Jim > I never would have though that you, Bob, would be so eager to falsify > a photo by adding a sky like this. Mea Culpa. But Jim, the aim was not to "falsify", in the sense of deceive, but to illustrate what I view would have been a better finished product had you been able to capture it that way at the time :o) As to falsification: of reality that was done by your camera. The sky was almost certainly NOT a featureless pure white. That it was recorded without detail is presumably a technical restriction (compromise?) of the medium. Perhaps negative film would have retained more of that - it has a fantastic latitiude ;o) As shown in the gallery (OK,it was a jpeg) not 1 single pixel of it was anything less than #FFFFFF. > And in the end, it rather detracts > from the subject. I don't see the need of that sky to be frank. That's your view and it's your photo ... I still prefer it - and I'd be interested what others think comparing the two. Straight Photo: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/davis-1.jpg Fraudulent background: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/photoforum/xmas/davis-3a.jpg Maybe "that sky" (that particular one) does detract but it's just the first one I had to hand. For more "reality" I'd probably go for a cloudy sky shown near-white (whilst still retaining some detail) as I presume the photo wasn't taken on a day with a clear sky. >The pure white gives a starker more mean look to the bird of prey > methinks. I've never seen a pure white sky. Even on overcast days there is texture (rippling) in the clouds. Without that it does distract. It does not look like a "straight" photo even if it is. . I bet some here think your shot looks like it's been cut out from a real sky and pasted on a white background. Bob
