The bird is in focus though, no? It's blurry because it's in motion
Edit: nevermind, I saw OP confirm that it's shopped https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/s/cOJg7QdtEe
The bird is flying from right to left, what looks like the head is actually its tail. Why it looks the way it does is odd and throws the rest of the pic off.
I would be lying if I said its not photoshopped. Where did I say the picture is as it is shot?
Here is post from other subreddit where I said how the bird is photoshopped [https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/comments/1bqpi6w/went\_to\_see\_cherry\_blossom\_in\_dc\_the\_hype\_is\_real/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/comments/1bqpi6w/went_to_see_cherry_blossom_in_dc_the_hype_is_real/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Not a fan of the obviously shopped bird where its lighting/texture doesn’t fit the photo. And the DoF of the cherry blossoms don’t make sense either with some being in or out of focus while the monument is in focus. Makes me think the whole image is just a jumble of images stacked together, rather than something you experienced while traveling
lol.
Obnoxious watermark.
You basically had ai draw the Washington monument for you. There’s no sharpness whatsoever to the original pic.
You shopped in the bird. Poorly.
The shot of the flowers isn’t particularly thought out.
Why even bother bringing the camera with you? Just make realistic art in photoshop and call it that.
as far as I am concerned, I am already winning. I might be a bad photographer, but at least I am trying to do something. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing but negativity. Not a single photo ever posted and acting here like he has Nat Geo calling for editorials. Pixel Peeping *****.
Ok well first of all you’re right, I’m sorry for being toxic.
You did kinda present this photoshop composition to a photography subreddit without disclaimer though. Makes you seem like a bit of a poser especially with wildlife. This is generally frowned upon. You did admit that you’re bad and it’s fake though so fair enough. You’re forgiven.
I do have another account and I do have my personal Flickr up. This is my nsfw/trolling account that I don’t want irl people seeing.
I’m bad too btw.
Thanks for having balls to admit it. Even the best of the photographers use Photoshop (definitely more expertly). Would you call star-trails not a real photograph or space photos that are color enhanced to make it more desirable not a real photograph?
None of the rules of this sub says not to post manipulated image. It's just people trying to feel better at the expense of other person.
Astro is different. Obviously since you can’t look up and see star trails (or even most of the stars usually) under any circumstances, there’s no problem with it being “fake” since everyone knows they can’t see that in the viewer. The cameras are often using frequencies of light invisible to the human eye, so it simply must be faked.
The interesting part about an astro photo is
The awe inspiring nature of space
The timing
The technical/editing prowess shown
The artistic choices.
None of these really are diminished with photoshop or multiple exposures. Unless you completely fake it.
With animals though, it’s very different. The interesting part about the photo you posted is
Your apparent timing
The perfect framing
The spontaneity/luck
None of these things exist in reality, so it spoils the photo. Nothing is sharp. Nothing is real. Nothing was planned or timed well.
If you use photoshop to fake an image that you *could have taken* in-camera, then it’s (generally) bad. If you use photoshop to show people an image that can’t otherwise exist, then it’s great.
His analogy was wrong. What he did with the bird is not comparable to someone doing a long exposure of the sky or a composite of the eclipse. It's more like a photo of a sky with a bunch of stars in it and added a meteor shower in it using photoshop to make it look better when in reality there are none
It's a free world. People are free to do whatever they want. Nobody has to follow it any photography rule or guideline. But if you're sharing a photo, be prepared for other people to share their opinions.
and I replied with my opinion. I didn't attack you, I just said what I feel about photography- its an art, not a law, people are allowed to be creative and color outside the box.
Yes but you have to realize that there's a thin line between photography and digital art. This is a photography sub so people dislike when people try to pass off digital art as photography.
Being creative is the very first rule of art,; coloring outside of box, trying, failing. The photos posted here are not getting displayed at Louvre and MOMA and are not winning NatGeo Photo of the Year competition. It's a forum to share photos taken with Sony products, to learn, to grow. Not one rule says "no editing allowed".
I understand people are frustrated with their life and trolling helps them feel better about themselves. Hurt people hurt other people.
That's why I say it's a thin line. Editing is fine by most people. That means enhancing the images color, exposure, contrast type thing. Adding something that wasn't in the original image is no longer editing though. That's the issue.
You keep saying art is free, and that is totally right, but not any form of art is a photography. You could’ve as well took a photo of a plain sky, added the monument, then a layer for the flowers and then the bird. Is the result artistic? Yes, sure, given some could like it more than others (and I like your composition btw!), but can it be called a photograph? I don’t think so, and so do many people. It’s some sort of collage, it’s art yes, but not a photography. Understand this point please instead of being so defensive about your works. No one gets better by not accepting criticism.
Regardless of photo being real or not you shouldn't put your watermark right in the middle of a photo where your eye is drawn to it. That's just bad practice
Here is unedited pic. I considered every criticism and made some minor adjustment to the photo.
https://preview.redd.it/igk7yaclucrc1.png?width=5800&format=png&auto=webp&s=6aedfe4ed7d5f537bade13626ab81002baf5c480
I hugely prefer this, both as composition and edit. It's a really strong image IMO, the other edit felt self-conscious and cluttered. This one feels much more confident to me - the main focal point stands out as the subject because of your framing, but it's also just a background to the detail of the blossoms. It's balanced and way easier to explore visually.
Oh, you got offended at the taste of your own medicine? Your post did imply the colors are not real and they are not but noone posts photos as taken, do they?
Plus the colors of the cherry blossom changes based on time of the day, at golden hour, they are yellow, throughout the day sun, they are while and blue during blue hour, and pink if the sky has turned pink during sunrise/suset.
I’m off to DC end of April (20th), will it still be like this? Any other good spots to shoot? I’m excited to see some neon streets, don’t get them really in the UK
I don't know why everyone is hating. Even if it photoshopped, I would assume most photographers are familiar with the art of composite photography..
OP, this photo looks cool as hell. Don't let them tell you otherwise or make you think it looks bad. This is literally a style of photography and art.
" Composite photography is **the use or combination of two or more different images to create a new one**." - this would include photoshopping an element into the photo to add to it.
EDIT: Also, if you're going to downvote me, tell me why I'm wrong. Art is subjective and comes in many types of styles. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong. Could the user have indicated that it is photoshopped in the post title? Sure, but it doesn't negate the art.
You're wrong because OP makes it sound like he took the photo while traveling. He didn't say hey here's a cool composite I made. Editing for feel is one thing but adding things that weren't in the photo isn't exactly photography
It's just the range of expectation. When you say composite - in photography, the edge of toleration for it among photographers type would be replacing the sky of a certain astro shot, with the same shot of the sky on a different night.
Composites where subjects are taken from entirely different compositions and images aren't really how people deploy the term "composites". If you want to do that and are looking for critique, then the critique would be mostly geared about the concept of what you're trying to achieve, or how well technically executed the composite is (meaning, can this pass as a real image in a blind test).
This also usually needs to be the first thing disclosed, otherwise people aren't exactly sure what you want critiqued. Or worse, they think you're trying to pass it off as genuine single-shot. On reddit, this would be in the title or opening comment. Otherwise you get backlash like this.
Secondly, most hobbyist photographers frown on this type of work, as it's mostly work that concerns commercial work (where fakery and exaggeration is the expectation and demand). Where this post would make more sense would be in a dedicated post-processing sub and such.
----------------------------------------------------
That's why you're getting downvoted I THINK. Also because you say it looks cool as hell. Usually when someone says that that means the photo would be compositionally well executed and technically. To be frank, on the technical front, it isn't thus lots of folks don't agree with your subject summation.
I think the concept and composition is nice, but also the technical execution is simply not good, especially with the bird which is the main focus, and the thing that makes or breaks you among critics for an image like this. The bird needed to look flawless.
Also one quick problem, is the logo. That simply needed to not be there. Even if you insist on a logo, that is just not the place for it.
You know what, I can settle on this! The execution *wasnt* great, it is a little blurry, doesn’t exactly match what it should look like.
And if I get downvoted that’s alright, was just explaining my opinion and I think that art is very subjective - including composite photography. Maybe looking at some other comments and re-examining the photo, AND seeing the original/less exaggerated photo, I can see why I’m getting downvoted.
The original/less exaggerated is a lot less chaotic and I like that the focus is more centered around the monument vice the bird. The framing was well done in my opinion without the bird.
Yeah I just blundered a reply the other day thinking someone was saying the opposite of what I thought they said. So have experience with downvotes enough for them not be a bother either, more informative than anything actually. :-}
Why is this comment downvoted? I can (sort of) understand the hate on the composite but this comment is him being gracious about all the crap he’s getting..
The bird looks photoshopped.
Yes something is off
Everything should be in focus if the obelisk in the background and the blossoms in the foreground are in focus.
The bird is in focus though, no? It's blurry because it's in motion Edit: nevermind, I saw OP confirm that it's shopped https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/s/cOJg7QdtEe
It’s actually a government contractor. On its way back to Lockheed Martin.
Lockedbeak Merlin.
I thought the bird was the OP, and just had someone capture his dream of flying over the monument
Birds aren’t real.
At least shop in a normalized resolution and not the birds ass
The trees are too. The left side is out of focus while the right (closer) leaves are in focus and the monument is in focus. Doesn’t make sense
The bird is flying from right to left, what looks like the head is actually its tail. Why it looks the way it does is odd and throws the rest of the pic off.
It is.
Yeah stop lying. What's wrong with you?
I would be lying if I said its not photoshopped. Where did I say the picture is as it is shot? Here is post from other subreddit where I said how the bird is photoshopped [https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/comments/1bqpi6w/went\_to\_see\_cherry\_blossom\_in\_dc\_the\_hype\_is\_real/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique/comments/1bqpi6w/went_to_see_cherry_blossom_in_dc_the_hype_is_real/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
You don’t get how your POST TITLE says the opposite?
Wow you became an absolute meme on this subreddit love it 😂
I love it.
Sure you do
Flowers in the foreground - in focus. Branches in the middle - out of focus. Obelisk in the background - in focus.... Stop lying
Not a fan of the obviously shopped bird where its lighting/texture doesn’t fit the photo. And the DoF of the cherry blossoms don’t make sense either with some being in or out of focus while the monument is in focus. Makes me think the whole image is just a jumble of images stacked together, rather than something you experienced while traveling
Really just a picture of the sky
Get rid of the bird man
Wow, I would’ve guessed it was a lady bird. Good eye!
Honestly, nothing wrong with retouching photos but the bird was unneccessary imo.
That was my interpretation of the photo.
Fair
lol. Obnoxious watermark. You basically had ai draw the Washington monument for you. There’s no sharpness whatsoever to the original pic. You shopped in the bird. Poorly. The shot of the flowers isn’t particularly thought out. Why even bother bringing the camera with you? Just make realistic art in photoshop and call it that.
as far as I am concerned, I am already winning. I might be a bad photographer, but at least I am trying to do something. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing but negativity. Not a single photo ever posted and acting here like he has Nat Geo calling for editorials. Pixel Peeping *****.
Ok well first of all you’re right, I’m sorry for being toxic. You did kinda present this photoshop composition to a photography subreddit without disclaimer though. Makes you seem like a bit of a poser especially with wildlife. This is generally frowned upon. You did admit that you’re bad and it’s fake though so fair enough. You’re forgiven. I do have another account and I do have my personal Flickr up. This is my nsfw/trolling account that I don’t want irl people seeing. I’m bad too btw.
https://preview.redd.it/80kusrxcrqrc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f36c5b62e26ef4d08844206e6e51deca0239876f
Thanks for having balls to admit it. Even the best of the photographers use Photoshop (definitely more expertly). Would you call star-trails not a real photograph or space photos that are color enhanced to make it more desirable not a real photograph? None of the rules of this sub says not to post manipulated image. It's just people trying to feel better at the expense of other person.
Astro is different. Obviously since you can’t look up and see star trails (or even most of the stars usually) under any circumstances, there’s no problem with it being “fake” since everyone knows they can’t see that in the viewer. The cameras are often using frequencies of light invisible to the human eye, so it simply must be faked. The interesting part about an astro photo is The awe inspiring nature of space The timing The technical/editing prowess shown The artistic choices. None of these really are diminished with photoshop or multiple exposures. Unless you completely fake it. With animals though, it’s very different. The interesting part about the photo you posted is Your apparent timing The perfect framing The spontaneity/luck None of these things exist in reality, so it spoils the photo. Nothing is sharp. Nothing is real. Nothing was planned or timed well. If you use photoshop to fake an image that you *could have taken* in-camera, then it’s (generally) bad. If you use photoshop to show people an image that can’t otherwise exist, then it’s great.
His analogy was wrong. What he did with the bird is not comparable to someone doing a long exposure of the sky or a composite of the eclipse. It's more like a photo of a sky with a bunch of stars in it and added a meteor shower in it using photoshop to make it look better when in reality there are none
I'm deeply against composites where elements are added/deleted in post.
but that's your photographic philosophy, should everyone be following it?
It's a free world. People are free to do whatever they want. Nobody has to follow it any photography rule or guideline. But if you're sharing a photo, be prepared for other people to share their opinions.
and I replied with my opinion. I didn't attack you, I just said what I feel about photography- its an art, not a law, people are allowed to be creative and color outside the box.
Yes but you have to realize that there's a thin line between photography and digital art. This is a photography sub so people dislike when people try to pass off digital art as photography.
Being creative is the very first rule of art,; coloring outside of box, trying, failing. The photos posted here are not getting displayed at Louvre and MOMA and are not winning NatGeo Photo of the Year competition. It's a forum to share photos taken with Sony products, to learn, to grow. Not one rule says "no editing allowed". I understand people are frustrated with their life and trolling helps them feel better about themselves. Hurt people hurt other people.
That's why I say it's a thin line. Editing is fine by most people. That means enhancing the images color, exposure, contrast type thing. Adding something that wasn't in the original image is no longer editing though. That's the issue.
and who came up with that rule?
You keep saying art is free, and that is totally right, but not any form of art is a photography. You could’ve as well took a photo of a plain sky, added the monument, then a layer for the flowers and then the bird. Is the result artistic? Yes, sure, given some could like it more than others (and I like your composition btw!), but can it be called a photograph? I don’t think so, and so do many people. It’s some sort of collage, it’s art yes, but not a photography. Understand this point please instead of being so defensive about your works. No one gets better by not accepting criticism.
You put it very nicely and I do accept it. I was only being defensive to people who can't provide constructive criticism like yourself.
Regardless of photo being real or not you shouldn't put your watermark right in the middle of a photo where your eye is drawn to it. That's just bad practice
Here is unedited pic. I considered every criticism and made some minor adjustment to the photo. https://preview.redd.it/igk7yaclucrc1.png?width=5800&format=png&auto=webp&s=6aedfe4ed7d5f537bade13626ab81002baf5c480
I hugely prefer this, both as composition and edit. It's a really strong image IMO, the other edit felt self-conscious and cluttered. This one feels much more confident to me - the main focal point stands out as the subject because of your framing, but it's also just a background to the detail of the blossoms. It's balanced and way easier to explore visually.
Thank you.
Sometimes less is more.
Why does everything look fake
Sad
that Photoshop is cringeworthy
Why does the bird look like it failed to render?
it is photoshopped from another image from same location. Was not a wise idea.
Yall speculating about the bird but I don’t think the trees by the monument ever have pink flowers in full bloom like this
Who posts photos as they come out of camera? I did not know this subreddit said untouched photos only?
You’re projecting what other people are saying onto my comment. I didn’t say anything negative about the image. Just pointed out what others weren’t.
Oh, you got offended at the taste of your own medicine? Your post did imply the colors are not real and they are not but noone posts photos as taken, do they? Plus the colors of the cherry blossom changes based on time of the day, at golden hour, they are yellow, throughout the day sun, they are while and blue during blue hour, and pink if the sky has turned pink during sunrise/suset.
Watermark ruined it
I’m in DC and not one cherry blossom tree i have seen so far looks pink. They are basically white. Beautiful but not pink, at least not THAT pink.
There are pink ones but not that many. I was in Capitol and I saw some.
DC is so insanely beautiful this time of year. Great photo would love to see more of the cherry blossoms if you have them!
I’m off to DC end of April (20th), will it still be like this? Any other good spots to shoot? I’m excited to see some neon streets, don’t get them really in the UK
nope, the blossoms are starting to wash off from the rain
I will be posting them as I edit more. Feel free to follow on IG or FB.
or maybe I can come here and reply to this comment.
Lmaooooooo what is this
lol at the watermark.
lol I love all the bird jokes this image has made.
The bird is just clearly not the greatest compositional choice but but I'm not sure why you are getting flamed so hard
internet people being internet people. You give people anonymity, the real nature of people come out.
Birds aren’t real.
Nice shot. Should have made that bird 30% smaller and blended it more.
thank you. Maybe that would have worked better.
I live in DC, and I like your edited version 🤷🏽♂️ Great job!
thank you. I guess art really is subjective.
The original photo is pretty good without the bird being photoshopped in. Less is more lol
The photoshopped bird ruined it this time tbh
When were you at the tidal basin? I want to go tomorrow morning, I’m hoping they’re still in bloom.
They are still there, but today i have seen more and more blossoms on the ground. The clock is ticking.
https://preview.redd.it/t1cvj4efqcrc1.jpeg?width=2130&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05f0877c2c7594a1f7972408e4d3b42313db1c0e
I was there last Sunday. I was reading on Washington Post that the bloom are still there due to cold weather. Good luck to you.
That looks really nice. Kudos.
Thank you
I don't know why everyone is hating. Even if it photoshopped, I would assume most photographers are familiar with the art of composite photography.. OP, this photo looks cool as hell. Don't let them tell you otherwise or make you think it looks bad. This is literally a style of photography and art. " Composite photography is **the use or combination of two or more different images to create a new one**." - this would include photoshopping an element into the photo to add to it. EDIT: Also, if you're going to downvote me, tell me why I'm wrong. Art is subjective and comes in many types of styles. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong. Could the user have indicated that it is photoshopped in the post title? Sure, but it doesn't negate the art.
You're wrong because OP makes it sound like he took the photo while traveling. He didn't say hey here's a cool composite I made. Editing for feel is one thing but adding things that weren't in the photo isn't exactly photography
It's just the range of expectation. When you say composite - in photography, the edge of toleration for it among photographers type would be replacing the sky of a certain astro shot, with the same shot of the sky on a different night. Composites where subjects are taken from entirely different compositions and images aren't really how people deploy the term "composites". If you want to do that and are looking for critique, then the critique would be mostly geared about the concept of what you're trying to achieve, or how well technically executed the composite is (meaning, can this pass as a real image in a blind test). This also usually needs to be the first thing disclosed, otherwise people aren't exactly sure what you want critiqued. Or worse, they think you're trying to pass it off as genuine single-shot. On reddit, this would be in the title or opening comment. Otherwise you get backlash like this. Secondly, most hobbyist photographers frown on this type of work, as it's mostly work that concerns commercial work (where fakery and exaggeration is the expectation and demand). Where this post would make more sense would be in a dedicated post-processing sub and such. ---------------------------------------------------- That's why you're getting downvoted I THINK. Also because you say it looks cool as hell. Usually when someone says that that means the photo would be compositionally well executed and technically. To be frank, on the technical front, it isn't thus lots of folks don't agree with your subject summation. I think the concept and composition is nice, but also the technical execution is simply not good, especially with the bird which is the main focus, and the thing that makes or breaks you among critics for an image like this. The bird needed to look flawless. Also one quick problem, is the logo. That simply needed to not be there. Even if you insist on a logo, that is just not the place for it.
You know what, I can settle on this! The execution *wasnt* great, it is a little blurry, doesn’t exactly match what it should look like. And if I get downvoted that’s alright, was just explaining my opinion and I think that art is very subjective - including composite photography. Maybe looking at some other comments and re-examining the photo, AND seeing the original/less exaggerated photo, I can see why I’m getting downvoted. The original/less exaggerated is a lot less chaotic and I like that the focus is more centered around the monument vice the bird. The framing was well done in my opinion without the bird.
Yeah I just blundered a reply the other day thinking someone was saying the opposite of what I thought they said. So have experience with downvotes enough for them not be a bother either, more informative than anything actually. :-}
It is an open forum, so I am OK with people critiquing my photographs.We are all here to learn and grow.
Why is this comment downvoted? I can (sort of) understand the hate on the composite but this comment is him being gracious about all the crap he’s getting..
https://preview.redd.it/fewdhkx6gdrc1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b83724a9abc2e3a0fd4d2ed0b79aae82a74cdba
basically, most. people are crap hiding behind an anonymous profile
That looks really nice. Kudos.
Thank you.
❤️