As post processing is mentioned, I though I'd post an actual example of it for discussion.
I haven't got a strong opinion about what kind of post processing is right or wrong, it depends on the context for me and I'd like to leave it to the viewer to decide whenever possible or practical, not the photographer. For a plant data base such as ATP's I think it would be inappropriate with a highly processed image. On the other hand for a nice print for your wall it can be very beneficial as it's more about decoration than natural history.
For instance I had no problem posting the below image as an example of a red squirrel in the bulbs forum without going into details (as mentioning this would complicate things too much and would be really of topic as the discussion is about bulbs, not wildlife) but for this thread or a wildlife thread I would want to leave full details. Things will get more complicated for the professional photographer, as even if he gives full details, he has none or little control of what info ends up in print or on a web site. Sometimes this can lead to confusion.
Two focus stacked images, Nikon D300 + 300mm f2.8vr + 1.7tc, tripod, f/4.8, 1/80, Iso 320 and iso 360 respectively for the two different RAW images.
Processed image of course on the left, one of the RAW images on the right.
The reason I focus stacked this, isn't so obvious at web size as the red squirrel appears rather sharp throughout, but at original size the difference is significant.
While shooting wide open I was still not able to get the background as smooth as I wanted. So I decided to clone/tone down a big branch in the background and make it just generally a little smoother, but I still wanted to keep the background sort of representative for the environment. I also adjusted colors, sharpened and so on.
A more advanced wildlife photographer than me would probably use a setup with a beautiful perch and a nice distant background to get the images she or he wanted. Same as I'd prefer to do with a floral or macro image.
Usually backgrounds in images don't just happen to be there, they are planned in advance. So often instead of changing the image, one is sort of making an outdoor studio and changing nature instead or one of course can photograph in a very good natural spot with a distant background.
So open to discussion, is the post processing too much here? Unnecessary? What do you think?
