Too conventional?

[NorthernFocus]

I like the first one, Mark. The OOF elements in foreground give it a bit of an abstract quality which works for me with the crop that you chose.

[Downrigger]

I think you were on to something. What I liked best was the repeating patterns.

Thanks Marie - you did well by the raw material I think. I also think you are definitely on to something regarding what I was on to. I like those elements such as in the right lower quadrant that were OOF, and I think it's those Dan refers to (thanks for the input, Dan). Clearly a matter of taste based on the discussion here, though.

[Downrigger]

Where does one draw the line on that, afore mentioned, slippery slope?

I must not have been clear - Not concerned in my comments about whether the artist/documenter alters the image. For me that's an inescapable given, as you point out.

The question I attempted to pose is whether, in order to obtain a desired image, how far the artist/documenter should go in altering the subject prior to obtaining the image; and specifically with reference to shooting nature. It's also an old question, but one with some fairly firm positions in the realms of forensic or journalistic photography, for instance.

[jamn4ex]

I Have a sense for what you feel, if you clip a branch to get a shot, you have forever altered the tree.
Sometimes when shooting deer if the deer is running I will whistle and he will stop, look, then takeoff running again. Did I alter where he eventually ends up?
Well I am a firm believer in interacting as little as necessary to get the shot. Most of my shots are achieved with the subject able to see me.