Panama to JFK #4/Is it Real or is it Counterfeit?

[Arthur Morris]

This tree-top loving species is rarely photographed in the wild. This image was created with the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens (I would have sworn that I had the 1.4X TC in place, but....) and the EOS-1D MIII. ISO 800. Evaluative metering +1 1/3 stops: 1/320 sec. at f/7.1. Fill flash at -2 stops.

Don't by shy; all comments are welcome. Do let me know what you think of the image.

And, let me know if you can detect any phony Photoshop work that does not pass muster. Or does this look like the original?

Self critique: head turned slightly away. The two fat o-o-f branches (one left, one UR) are somewhat distracting.

[John Chardine]

What species Artie? I must say it all looks right out of the camera to me except maybe the funky bit of OOF green in the UL which seems to have a related whisp to the left but not to the right.

[Keith Bauer]

What species Artie? I must say it all looks right out of the camera to me except maybe the funky bit of OOF green in the UL which seems to have a related whisp to the left but not to the right.

It is a Chestnut Mandibled Toucan. I find the URC distracting with the OOF branch. The OOF branch on the left is a bit distracting, but much harder to deal with post processing. The white sky is what it is.

[Arthur Morris]

It is a Chestnut Mandibled Toucan. I find the URC distracting with the OOF branch. The OOF branch on the left is a bit distracting, but much harder to deal with post processing. The white sky is what it is.

Thakns for the correct ID. Do you see anything good about the image?

[Arthur Morris]

I must say it all looks right out of the camera to me except maybe the funky bit of OOF green in the UL which seems to have a related whisp to the left but not to the right.

I am pretty sure that the UL is pretty much right out of the camera but this one underwent signifcant changes. I should have mentioned that I will of course post the ORIG capture in a bit.

[DarrenMcKenna]

I suddenly have a urge for a bowl of Froot Loops :D, the white sky hurts this IMO and you could try the S/H tool to bring out some detail in the dark areas. Vivid colors in the neck and head area.




darrenmckenna.com (http://www.darrenmckenna.com/)

[Cindy Cone]

Okay - I'll give it a shot.I certainly can't detect it, but I'm guessing you had to some cloning to have the whole toucan in view. Perhaps some stems or foliage were crossing the body, but I don't know where. The colors and sharpness of the toucan are great, and it's a good habitat shot. I imagine you were looking right into the tree-tops in the sun, where these guys like to hang out. So, of course, the sky is white, but the fill flash and proper exposure gave the proper color to the toucan and foliage. Nice diagonal line for the perch, too.

[David Hemmings]

Artie, I love the bird and it's colors and the exposure on it seems correct to my eye. I don't care for the angle but at the same time I realize that getting a shot of a rare species you take what you can get and this is at least in the open. The white sky is a little less than complimentary to the bg but not overpowering. The oof branches you spoke of are a little distracting, but it is natural habitat. I feel when finding and shooting a species that is rarely shot in the wild, the fg, bg and elements matter less than in other images of more common species.
The only funky thing that I see is just above the halfway point of the lhs oof branch there is a chunk of green on the inner side of the branch that fades to whitish towards the left with a bit of another branch sort of fading into the white.

[Bryan Hix]

The bird itself is really nice. I guess you get a busy BG when it's a treetop species. Are the green leaves below the bill naturally ripped? It looks a little strange. The OOF left branch in the foreground distracts my eye. Did you run this through any kind of NR because everything seems to have a smooth appearance? Great bird either way.

[Jim Buescher]

Something about the bird itself seems unnatural, is it real? The color of the leaves also seems strange. Is this some kind of exhibit maybe?

[Ilija Dukovski]

I give up! If it is cloned, it is very well done. The only thing I can think of is a lighter patch on the edge on the middle of the back of the bird. Maybe left over from a larger piece, but I doubt.

In any case CM Toucan on a cecropia, that's the good life...
I hope folks realize how incredibly hard it is to take photos of these birds.
The cecropia is extremely tall tree. You've got it very nicely clear with all colours
and detail, good detail in blacks against extremely bright sky. The OOF branches are
there, but not too much to worry about. Great image.

[Harshad Barve]

What a good looking bird ,
It works for me as presented , lovely details
TFS

[Marc Mol]

Something maybe amiss with the two different colors of the underside foliage?
You've done well to get a clear shot of him as I know just how high these Toucans perch.

[Krijn Trimbos]

Hi Artie,

As you pointed out the two OOF branches are a bit distracting, and as others pointed out the clear white sky isn't helping a lot either. I do love the vivid colours of the Toucan as well as the perch and the leaves. From what I can find you reduced/burned the highlights on the sheen of the birds bill and also in the left part of the white sky, as it looks somewhat greyer than the rest of the white sky patches. If you did any cloning/patching or other extensive work I can not find it........

Cheers,

Krijn

[Jay Gould]

Hi Mate,

I haven't downloaded to pixel peep; however,

I see a thin halo in several places: along the entire bottom line of the bill, along the head from the back of the feather over the eye and down to the white sky, and again along the lower portion of the right wing.

I cannot see any halo on the top of the bill or along the breast from the bill to the perch.

Having identified where I do and do not see the halos, I am not far enough along in my education to know "why" the halos are there unless it is caused by excessive sharpening.

On the back, or perhaps the top of the left wing in line with the left foot, there is a bit of a faint black line which says you either added something or more likely didn't completely remove something.

The bird itself is quite sharp and beautiful.

[Elinor Osborn]

Beautiful colors. The OOF branches (which do frame the image), don't bother me-- after all it's a bird in busy branches. Your PS work did just the right amount, without excess, of pulling the bird out of the busy stuff.

When I enlarged the image, I too, see the thin white halos and black bit on the back. Artie, can you give the info on those?

The white sky, to my mind, enhances rather than lessens the image. Looks as if there might have been a blue sky with some clouds, if I read the upper left corner correctly. That would have been more busy stuff. I used to think the rule of never including a white or gray sky was good. Not any more, after I photographed an owl with a white sky and was very surprised and pleased with the result. Nature's Best liked it too, it was just a winner in the Backyard competition. And I think I remember, Artie, of your liking flying birds against a white sky. Another vote for white skies was an image posted here some time ago of a chickadee ? {can't remember which bird) but it was a knock your socks off image.

[Kiran Poonacha]

Wow.. guruji, is it real?? loved this.. good cloning job too.. congrats..

[Arthur Morris]

Beautiful colors. The OOF branches (which do frame the image), don't bother me-- after all it's a bird in busy branches. Your PS work did just the right amount, without excess, of pulling the bird out of the busy stuff.

When I enlarged the image, I too, see the thin white halos and black bit on the back. Artie, can you give the info on those?

The white sky, to my mind, enhances rather than lessens the image. Looks as if there might have been a blue sky with some clouds, if I read the upper left corner correctly. That would have been more busy stuff. I used to think the rule of never including a white or gray sky was good. Not any more, after I photographed an owl with a white sky and was very surprised and pleased with the result. Nature's Best liked it too, it was just a winner in the Backyard competition. And I think I remember, Artie, of your liking flying birds against a white sky. Another vote for white skies was an image posted here some time ago of a chickadee ? {can't remember which bird) but it was a knock your socks off image.

Hi Eleanor, Great to see you here. I became a fan of white skies as soon as I switched to digital, and yes, I love them for flight. I wish here that the sky had some nice grey detail but as I say often, it is what it is.

ps: As I look only at the image as presented I almost never see any halos. I will post the ORIG below and perhaps we will find out that I caused them and perhaps not....

[Arthur Morris]

Well, I gotta say that I am proud of my Photoshop work here as I pretty much fooled everyone all the way. Ilija, that mark on the back is in the ORIG capture as posted in this pane but I should have fixed it. I believe that the only thing correct that was mentioned was that I was a bit heavy-handed with the Linear Burn....

As you can see, I removed all kinds of seed pods and branches that merged with the bird's face and the top of its head.

Thanks all for you comments and for playing and to Ilija for putting the difficulty of this capture into persepective (that from the guy who says constantly, "We can only judge the image; the situation is irrelevant." :) :) :)

ps: To get an idea of the techniques that I used, check out today's blog post, "Photoshop Magic/Panama" here: www.birdsasart-blog.com (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com)
And scroll down for more on Panama. And/or check out today's BAA Bulletin for still more Panama stuff here: http://www.birdsasart.com/bn296.htm

[Jay Gould]

Artie, the halos are in both images; you did a wonderful job removing the seed pods and branches. Congratulations and thanks for sharing your knowledge as you always do.