Piping Plover

[Mike Milicia]

EOS-1D Mk III, 500mm f/4+ 1.4xII, 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 400
Manual exposure using incident meter
About 85% of Full Frame

Cleaned up quite a bit of OOF debris from the sand.

Photographed about half an hour before sunset on Plum Island in MA.

Looking forward to your comments and critiques !

[Jim Fenton]

Plum Island...I remember that place and might actually get there this weekend :)

A) Love the light.

B) While sticks and stones typically never bother me as much as they do others, the two under the plovers tail sort of grab my eye in a bad way.

C) I don't quite undertand the OOF background...is it OOF small sand hills behind the bird?

[Mike Milicia]

A) Love the light.

Yes, it was like this for about 2 minutes before the sun dropped behind a thick cloud on the horizon.

B) While sticks and stones typically never bother me as much as they do others, the two under the plovers tail sort of grab my eye in a bad way.

I cleaned up quite a bit but left a few things so it didn't look too sterile.
But maybe those need to go as well.

C) I don't quite undertand the OOF background...is it OOF small sand hills behind the bird?

Background is untouched, as photographed. I was lying on my stomach with the bird in a small dip between me
and the distant water (the blue at the top). Beach slopes down and is quite uneven there so must have been some mounds of sand
behind the bird. Hadn't paid much attention until you mentioned it. Agree it is unusual looking.

[Arthur Morris]

Sweet bird, sweeet light, and lovely BKGR. Agree with Jim that the stuff under the tail has to go. All in all, quite lovely.

[Josh Gahagan]

Just beautiful Mike. I like how the FG rises in front of the bird which balances the image well IMO.

[Dave Phillips]

really like this one Mike, love the hues in the bg.
Might even take a bit off the top and clone out the left most critter at frame's edge.

or you could leave it as is and I would still admire its beauty

[Maxis Gamez]

Hi Mike,

What a lovely pose and light. I would remove the back "dots" behind the bird as they are a distraction. The BG works very well with the bird.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Great light and setting. Adding to the other comments it could go a tad darker for my taste.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I would leave as is. People clone any and everything out of an image. It becomes a darn obsession. Clone this, clone that. It makes me puke. :) (sort of kidding)

It would be good to see the original. Great light by the way!

Ten years ago when there was no Photoshop, people would have just expected it to be right from the word go. What happened to that? I mean the technology is great and it helps to know some tricks, but it seems to be abused by many people now. I mean no offence seriously, just find it weird that many folks just go mad on cloning, and blurring backgrounds and so on.

[Maxis Gamez]

I would leave as is. People clone any and everything out of an image. It becomes a darn obsession. Clone this, clone that. It makes me puke. :) (sort of kidding)

It would be good to see the original. Great light by the way!

Ten years ago when there was no Photoshop, people would have just expected it to be right from the word go. What happened to that? I mean the technology is great and it helps to know some tricks, but it seems to be abused by many people now. I mean no offence seriously, just find it weird that many folks just go mad on cloning, and blurring backgrounds and so on.

Akos,

Thank you for your input. Photoshop techiniques are just another tool.... just like a filter. The goal of BPN is to help folks to improve images with our CURRENT tools, including OLD tools, but I have to agree with you........ there is a fine line.

Here is my revised image. I hope you don't mind Mike

[IMG]http://********.org/bpn/3009bpn3.jpg[/IMG]

[Arthur Morris]

I would leave as is. People clone any and everything out of an image. It becomes a darn obsession. Clone this, clone that. It makes me puke. :) (sort of kidding) It would be good to see the original. Great light by the way! Ten years ago when there was no Photoshop, people would have just expected it to be right from the word go. What happened to that? I mean the technology is great and it helps to know some tricks, but it seems to be abused by many people now. I mean no offence seriously, just find it weird that many folks just go mad on cloning, and blurring backgrounds and so on.

First off, I love Maxis' re-post. Thanks for that Maxis.

Akos, you start off by saying "I would leave it as is." I am fine with that. If it is your image, the choice is yours.

Sorry that we make you puke.

What happened to getting it right from the word go? New tools are at our disposal. Some--like myself-- choose to use them to improve the artistic qualities of an image. Take a good look at the image in question. From where I sit, the natural history of the image has not been changed from the RAW capture to the first post to the re-post. Each depicts an endangered species standing on a beach in lovely light. And, Mike and Maxis have let folks know exactly what changes they have made.

If contests have rules, we image optimizers abide by them.

Viewing this as abuse is your perception and I am fine with that. It is not, however, my perception.

I see myself as using the new tools to make better images. Critics of that view often forget that I made a few good images with film over the course of 19 years.

Sweden's most famous and talented bird photographer adamantly took a purist's view for years. He recently e-mailed me inquiring about the possibility of removing a long branch that crossed the face of a female Kestrel during copulation. I wrote back welcoming him to the slippery slope.

Who knows, maybe the Clone Stamp, the Patch Tool, and some Quick Masks are in your future.

Submitted with respect.

[Arthur Morris]

Below, reprinted here with Akos's permission, is a dusccusion that we had via PM. I feel that honest exchanges done civilly and with respect are a good thing. My comments are in blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
Hi Akos,

re:

Just wanted to send you this off line, not really interested in sharing my thoughts with the rest of the world.

Your call.

Just reposnding to your post.

First of all, I said I was sort of kidding about puking. :)

First off, I was sort of kidding about our making you puke... :):)

I don't entirely disagree with the use of technology, because I too use the tools you had mentioned. QM and advanced techniques are way beyond my abilities though. I just feel that people may be becoming too lazy for there is superior technology that is available and composition and other factors become secondary because the technology can later fix it.

I firmly believe that junk in = junk out...

To me many of the images even on BPN look too clinical as if created in a studio and not in the wild.

I have thousands of images right out of the camera that you might judge the same way... That has been my style; clean and graphic. And, not sure that I mentioned this to you or in the post before, it is not like I did not create thousands of great images with film for nineteen years...

While the subjects are stunning and all details are perfect, it is that very perfection that seems to make the images less than real. When you had published your Art of BP book (about a decade ago) you had (have) so many wonderful and inspirational images contained within. I love flipping through, reading the chapters over and over to source my inspiration from you and none other to be honest.

I am glad for that, yet many of those images might be described as too perfect...

How far did you go with your after effects after scanning? Perhaps nowhere near through the amount of trouble that perhaps you and many others go through today.

I did nothing to any of the images in the book.

I am nowhere near as anti-digital as I was years ago. I love the technology and it helped me get to a level that would have taken me about ten plus years had I have stuck to film. I try to still keep the basics honest and true.

As do I. (An explanation here: I never add anything to an image (except canvas, and then, for example, by recreating a wingtip, I have not added anything that was not there when I depressed the shutter button. As I said above I believe, Mike's image is of a Piping Plover standing on a beach in gorgeous light. With some or most or all of the distracting background elements removed, the image is still of a Piping Plover standing on a beach in gorgeous light. In my opinion, the natural history of the image has not been altered... But I can respect that others feel that it has been altered. Yes, a fine line.)

As far as I am concerned if a bit of seaweed is near the subject, then it's best to leave it there. Why do people have to go over the top (my opinion only by the look of things)?

Because it is there image.

Anyway, I have utmost respect for you and would never say or do anything to hurt your feelings

You cannot hurt my feelings. Only I can do that by believing someone else's story.

as you have been my primary inspiration other than the birds themselves.

I am glad for that.

I hope to leave this in peace and you have a good day

Thanks and ditto.

Summing up, I would say again that I am fine with anyone who wants only to adjust color and contrast and remove dust spots. It is my choice to go further than that and to use the new technology to make images that please both me and others and perhaps sell a bit better too.

I think that we have had a good discussion and ask you permission to post this exchange. BPN is after all, about sharing our thoughts and beliefs. (In our discussion, there is no right or wrong.)

later and love, artie

Hey Artie.

If you want to share this, fine. GO for it.

Kind regards
Ákos
__________________
Ákos Lumnitzer
Global Moderator at australasiaforum.net

[Maxis Gamez]

Thanks for sharing Artie. :)

[allanrube]

Mike, Was that you at Sandy Point last Wednesday? If so, did you decide that sandpiper was a semi? Here is one I took before you arrived: