Editing - which version is best?

[Archibald]

I would love to get your opinions about which of these three versions of the cormorant photo you prefer. Please try to explain why.

A

 

[Archibald]

B

 

[Archibald]

C

 

[DanielScott]

B seems to have better color, clarity and contrast compared to the others, so that would be my pick.

 

[Dennis]

B for me.

The Corm appears better separated from the BG, which appears slightly darker.

The Corm head and body also has more depth, texture and tonality.

The foreground highlights on the branch have been toned down, so less distracting.

Dennis.

 

[OhLook]

Another vote for B. It's sharper (eye, feathers) and clearer.

 

[paddler4]

And yet another for B, for the reasons given

 

[Bobtographer]

C has better retained details, the distracting branch removal is good too

 

[Archibald]

Thanks, everyone, for your opinions. Let me give you the backstory for these edits.

A is the original shot after cropping.
B was processed with my usual workflow. The perch was darkened, background was darkened, the subject was enhanced by boosting the clarity and by brightening it. The head was brightened more.

As its maker, I was well pleased with the result, but then I started to notice a sheen in the body feathers, maybe looking a bit unnatural - the result of the enhancing. Having doubt, I consulted ChatGPT, which advised me that B "pops a bit more" and was "more striking" but that I might have "crossed a stylistic boundary". I didn't entirely disagree, so I went back to Lightroom and did C.

C I backed off on the clarity of the body. I also removed the distracting branch that Bob referred to. I think the result is OK, and ChatGPT gave it a strong endorsement.

Now, I have some experience with ChatGPT, and it is often quite wrong. It can sound very sage and convincing, and still be wrong. That is why I'm asking here.

From the comments in this thread, my version B wasn't far off! Thanks again, and any further reactions and comments are welcome.

 

[DanielScott]

I'm going to err on the side of not listening to chatgpt.

 

[paddler4]

ChatGPT is just synthesizing an answer from vast amounts of data it’s scraped from unknown (to us) sources, some of which may have bad taste or bad judgment. It has no judgment of its own.

It’s really unfortunate that he term AI has taken root. It implies things that aren’t there.

I now routinely use AI (mostly Gemini) to search online for answers to discrete questions because it can be far faster and more thorough than a conventional search. That plays to its strengths: pattern recognition. But even doing something like that, it’s often simply wrong. I would never trust it with aesthetic judgments.

 

[Joedlh]

ChatGPT is also programmed to be sycophantic. Bottom line: don't trust it to provide useful assessments.

Why sycophantic? Because people like to be praised and it will keep them coming back for more, thereby maximizing profit for the tech lords. Does anybody remember when Google's motto was "Don't be evil"? How quaint.

When I do a Google search, the first result is often an AI "summary". I habitually pass over it and look for a finding from a source that can be trusted.

If a source is from Planet Ten by way of the eighth dimension it is especially trustworthy.

 

[Archibald]

Fully agree with the comments about ChatGPT. But human judges have similar issues. They often want to flatter the maker of an image, they have biases, and they are often out of their specialty areas. Camera club judges that I have had experience with tend to be overly terse in their comments, and sometimes give nonsensical suggestions. Scoring can be wildly inconsistent.

If ChatGPT is an aggregator of photographic expertise, I think that is an advantage here. For me, the extensive comments that ChatGPT gives on photos are especially beneficial. It can alert me to issues that I might not have noticed. That's important because makers can overlook things or subconsciously forgive themselves for defects that others will notice.

It's early days still. AI will improve.

 

[OhLook]

When I do a Google search, the first result is often an AI "summary". I habitually pass over it and look for a finding from a source that can be trusted.

I want to opt out of AI summaries altogether--don't let them use all that electricity and water on my account--but that option isn't offered. I bypass the summary each time by typing this at the end of my query: -ai