It begins as a list of what appear to be masterful wildlife shots -- and indeed it continues that way -- until it seems that the artist grew greedy. As I scrolled down, it was around the photograph of the shark catching the fish in mid-air that I grew sceptical. From then on I couldn't help but notice the telltale signs of Photoshop work:
- Something unnatural about the appearance of the lions' eyes (image 15)
- Gaussian blur on the dolphin's tail (#18)
- Penguins that don't belong (#30)
- Likewise the albatrosses (#32)
- #40 just seems too unlikely and there is that Photoshopped "feel" (bald eagles)
- Obvious (#41)
- The dolphins jumping in unison just might be real, but based on the other content it is likely a fake
- Light cast on the cubs is coming from the wrong direction (#45)
- Cut-and-paste look (#46)
- And the hippo shots speak for themselves
I'm not at all opposed to a little retouching of portfolio work to boost the contrast, sharpness, and so on, of the images, or even to remove major blemishes in such cases where doing so improves the overall clarity of the picture. But Steve Bloom's work seems (to me) to be gilding the lily -- spoiling great photography by pretending to have achieved the prodigious.
Of course I rather shakily base my judgement on the other Stumblers' comments of the page in question -- 100% of which are positive: "Amazing photos"; "Fantastic"; "An excellent collection of wildlife photos" etc. With so many people deceived (or perhaps just one, if I am in the wrong) it would appear that Steve Bloom's intention was to do just that -- deceive for the sake of praise.
What are your thoughts?
[For the sake of clarity I'd like to point out that I am doing nothing more noble than venting off steam by complaining in this way, and I commend the artist's editing skill.]
It's all just skepticism. Everyone doesn't follow the same guidelines in photography. I don't know that these photos are contrived, but even if they are, photography can be used as an 'art' form rather than a documentary science.
When we choose to follow a certain set of guidelines in our work, don't worry about what other folks choose to do. It's not worth it :)
Page never completely loads and what does load is all in Russian. I never saw the images you mention.
I saw the images, Once it fully loads lol. It loads and then it loads the images. Did it say done or did you assume. Thats what i like network lights for you can tell whats its doing.
Of course the OP is a first time poster and signed up today.
Hell, I don't know. Suppose I was a painter, and used these "montages" to set up compositions I then painted photorealistically? That would be fine with everyone, right? It's done all the time...
Page never completely loads and what does load is all in Russian. I never saw the images you mention.
I saw the images, Once it fully loads lol. It loads and then it loads the images. Did it say done or did you assume. Thats what i like network lights for you can tell whats its doing.
It was still trying to load when I killed after 5 or so minutes, never got the "Done" status. I get a little nervous when Russain based sites take a long time to load. I'll try again from home on my Mac.
In his books and website, Bloom always describes his work as "photographic art" and freely admits to digitally manipulating some of his photographs. So, I don't think he's trying to deceive anybody. But it's also understandable that his work does not appeal to those who believe that nature/wildlife photography should adhere to the rules of documentary photography and merely document the animals' natural look and behaviour in their natural/wild habitat, which is a perfectly valid and respectable, albeit debatable on a more philosophical level, school of thought.
While I do think some definitely have PS work (the cheetah comes to mind), I'm not so sure they are montage shots. Even if they are, one can appreciate the skill applied to make them seem so natural.
I'm not at all opposed to a little retouching of portfolio work to boost the contrast, sharpness, and so on, of the images, or even to remove major blemishes in such cases where doing so improves the overall clarity of the picture. But Steve Bloom's work seems (to me) to be gilding the lily -- spoiling great photography by pretending to have achieved the prodigious.
I doubt any of these are montages. Did they undergo "improvements" via post-processing? very likely. Was it to increase the impact or quality of the image? very likely
And if they are composites, that is some fabulous work. My only issue with it would be if he is pitching them as "straight" from the camera and they are truely montages.
I would say the great deal of them appear authentic, but I did notice a few that made me raise my eyebrow. A number of the penguin ones look off, for instance, as does the one with the alleged mother polar bear with her babies sleeping on top, to name a couple.
In the shark one that's actually a seal. The great whites actually catch the seals in mid-air sometimes as the seal jumps out of the water to try to escape. AMAZING! That one looks like maybe the shark missed with its jaws, but bumped it hard enough to send the seal flying. Check out this video, pretty neat. Orcas will sometimes also send a seal flying with a big smack from its tail before devouring it.
In the shark one that's actually a seal. The great whites actually catch the seals in mid-air sometimes as the seal jumps out of the water to try to escape. AMAZING! That one looks like maybe the shark missed with its jaws, but bumped it hard enough to send the seal flying. Check out this video, pretty neat. Orcas will sometimes also send a seal flying with a big smack from its tail before devouring it.
I've seen video on this. The seals actually leap out of the water trying to escape, and the sharks pursue them into the air. It's stunning. There's an hour-long documentary on these Great Whites off Cape Town that runs on cable every now and then.
I love Steve Blooms photos, I bought his large caleder which hangs above my monitor. I was lucky enough to visit his exhibition here in Oslo a while back, and as I was walking along he was out videofilming people looking at his work. I talked a bit to him about his work, and he admitted to use photoshop to add certain elements, which I had suspected. I don't think there is nothing wrong in that, but I think his website should display a message saying so...
Anyhow, if you get a chance to visit his exhibition - please do so.. He has some stunning large prints there.
...I talked a bit to him about his work, and he admitted to use photoshop to add certain elements, which I had suspected. I don't think there is nothing wrong in that, but I think his website should display a message saying so...
Actually, there is a hint in one of the passages on his website:
"Steve Bloom's approach is aesthetic rather than scientific."
I was hasty to pass judgement before researching his work (the Russian means nothing to me and for all I know it says "some of these are Photoshopped" in there). Although, after taking a glace through stevebloom.com somebody truly has gone to terrible trouble to avoid using the words "Photoshop" or "retouch" or "composite" -- but perhaps that is neither here nor there. I guess my ire came partly from the Stumble commenters who (all?) thought every shot was unretouched, and partly from the great difficulty I recently had in photographing a simple heron in flight.
It happened to swoop out of the reeds as I passed by, a magnificent sight at such close quarters, and -- think! -- how magical a shot it would have made if there had been a *fish* squirming clamped in its beak! I suppose, hidden in my question, I really wanted to know: who among us would have ethical issues in cut-and-pasting the fish in there?
