Hello

[FootLoose]

[Digital]

Very nice colors.

Bruce

[pasusan]

Hi Greg - that bird has just the right colors to blend in - great capture!

[FootLoose]

Hi Simon, the crop you suggest is an image I would love to have taken. But the bird was not co-operative. The shot was taken from about 5-7metres away, and when I took one step closer, the bird flew off. The image I posted is about 40% crop already (which is more than I usually crop): to reduce it the size you suggest would make it about 10% of the original image - far too small to print and, to my way of thinking, a bit dishonest.

It was shot in RAW: I always shoot RAW. I was impressed with the vibrancy of the colours, but more particularly the way the lorikeet's colours blend in with the flowers and the blue sky, as Susan also noted. For a bird that stands out, it seemed rather well camoflaged in this setting and that was my reason for posting it here.

Thanks to everyone for viewing.

[Bobobird]

It is a beautiful image imho.

[FootLoose]

Thanks Bobo.

[FootLoose]

I don't think digital zoom is the same as a zoom lens, which is optical zoom. I don't know about enlargers either, but I would guess there was a limit to how high you raised one to make objects appear larger. At some stage, wouldn't the image quality have degraded to a point where it was considered unacceptable?

Computer monitors allow us to view small images as if they are much larger than they would be if they were printed. The crop you have suggested measures about 100mm square on my monitor - and that is a size I wouldn't consider worth printing. But if I do that crop on the original image, it would be only about 40mm square - about the size of a postage stamp.

Now maybe I could enlarge that 40mm square, and then post it here and the marvel of computer screens might make it look larger still, and people might say it was good shot, etc. But I would be deceiving everyone because that image doesn't really exist. Below is a screen shot of the original with your suggested crop marked.

[pasusan]

Look at the difference in these 2 images. Which one shows why the bird is colored like he is?

[Digital]

I am going to give you my ten cents worth (not two cents worth). If cropping an image (no matter to what size) is deceptive then IMHO everything we do in PP can be considered deceptive. This begs a question, in that if one type (e.g. cropping) of PP is considered deceptive, are others considered non-deceptive? If so, who sets the standards?
This is my opinion, and I am sticking to it until someone disagrees with me, and then I will probably change my mind.

Bruce

[FootLoose]

If your picture, heavily cropped as I suggested, is the best picture of a Rainbow Lorikeet in the world then good on you. If it needs to be "blown up" and is in reality is only 40mm square, who cares. The content is there and it could serve a valuable purpose. As I stated originally the feathers around the bird head are really well exposed.

Well, obviously, I care.
But it is not the best picture in the world. If it were the ONLY picture in the world of a Rainbow Lorikeet, then I would agree that it might serve a different purpose, and it would probably be useful to enlarge it hugely.

It seems we have different approaches to our photography, Simon. So be it.

[FootLoose]

Please keep it in context, Simon. I did not say cropping was dishonest. I said I felt that cropping an image to the extent that you suggested was dishonest.

I look forward to the results of your poll. I won't vote in it.

[pasusan]

pasusan, the first image by FootLoose is actualy taken on a garden plant called Kniphofia sp. (Read Hot Pokers). This genus of plants comes from Africa. Rainbow Lorikeets occur naturally in Australia. The colour similarities is purely coincidental -- no evolutionary convergence going on here.

Oops! My mistake....

I still prefer Greg's photo though - to me that is what the image is all about - the colors.

As far as cropping - it seems like whatever the photographer decides is right.