I took this picture in the spring of a Chiffchaff Hiding in the middle of a Gorse bush and have been unsure about it since.
I am happy with the position of the bird but find the background distracting especially the OOF area directly left and down from the bird. How would you deal with this image?
Nikon D80 300mm f4 af. 1/125 sec f4 ISO 400. Beanbag on hide window.
I like the OOF areas -- they're different from the usual. What bothers me more are the three larger leaves (blackberry?) in the LR quadrant, and the continuation of the branch on which the bird is perched, as it exits top center. That could be darkened and desaturated, I think. Some crop from the bottom would get rid of one leaf and the broken part of the other one, making it less noticeable.
Wish the bird stood out more -- maybe a local adjustment for brightness and contrast could be pulled off successfully. But I like how the colors of the bird and the BG are so similar.
Hi Iain...What a cutie! Looks like he (they) really like to hide in the thorny stuff! Very well exposed...great detail in the head/neck/chest area. Perhaps a tad more ss? (Just a thought). Have you thought about a horizontal to minimize (lose) the perch branch where it turns white at the top? Great capture! Little birds in the "bush" sure are tricky!
Okay Iain, sorry took me a while, still learning settings.
So here is the RP, Hope you don't mind I did some practicing PP with it, know its not great, you will do better I'm sure, was just doing the things I would to bring the bird out more in the image with the comp and the few iffy things like the big leaf on the right.
This is probably way over the top with too many PP adjusts and didn't come out real well, but it was a fun trial to practice with.
Different Comp/Crop, saved at 300, noticed yours was 72, so could be why my version got grainy.
Did some cloning and smooth on the upper bright twig in PS Elements
In LR, selective on the bird kept sharp, brightened the head a little, did the beak too much I think, was trying to pop out from the branches.
In LR with the brush toned down the green branches behind his head and in bottom middle of shot.
In LR with brush selected the leaf on RHS toned down greens burned down some.
Let me know how it looks to you, still trying to get my saving and posting down right to post it well here. PM me if you want it emailed.
Sandy more shutter speed would have been better but the D80 I had at the time struggles with noise when going above ISO400 which was my main reason I have now upgraded to a D7000.
Linz I think I know what you were trying to do but I don't think it needed as much adjustment as your repost.
Here is my repost where I have now now desaturated the background slightly, done some cloning on the perch to darken it and added slightly more saturation to the bird to try and make it stand out more. I have also cropped slightly tighter to remove some of the bottom leaves.
A good improvement. The branch above the bird still has a bluish cast which calls attention to it. Linz did a good job of removing it, but if you'd rather not clone, there are several ways to tone it down, too long to go into in detail here. Nik's Viveza can often do an amazing job of working on a specific area like this. Or else I will often make a Quick Mask for situations like this, and turn that mask into a selection which then turns right around and becomes a mask for an adjustment layer such as Levels, Curves, Hue-Saturation, Color Balance, etc.
I don't know how many people are familiar with that, but for me it's something I use on almost every image. I could do a tutorial here if it would be deemed useful.
Artie uses the term Quick Mask differently, I believe.
Hi Iain, it's difficult with BKGs like this and the subjects can be less than cooperative, as you need distance between subject and BKG to let fixed lenses compress the BKG. Parking the techs as you have already covered that, however, bumping up or 'expanding' the mid tone & adding a channel Curves adjustment both to the subject brings out a bit more detail, likewise adding some more USM. The BKG you could just knock it back to whatever you want then mask and bring the subject and perch back in. Keep your Workflow simple and never over complicate.
Quickly done, and the masking a lot easier on the original RAW, but another option to ponder on perhaps?
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Mine was way overdone........... my brain sees things differently than how I can make a computer do what I can see......... did that make sense????
Diane I would love if you would post a tutorial on what you tried to explain, and I think it kind of goes along with what Steve said " keep your workflow simple and never over complicate"
Would love to know how you do this and keep it simple. Simple would be nice, and at this point anything less than 8 hours on a photo I think would qualify to me as quick... LOL
Ugh too much too learn too little time.
Iain sorry for hijacking your thread for a moment and thank you for letting me practice on your image, sorry I botched it trying to get my brain thoughts about it into reality.
Hi Linz, get it 'right in camera' and this will save you truck loads of time, hard work and at times, on reflection, not worth doing after all your hard work.
Avoid cloning, check your LCD for composition only and the histogram for exposure. Get that right and if you spend more than 20-30 minutes in PP the image needs to be looked at and questioned IMHO. Know what you can do at PP stage when you shoot the image can/may help, but in all honestly, a well exposed image, converted in LR (other converters available) and then just cherry pick the final tweaks in PS, job done.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Thanks for the advice Steve I will have a go at making similar adjustments to my raw file.
The advice everyone has given me on this image has really helped me know what to do with this type of image in the future. These small birds in vegetation really are difficult to get just as you want them.
Iain, I would hone your skills in the garden with a set-up, this helps both your camera skills & knowledge, also you will get better shots under a 'controlled' environment, then go out into the big wide world. It will also help your PP skills in that you do not have to contend with bright leaves, awkward branches, distracting BKGs etc so you get a more comfortable Workflow going too in processing. I think Artie may do a PDF or CD on Bird photography/set-ups or he also sells Alan Murphy's guide via Birds as Art website, strongly suggest you check it out and see what works for you.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Linz, I think the main issue with your re-post is just that you increased the size and then probably sharpened it. When working on a small JPEG you have limited information to tweak, and keeping it at the same size removes one possible issue.
I absolutely agree on getting it the best possible in camera. As much as I love the capabilities of the digital darkroom, it has major limitations, especially with sharpening, NR and blurring a BG around a subject. You can make a good image better but can rarely salvage one with major problems. Better to use the time learning to recognize and avoid problems when shooting.
There's no such thing as a bad image, it's just that some are for showing and some are for learning.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 10-07-2013 at 12:18 PM.
Our satellite internet is going brain-dead when I try to edit my post above, but wanted to add: Other than the resizing issue, the crop and cloning you did looks excellent.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 10-07-2013 at 12:31 PM.
Chiffchaff in gorse
Iain Barker thanked for this post
Posting Permissions
