Because of a processing conundrum I’ve never posted this photo before.
1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 800, Canon 7D, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
This is a male Short-eared Owl in Montana’s remote Centennial Valley. I’ve posted many photos of him in the past as he was delivering voles to his youngsters in the nest. I know his sex in part because only males provide food to the nestlings. The photo was taken in difficult low light conditions for a flight shot so his wings are soft due to issues with depth of field/shutter speed in such low light. Even the rest of the bird is slightly less than tack sharp.
Even though I think photos of owls in flight, particularly with prey, are always at a premium I’ve never published the photo in the past because of difficulties with composition and processing. This is all the room I have on the right side of the frame so this version of the image has a squarish 4×5 aspect ratio and even so the owl is nearly centered in the frame, both of which are less than ideal compositionally.
There’s a “solution” to the problem but it requires me to stray into territory I try to avoid whenever possible.
Adding canvas on the right allows me to achieve a more visually pleasing (at least for my sensibilities) 5×7 aspect ratio and it gives the owl more room on the right to “fly into” which I prefer. In this version the owl is a little smaller in the frame but compositionally I like it better.
But there’s nothing “natural” about that last inch of added canvas on the right so this nature photographer doesn’t like to do it. I realize that many photographers have no problem doing so but for me adding any unnatural elements to my photos is a slippery slope that can lead to ethical mischief.
Where do we draw the line? If it’s OK to add canvas is it also OK to add a catch light in the eye that isn’t really there? To swap out a boring homogenous sky background with a more interesting one with blue sky and fluffy white clouds? To remove (clone out) an annoying photobombing coot in the background or anything else that’s distracting? The list is endless and some “nature” photographers do them all at the blink of an eye.
For me the answer to the last three questions is clearly “no” so why would it be OK to add canvas and not the others? In my view disclosing such techniques to our viewers mitigates the problem to some degree but not completely.
It’s the epitome of both a “slippery slope” and a “conundrum”.
Ron
PS – On a completely unrelated note I learned something while writing this post. My lesson originated from my repeated use of “OK” in my text. In short I learned that “It’s not OK to write ok”. I found the long explanation at a website called “Lifehacker.”
“It’s very simple: you have two choices if you want to say something is okay. You can spell out the word in full (okay) or you can use capital letters (OK). What’s unacceptable is to write “ok” in lower case.
The main reason for this is pronunciation. The word “ok” on its own would, by the standards of regular English, be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cock’. Using ‘okay or OK’ make it clear what you’re supposed (trying) to say. Yes, I know, there are countless examples of English words whose spelling gives no clue whatsoever as to how to pronounce them, but that’s all the more reason not to add to their number.
While we no longer think of it as an acronym, OK did originate that way: it was an abbreviation for ‘orl korrect’, itself a jokey misspelling used in the US back in the nineteenth century. The joke is long and many of us favour the spelt-out version, but it’s still OK to use the acronym if you wish.”
If you really want the lower case version, put fullstops in it (‘o.k.’). Accuracy matters.
“Lifehacker” is an Australian column that “offers bossy advice on improving your writing”. I like their attitude. And yes, I realize that Aussie English is a little different than ours but what they said makes sense to me.
I know, way more than you wanted to know… 🙂
I love the rhyme that Lifehacker used. Hilarious! (And yes, it’s been a loooooong day!)
My “solution” for your composition issue would be to try a vertical crop. See? It HAS been a long day! 😉
Okay. 😉
I started to write my thoughts on adding canvas, but as I wrote I realized I wasn’t set on my feelings about it. I think I’m fine with the canvas addition accompanied by an announcement as its a shame for a photo to be lessened by background that was there but wasn’t captured along with the subject. I hate to think of a fine image left behind for want of a little extra space, considering how much effort, skill, timing and fortune play into just getting the subject right. A good teacher leads you into thinking things through and you’ve done just that, thank you Ron.
I am OK with OK, but too lazy to type out okay, though I like that way it looks. I could never be OK with ok. I like language adaptations that have spirit backing them. After reading this blog early today, I wandered off looking through your older posts on Golden Eagles and I came across your thoughts on capitalizing bird names. I recalled reading it, back in 2018 I believe, and found it on the mark, very helpful and I very much enjoyed reading it again.
I loved your entire well thought out comment, Dave.
Regarding the capitalization of bird names – I still don’t understand why it isn’t consistent. If it’s a recognized and accepted common name for a species most folks “in the know” capitalize bird names but not the names of other animals. I don’t get it. And if you try to buck the trend you stick out like a sore thumb.
And regarding the capitalization of “OK”. One of the complaints I’ve heard about capitalizing it is that in this digital age some folks think it looks like you’re yelling it at them when it’s capitalized. That’s putting the cart before the horse if you ask me. “OK” came before digital, internet and social media…
Yes, I passed over the “shouting” claim. To me OK delivers good emphasis in written discourse, it is OK, no misunderstanding . OK is not shouting, just putting a gentle oomph to it. Who’s not OK with a little oomph in life now and then.
The reverse argument could be made that a lower case ok might be taken as a less than genuine approval.
i don’t think ok delivers as well…
WISE, COMMON SENSE ADVICE!!!!!!
Patty, I’m not sure what or to whom you’re referring…
You can crop “canvas” out to make to a better composition. Why not add “canvas” to make a better composition ?? As long as you are not messing with the subject (in this case the Shorty) of the image I have no problem with expanding the canvas to make the total image more pleasing to the viewer’s eye. I totally agree with not adding catch lights or enhancements to the bird.
Gary, you asked the question so I feel compelled to answer it from my perspective.
Cropping is different than adding canvas. Adding canvas adds elements that weren’t really there just like adding a catch light does. Cropping adds nothing but a different composition, there are no new elements that are “fake”.
NOPE…CROPPING is REMOVING what IS THERE… Implying, unintentally, that much of it doesn’t exist,(bycropping )is misleading…”adding canvas” is less so…JORGE IS ALSO A DARNED GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER, and an honorable, principled ( equally PICKY person!). I’m with him…
Love the owl. And am happy with the imperfections of the first. There is less than nothing that I know of which IS perfect. Speaking of nothing, one of my favourite jokes is:
What is red and invisible?
Bloody nothing.
I am also tickled that an Australian site gave you the drum on the OK conundrum. We are when all is said and done noted for our creative/sloppy use of the mother tongue.
I love your joke, EC! I really do.
i’m with Gary….his point is as solid as a rock to me…This is a WOW!!! picture, if ever there was one!!! When you add canvass, you’re just adding what IS THERE….THE CAMERA’s articicial limitations just didnt/couldn’t pick it up…
Thanks, Patty. Different strokes I guess. The most highly respected nature photography contests prohibit added canvas for very good reason.
I’ll take a photograph any day in which the the “rules” of composition aren’t followed, over one that is artificially enhanced (beyond some minor sharpening or brightening) or obtained by unethical practices like baiting or heedlessly causing harm to the environment.
Having said that, I find both photos better than okay.
As opposed to the rules of photographic composition I do like to see the rules regarding grammar being followed, so thanks for the “unrelated note”. (Should that period be inside the quote? I can never remember.)
“Should that period be inside the quote? I can never remember”.
I can’t either, Lyle! I have a friend (Muffey S. Gately on FB) who constantly tries to help me with that exact rule on my posts but when it comes to remembering it I’m a real doofus. I remember other rules reasonably well but with that one I have a block of some kind.
I “taught” Language Arts and have a terrible time remembering that myself…😔
My 10th grade English teacher taught us this trick: Punctuation goes inside the quote’s hug otherwise it could get scared and run away. Of course, if we blathered on and on in an essay, she’d write a big “B.S.” on our papers — Be Specific! 😛
A slippery field indeed. For me there is nothing wrong adding canvas as long as you say you did it. After all the scenery was already there. You just missed to show it.
A different matter is to add a catch light in the eye or swapping backgrounds or removing subjects. Here I am against.
Thank you for the “grammar” lesson. It’s always a pleasure to learn how to use the english words properly.
“It’s always a pleasure to learn how to use the english words properly.”
Jorge, I’m impressed that you care as much as you do about such things given my presumption that your native language is Portuguese. The only other language I’m relatively fluent in is… pig Latin. And that’s the truth.
“Lifehacker” may have an appealing attitude, but they should know that the phrase that reads “the word OK on it’s own” should be “the word OK on its own.” Unnecessary apostrophes are everywhere, but you’d think that a website like “Lifehacker” would know better. Just sayin’.
Jeffrey, actually that error was mine, not theirs. I actually typed out that quote rather than copying and pasting and I just screwed up. They got it right. I’ll fix it. You can confirm that it was my error by following the link at the bottom of my post.
You’re forgiven 🙂 🙂
Alterations may occur in other art forms as well, sometimes through ignorance and sometimes deliberate. I was once asked to decide which works would be seen in a display of scientific illustration. Display space was limited for this show and there were many more submissions than could be hung. One painting was of a Golden Eagle with its wings spread aas it was about to pounce on a jackrabbit. The detail was spectacular (as necessary for scientific illustration) and the long, widely spread made for a very dramatic composition. Most people helping to setup the show thought this could easily be first place so they were very alarmed when I came in and that was the first piece I immediately rejected as ineligible. It was dramatic because the length of the wing, but that was the problem. There were 25 primaries in that wing so it was not scientifically accurate. Birds have only 10 primaries (except for a few 9-primaried warblers). If accurate, the image would still have been wonderful but less dramatic.
I’m glad you put your foot down, Dan. To me accuracy always trumps (I hate that word these days) drama in nature photography.
Personally, I’m interested in the owl and vole detail more than the “whole picture” in this case…. 😉 Editing photos IS a slippery slope at all levels. Beautiful SEO! 🙂 “OK” on the list of things I have never “pondered”….. Of course, spelling and grammar have never been my long suites and I bastardize the language regularly except when a formal letter is required. 🙂 VERY grateful for spell check!
I’m grateful for spell check too, on those occasions when it works correctly. I had to get a new phone recently and the spell check still needs considerable “training”…
Yes it does! 😉
As you say the composition of the second photo is more appealing. There is just something about being centered that, while would appear being logical, does not set as pleasing to the eye. That being said, adding the extra canvas produces a un-natural look which produces a conundrum and now we know why this is the first time we see this. I’m just happy to see the owl! 😍 I have come to be suspect of many photos that look too perfect or too shocking or ‘too much anything’…nature isn’t always like that.
“I have come to be suspect of many photos that look too perfect or too shocking or ‘too much anything’…nature isn’t always like that.”
Very well said, Kathy. Me too. In fact, nature is seldom like that.
Ummm…ok. Grin. Had to do it! But I did learn things, professor. I love the sunlight coming through his wings. For this one, I tried a very tight crop. I liked that because it brought the bird and vole right up in my face. Bam!
Composition is always personal, Arwen. I used to like very tight crops because of the extra detail it provides but my tastes have changed over the years. Btw, I took the liberty of fixing your typo (Cole to vole).
Very interesting post Ron. From day one when I signed on to Feathered Photography I did so after reading your photography ethics statement. As we have often discussed on your site so many of the outstanding nature photos that we see published in leading magazines and books have been altered to enhance their visual appeal. Arizona Highways that is a favorite publication of mine even explains how some of their yearly best photos were set up. As you say where do you draw the line? It is a slippery slope indeed, but I think very minor things like adding a bit of canvas is ok but disclosing it goes along with doing it. I don’t think any followers of yours will ever question your photography ethics.
Everett, I’ve heard multiple horror stories about the alleged ethics of some of the photography in Arizona Highways. Sadly the problem is pervasive in nature photography and in print media. As you mention full disclosure mitigates but in my view simple mitigation isn’t enough in nature photography.
OK
🙂