularly effective. The background puts up far too much competition with your subject. If you could downplay that part of the image, I suspect the result would be stronger.

[selig1656]

Terrific capture and all the suggestions are simply that suggestions to with all intent to improve in some way the capture.

[Astro]

I find the whole scene to be far to busy to be particularly effective.

It does take an independant eye sometimes to see what is obvious!

Thanks Manfred, this is quite an old capture and a bit like Dan's bears a particular favourite. At the same time I have always been dissatisfied about it but could never see why. ( I kind of alluded to this in my initial reply to Teton!)

[pnodrog]

I just spent several minutes registering for this forum. From what I see here, I am not sure I want to stay. A little news for you indoor folks, bears live where sticks and stones abide, and I'd rather see an honest bear pictures, sticks, stones and all, than some doctored up picture with the reality removed.
Nature photography, in my world, is documenting nature, not playing in Photoshop.

The reality exists. It is the interaction between the bears and that has not been doctored. The reality of the stick is inconsequential but I am sure if Dan was to submit the photo to any viewing environment where the rules were that the no cloning is permitted he would comply. However this forum is not such an environment.

I look forward to seeing some of your unmodified images. The Rocky Mountains should provide you with ample opportunities.

P.S. Playing in Photoshop is a rather demeaning way to refer to skilled editing. I don't share your opinion regarding the removal of the stick but I certainly know some that may. However you should still respect those with other attitudes.

[Manfred M]

Playing in Photoshop is a rather demeaning way to refer to skilled editing. I don't share your opinion regarding the removal of the stick but I certainly know some that may. However you should still respect those with other attitudes.

I am currently reading Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography". It is apparently considered to be one of the classics on the subject. I'm up to the mid-1800s right now and what really struck me is how photographers, even then, were looking at "improving" their images. Photographs were hand-painted to improve the image and there were even cases of photographers making multiple exposures and stacking the resulting negatives to produce a stronger image; for instance using a separate exposure of the sky and the foreground. Post-production has been around for a very long time...

People are simply wrong when they assume post-production is a new technique that arrived in the digital age. Frankly, dodging and burning were things I was taught in the wet darkroom and those are still commonly used techniques by higher end photographers.

Some of the older members of one of the photography clubs I belong to still hearken back to the old days of slide competitions, where one could get away with a bit of masking when the slide was mounted, but that was it. When I ask them if the quality of images has improved in the digital age, most will say yes.

I remember a fashion back in the early 1970s when I first started into serious photography, some would print images that showed the entire 35mm negative, including the sprocket holes just to prove that they were showing us an unadulterated image. Frankly, that was a major distraction and took away from the impact of the image, but to some that really didn't matter.

[wilgk]

Late, but back to the Bears...
Tremendous, the detail of the shine in their thick coats, leaps put to me, thanks so much for sharing.

[purplehaze]

Yes, Dan, I am grateful for your hard work. What a lovely intimate moment you have caught. As for the stick, I would likely have been blind to it when looking through the viewfinder, anyway, so taking it out would have been true to my vision of the scene.