I had the idea for a picture of my dog George sitting in autumn leaves, and as he's from a shooting background, a dead Pheasant on the Ground in front of him. Lots of autumnal browns and yellows, and a brown dog as well as the plumage of the Pheasant.
But the chances of getting George to sit still on his own, let alone with a Pheasant just in front of him was pretty remote, so I had to resort to other tactics.
I ended up shooting a background of leaves at a local park, and using OnOne softwares excellent Focal Point 2 (onone software) to provide a realistic focus blur to it.
That evening I set up a couple of Studio Flash stands with softboxes, a table full of collected leaves, and the dog sat in the middle. The following night I did the same with a Pheasant my wife had obtained from a local farmer.
Then it was a task to cut out the dog and Pheasant in Photoshop, assemble the lot and colour balance the various parts (see below).
Now I quite like the final image, BUT it has polarised opinion once I've revealed how it was made, with one individual claiming "oh thats fantastic" before I told them, and "I don't like it now" once I'd let on.
Its as though the magic was gone for him because I had invented a reality rather than captured it, and somehow this was wrong.
Which poses the question, if you've created an image like this should you tell people its not real?
