David, This is a sticky ethical area. Your own moral compass need to help guide you. Before digital it was considered OK to pin branches back to clean up a fore or background. I would think you are OK on this it doesn't change the over all context of the picture. I also think labeling it is important. Kevin David Young <dnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: All: I recently posted my shot of a Male Grosbeak, asking for comments and criticism. Mark Bohrer, of the LEG (the only other list I post to) commented, saying: "And watch out for those pesky background branches. ;)" He has a valid point... So I experimented and removed the "pesky background branches" using photoshop's clone and heal tools. I think the shot looks a lot better. To compare the two, go to http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr and then click on 'featured photo'. To compare the modified shot, simply click on the photo itself. The modified photo is clearly marked. Even on dial up, once the second photo has loaded, you can almost instantly compare the two by clicking on the photos... the shots will toggle back and forth quite nicely. My question to you is: Is this ethical? In my recently posted "eagle in the snow" shot I'd removed some extraneous branch tips shooting in from the right. However, these did not actually touch the subject, and removing these extraneous elements was, to me, no different than if I dodged them out during the printing of a silver print. Here, the changes are much more fundamental to the character of the original photo. In the minds of those here, is this ethical? Would you alter a photo this much and still call it yours? Where is the boundary? Thanks for your thoughts.... personally, I don't know just what to think! Best, David. ---------- David Young, | égalité, liberté, Victoria, CANADA | fraternité et Beaujolais. Personal Web-site at: http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.