About Hello Kitty, the Eyes on You photo contest winner . . .

[AndyS]

28. Shaz, I really do understand what you are saying and I've had a long time to consider

and absorb the meaning of your point of view and I respect that view and your opinion. I'll oversimplify for the sake of giving you an opportunity correct me if I'm mistaken; your point is that it's alright to 'correct' shortcomings in the original image, to 'improve' it but not go further in changing it's appearance. Several others have said the same thing.

This begs the question; If it's okay to 'correct' an image to make it better, where does that stop? And what's "better"? Is better increasing the viewer's empathy, the emotional connection with the subject?

Case in point the following image: Is it acceptable?


I ask because this bird was not sitting on that tree. It was sitting on this ugly bird feeder:
(I've long since lost the original image.)

I cut out the bird, found a tree lighted in the same way as the feeder, placed the bird on the tree and then added the leaf to balance the composition. In addition I created the bird's shadow out of whole cloth!

The original would have been fine for a bird identification handbook but the 'new improved' version brings the viewer closer to nature and the bird's relationship to the natural world unspoiled by a wire feeder. Which is 'better'? It depends on the use and the audience.

BTW I don't do this often 'cause it's a lotta' work and it's so much easier to just shoot it right to begin with. But sometimes it's worth it. Still my lazy side wins out most often