![\"short-eared](\"https:\/\/featheredphotography.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/MK2_4039_edited-4.jpg\")
1\/2500, f\/7.1, ISO 320, Canon 7D Mark II,<\/strong><\/em> Canon EF 500mm f\/4L IS II USM + 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nI photographed this juvenile\u00a0Short-eared Owl yesterday morning in northern Utah as it launched from a metal fence post. I like many things about the image including the angled flight posture of the bird, the creamy background, the dangling feet and the way the vegetation at bottom anchors the image.<\/p>\n
But I’ve never been fond of metal posts in my photos, especially when they’ve been painted. I don’t like cloning elements out of my images so I decided to experiment (just for fun) and see if a little creative cropping could make that post disappear.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"short-eared](\"https:\/\/featheredphotography.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/short-eared-owl-4039b-ron-dudley.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
This is the result. To achieve it I rotated the image quite severely and then added canvas up top for composition. The rotation allowed me to avoid cloning the metal\u00a0post out of the image. The amount of rotation I did can be determined by comparing the indistinct dark line running across the image in the background in the first image to the one in the second. That line is horizontal in the first version of the image.<\/p>\n
My manipulations had the following effects on the image (I’ll refer to the first version as A and the second one as\u00a0B).<\/p>\n
- \n
- the metal post is gone in version B<\/li>\n
- the owl is larger in the frame in\u00a0B than it is in A<\/li>\n
- the flight angle is less angled\u00a0and dramatic in\u00a0B than in A.\u00a0The true flight angle is depicted in A<\/li>\n
- in version B I’ve lost most of the\u00a0anchoring vegetation at bottom that I like<\/li>\n
- the dark line in the background is no longer horizontal (as it should be) in version\u00a0B<\/li>\n
- the overall background colors in the background have been altered by the addition of canvas in B<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
Even with the metal post in the image I prefer version A – the manipulated version of the image just doesn’t seem quite\u00a0honest to me, even though I didn’t have to\u00a0clone out the post. Since version B isn’t what I saw through my viewfinder (especially the flight angle of the owl and the added canvas) this little experiment was just an interesting exercise for me.<\/p>\n
However, if version\u00a0B had been presented to me with no explanation as to what was done to achieve it and\u00a0if I had never seen version A I’m pretty sure I’d have liked the image a lot.<\/p>\n
To me that would have been deceptive (that’s my take on it all but some may feel differently…).<\/p>\n
Ron<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Creative cropping of an image can sometimes have more negative effects than positive ones.<\/p>\n