Buzz Off

[Stu Bowie]

When I captured this image, I had no idea the wasp was in the image, so I decided to leave him in. We can clearly see that the Pied Kingfisher is very aware of the wasp, by the tilting of his head. Why couldnt he just eat his breakfast in peace.

Canon 50D
100-400 L IS USM @ 285mm
1/1600
F/8
ISO 400

Exp Comp -0.33
Hand Held.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Ha! I like the interaction - the kingfisher does not look too impressed :-) Only thing is that keeping the wasp there has resulted in the KF being quite low in the frame. If you are OK with it you could reposition the wasp lower and then crop the excess space above (I personally don't see anything wrong with doing so with disclosure...). I do admit though that I wish the wasp was as sharp as the bird.

[Chris Kotze]

A three in one:D Excellent pose, colours and detail Great catch Stu

[Steve Canuel]

Stuart,
I like the head turn and eye contact with the KF. Also like the BG color and texture. That looks like a pretty good sized wasp. Is that the fish tenderizing perch from one of your previous posts?

[Arthur Morris]

Too bad that the wasp was not closer to you than the bird. There were some light angle problems too. IAC, Dan stole my critique so I exectued it: moving the wasp and sharpening it.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great moment captured and I like Artie's repost.

[Kim Rollins]

I like it.


I also like the idea of sharpening and moving the wasp but...

though I like what Artie did IMO the wasp was move to far out front and now it does not seem the bird is looking at it so... I suggest location of the wasp could be moved down but not so far forward.


S&H adjustment 15% Shadows will pop that eye.

[Dave Barnes]

Interesting capture Stu. Arthurs comp looks great but ditto Kim on the wasp position.

[Arthur Morris]

I like it. I also like the idea of sharpening and moving the wasp but... though I like what Artie did IMO the wasp was move to far out front and now it does not seem the bird is looking at it so... I suggest location of the wasp could be moved down but not so far forward.

Kim (and Dave), Nice try, but kingfishers-unlike owls--have monocular vision, each eye has nearly a 180 degree field of view so the bird could easily see the wasp in its new position.

[Stu Bowie]

Thank you all for the positive feedback.

Artie, after reading Dans suggesstion with regards to moving the wasp, I wondered for a while how to do it, but after seeing your repost, my brain clicked, and I realized how easy it can be done. Thanks to both of you, for learning something new on this great site.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, after reading Dans suggesstion with regards to moving the wasp, I wondered for a while how to do it, but after seeing your repost, my brain clicked, and I realized how easy it can be done. Thanks to both of you, for learning something new on this great site.

YAW. How did I do it? It was not a no-brainer.... :) :) :)

[Stu Bowie]

Hmmmmmmm... one way could be to clone it in, and redo the BG around it. Ive got a funny feeling you have a smarter way.

[Kim Rollins]

Kim (and Dave), Nice try, but kingfishers-unlike owls--have monocular vision, each eye has nearly a 180 degree field of view so the bird could easily see the wasp in its new position.

Monocular vision is an interesting point about some birds but my comment was only about where to me the bird "seems to be looking" and not about where the bird "could be looking". In both the OP and the repost the bird continues to look in the same direction and in the OP that direction "seems" to me to be to the side and up to where the wasp is. True I really do not know which direction it is looking and it may in fact be looking at the camera instead of the wasp but because of the birds position, catch light etc. it seems to be looking up and to the side. In the repost it seems to me that the bird is still looking up and to the side but the wasp is no longer in that direction.
IMHO moving the wasp forward and farther away from the eye instead of down and toward the eye took away from the power the original image had. That is just my opinion though.

[Dave Barnes]

In the original image the wasp also had a stronger comp position as it was on the diagional line formed by the birds body, by moving it forward this was lost. Just my opinion. I also agree with Kim that it was in the direction that the bird seems to be looking.

[Arthur Morris]

Kim and Dave, You are both of course free to have your opinions. I do believe that both of you were influenced as to where the bird is looking by seeing the original post.

As far as the compostion being stronger in the original post than in my post, I would strongly disagree, but heck, what do I know about composition anyway?

And yes, "seems to be looking" is an apt way to put it.

[Arthur Morris]

Hmmmmmmm... one way could be to clone it in, and redo the BG around it. Ive got a funny feeling you have a smarter way.

Better, not smarter. I made a Quick Mask of the wasp, moved it, and erased a good porition of the BKGR so that it matched. Then I painted a QM of only the wasp omnly (working very large) and sharpened only that, again erasing as needed.

You can learn the basics of Quick Masking (and tons more) in Digital Basics here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252 and the more advanced Quick Masking techniques in APTATS here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252

Using the clone stamp would make it impossible to blend the BKGR. (Note: I also was able to change the tonality of the original QM of the wasp and the BKGR using Control M (Levels).

[Stu Bowie]

Artie, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge. I will practise your method, and read the links you so kindly provided above. Much appreciated.

[Kim Rollins]

Stuart -

As Artie indicates QM (or any Masking) is a powerful tool and important tool too.

QM IMO is much more important when changing something in a more detailed BG though it certainly can be used efficiently to move the wasp in a bg like this too. In reference to this technique and the terms "erasing" or "erased" sometimes adds confusion as one may understand this to be having to use the Eraser Tool in PS with QM. However When you use the Eraser tool in quick mask: in effect there is nothing there to actually erase. So instead, the Eraser tool simply "paints" color on - but uses the current background color, instead of the foreground color as Brush and similar tools do (back-wards to me as other tools work with foreground color).

So with QM if your background color is white, erasing adds to the selection. If your background color is black, erasing removes the selection - modifying the mask in the same way as the Brush tool does only in reverse.

You don't need to switch between painting and erasing. I rarely touch the "Eraser" at all. You can just switch between painting black, and painting white and to me it keeps it basic because instead of using the background color with one tool and the foreground color with another you can achieve the same thing but alway using the foreground color. The X shortcut switches the foreground and background colors, so if one is black and the other white, you can stay in the Brush tool and use that to add to, or remove from, the selection.

If the foreground or background color is not black or white, just its luminance is used (shade of grey, but not the hue) giving a partial masking effect.

There is a lady and author by the name of Katrin Eismann is a PS wizard at QM or other masking (as well as other techniques). I do highly recommend her books no matter if one is a beginner, intermediate or advanced user of PS - Used books are reasonably priced too

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0735712794/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1221430526&sr=8-1&condition=used (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0735712794/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1221430526&sr=8-1&condition=used)


************************************************** ****************************
That all said I know you have CS3Win and with a bg such as this image has the clone tool or patch tool should work fine too so don't cut those tools short. They can quickly move the wasp with little or no healing required after moving it to blend this bg providing you use the tool as a 'soft one'. The moving of the wasp and blending can be done but a few seconds if we learn and use the PS Tools in conjunction with the keyboard short cuts of "brackets" ([ & ]) to change tool size, and control+brackets (Control+ [ or ]) to change the tools hardness (25% up or down at a click) then blending or not blending often becomes very simplistic.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge. I will practise your method, and read the links you so kindly provided above. Much appreciated.

You are most welcome.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Kim,

re:

QM IMO is much more important when changing something in a more detailed BG though it certainly can be used efficiently to move the wasp in a bg like this too.

While I respect your right to your opinion, I disagree with the "much more important" phrase above as I used QMs effectively for a great variety of tasks.

In reference to this technique and the terms "erasing" or "erased" sometimes adds confusion as one may understand this to be having to use the Eraser Tool in PS with QM.

I use the Eraser Tool to erase parts of the QM layer that I am working on. When I erase the part of the mask that I do not want, the image below is revealed. I am not sure why you are trying to confuse folks with semantic arguements.

However When you use the Eraser tool in quick mask: in effect there is nothing there to actually erase. So instead, the Eraser tool simply "paints" color on - but uses the current background color, instead of the foreground color as Brush and similar tools do (back-wards to me as other tools work with foreground color). So with QM if your background color is white, erasing adds to the selection. If your background color is black, erasing removes the selection - modifying the mask in the same way as the Brush tool does only in reverse. You don't need to switch between painting and erasing. I rarely touch the "Eraser" at all. You can just switch between painting black, and painting white and to me it keeps it basic because instead of using the background color with one tool and the foreground color with another you can achieve the same thing but alway using the foreground color. The X shortcut switches the foreground and background colors, so if one is black and the other white, you can stay in the Brush tool and use that to add to, or remove from, the selection.

Yoy may or may not be technically correct above, but what I am sure of is that you have done a fine job of confusing me and probably everyone else. My style of learning and teaching (a style that has been fairly successful over the past decade) is to keep things simple.

At one point I tried my very best to learn to use Layer Masks, to paint with white, to paint with black. And I had some pretty good teachers but I was just too damned dumb to get it. Once I learned to use QMs and the Eraser Tool, I quickly became a wizard. Since then I have taught thousands of folks to use QMs and thousands more have learned through Robert O'Toole's APTATS CD.

If the foreground or background color is not black or white, just its luminance is used (shade of grey, but not the hue) giving a partial masking effect.

???

There is a lady and author by the name of Katrin Eismann is a PS wizard at QM or other masking (as well as other techniques). I do highly recommend her books no matter if one is a beginner, intermediate or advanced user of PS - Used books are reasonably priced too

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0735712794/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1221430526&sr=8-1&condition=used (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0735712794/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1221430526&sr=8-1&condition=used)

The last time I took a poll the geeral consensus was that both my optimized TIFFs and my JPEGs looked spectacular. When folks start telling me that they look lousy I will surely buy Katrin's book. (My problem with most Photoshop books is that they cover too, too many concepts and techniques and are far too complicated. That's why we came up with Digital Basics; it teaches folks only the stuff they need to know to make their images look great and it does so simply.


That all said I know you have CS3Win and with a bg such as this image has the clone tool or patch tool should work fine too so don't cut those tools short.

Disagree again.

They can quickly move the wasp with little or no healing required

Disagree yet again. Let's see your repost using either the Patch Tool or the Clone Stamp. I use both of them a ton and have taught many thousands of folks to do the same. TFor many reasons hey are simply not the best tool for the job of moving the wasp.

after moving it to blend this bg providing you use the tool as a 'soft one'.

I have been teaching folks to use soft brushes for years unless they can verbalize a reason for using a harder one. IAC, even a soft brush and the Clone Tool will not do a good job of moving the wasp in this image.

The moving of the wasp and blending can be done but a few seconds

It can be done in a few seconds but the results would be awful. And QMing does not take very much longer. And how then would you sharpen the wasp?

if we learn and use the PS Tools in conjunction with the keyboard short cuts of "brackets" ([ & ]) to change tool size, and control+brackets (Control+ [ or ]) to change the tools hardness (25% up or down at a click) then blending or not blending often becomes very simplistic.

I agree with everything in the section immmediately above except for the underlined portion with which I again disagree strongly.

[Kim Rollins]

Art I do not mind your disagreeing with me at all and I will never expect everybody to agree with me. I have a great deal of respect for what you do and what you may teach. I watch it and I consider it so I may learn more. I am not through learning & as I do my own PP techniques are constantly evolving with new information and software and as my knowledge of it grows.

The techniques you teach may be the “best” for you to use and for many others too. However I assure you those same techniques are not the only ones or are they all the “best” for every single person to use, some learn differently and set their own visions and goals. We must all must chose our own paths & I will chose mine by consideration of what you teach as well as what many others teach too. I will probably use a bit from each of you. With all due respect you have written yourself “Some folks can learn a ton from on-line forums (BPN being the best by far). Others learn from books. Others benefit greatly from attending an IPT or another photographic tour or workshop. Still others learn best in a seminar or classroom setting. And lots of folks mix and match from all of the above. In any case, folks today who truly wish to get better have tons more resources available than I did nearly two and a half decades ago.”

I did not rank or degrade any of your techniques what-so-ever nor did I say the ones I suggest are better than yours, they may only be different. I made no comments about how your optimized Tiffs and JPEGs look nor did I even suggest that you buy any book at all. I recommended one book to another member who I communicate with because I consider that book to be not complicated and good for beginner, intermediate or advanced user of PS who is interested in learning about and how to use masks.

All my previous replies in this thread were to Stuart in regards to the image he posted and suggestion of what he might do and how he might do it. I did think that that is what BPN was for (to share and to learn}. I made suggestions in order that Stuart could consider and possible learn from them. I did not tell him “this is how he should do it” I told him this is how he could do it. I argued with no one and you saying “I am not sure why you are trying to confuse folks with semantic arguments” does not make it true I was doing that. Of course you too are entitled to your opinion but that statement was just that "your opinion" and nothing more.

I tried to confuse no one and offered Stuart only help as I have done many times. Stuart has thanked me personally for that so apparently he was not confused by it.

You seem to have asked me to use the tools I suggested and repost. As it is good practice I will do that now. Repost -
http://www.pbase.com/image/113669052/original.jpg
Sharpened image layer for bug/created mask filled with black (Alt+Add Layer Mask Button) and brushed bug with white foreground color over bug using Wacom Pen and that should answer your question of "And how then would you sharpen the wasp?"

I saturated bug with sponge (W Pen), Used W. Pen & Patch Tool (set to destination) selected bug and moved/Used Patch tool again (set to source) to remove original bug./ No blending at all was required where bug was moved because of this BG and the fact I took a jagged patch - I used Healing Brush two strokes to heal where bug was originally removed from.
I cropped as I desired and did just a bit of final sharpening.
The Tools I picked, tool size changes I made and hardness changed were done with keyboard shortcuts on the fly and total PP time for this repost after it was take to CS4 was at 2 min and 20 seconds.
Are the results awful?

[Arthur Morris]

But for the composition, your repost looks great. Thanks for your efforts and help.