Savior Bird II

[Arthur Morris]

Though we were plagued by pick-up trucks as we attempted to photograph the Black-throated Green Warblers in a flower garden on Main Street on Monhegan Island, ME we managed to get a few good images.

Canon 500mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4X II TC and the EOS-1D MIII. Mongoose M3.5 on a Gitzo 3530 LS CF tripod.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Julie Kenward]

It's a lovely image, Arthur! I love the colors in the ULC and the bird is really lovely. I would suggest cloning out the little bit of a flower directly below the bird and, should you be so picky, blend the lighter beige area below the bird with the green that is next to it. Those are the only two things that are pulling my eye away. Also, did you try to lighten the URC at all? It's not really bothersome but it does feel a bit dark on that side.

[Robert O'Toole]

The BG colors are cool, the sharpness is great and I like the relaxed pose. Great image!

I would lighten the URC just a little. Color area looks fine.

Robert

[Maxis Gamez]

I like the colors and pose. The small part of the leaf behind the bird is a distraction IMO.

Lovely light!

[DarrenMcKenna]

At first glance It looked as if the subject is a little over sharpened. The background is very clean, so perhaps you used a little selective sharpening or just good shooting technique :) Otherwise I like the composition.

The upper left BG draws my eye away from the subject, but it is not a distraction IMO.It looks as if he landed on a flower. I find these small birds very difficult to shoot because of there speed. Great photo.

[Mike Lentz]

A pretty subject. I'd clone out the leaf directly behind the bird and dial back on the sharpening... lil fella looks a bit crispy IMHO.:)

[Doug Brown]

Beautiful bird Artie. My eye tends to drift to the upper corners of the image though. Also the bird looks ever so slightly oversharpened on my monitor.

[Nicki Gwynn Jones]

Hi Artie,
Tend to agree with the above comments regarding the TLC and slight oversharpening but this is a beautiful image and I would be thrilled to have it in my collection.
Regards,
Nicki

[Mark Schmitt]

I am a proponent of colorful BG's. The splash of diffuse colour in the upper left may pull the eye away but it lends an element of interest: monochromatic, "just so" bg's seem so "studio" and IMHO, boring; even though I will post such imiages: circumstances dictate what we get. ;-). Would agree about cloning out the flower at the bottom. Sharpening is fine. The bird is a jewel. Wish we had them in California. Good one. ;-)

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks all for your comments. I sharpen my JPEGs generically and this one looks fine. I like the flower on the ll frame edge. The repost if for the too dark URC folks and the flower lovers.

[Desmond Chan]

The splash of diffuse colour in the upper left may pull the eye away but it lends an element of interest: monochromatic, "just so" bg's seem so "studio" and IMHO, boring

Totally agree with you, Mark, especially on the "studio" and "boring" part !! ;)

As for this photo, it does seem to me the original looks over-sharpened. The re-post certainly looks more natural. Just my opinion.

[Arthur Morris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Schmitt
The splash of diffuse colour in the upper left may pull the eye away but it lends an element of interest: monochromatic, "just so" bg's seem so "studio" and IMHO, boring

Totally agree with you, Mark, especially on the "studio" and "boring" part !! ;)
As for this photo, it does seem to me the original looks over-sharpened. The re-post certainly looks more natural. Just my opinion.

Lots to say here. If neither of you like clean o-o-f backgrounds, I am fine with that. I love them and they have served as the basis of my career. I will be glad to leave the distracting BKGRs for those who do not like the pure ones. As for the second image looking "more natural and not oversharpened" that is not a matter of opinion but rather a figmemnt of your imagination; both images were generically sharpened from the flattened master file TIFFs via the same action...

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Changed the crop and took out a few of the elements.

[denise ippolito]

Artie, There is clearly a square box around the beak of the bird on the second image that is not present in first image. I think the first image was fine as the colors look richer.

[Linda Robbins]

I prefer the first version. The bird's sharpness looks perfect IMO. Pretty bg colors and a perfect pose. Lovely image.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Jackie. Good job getting rid of the leaf. I do like the wider versions.

Denise, you are correct. That must be the result of sloppy cloning. How does it look now?

[denise ippolito]

I still see it ever so slightly

[Arthur Morris]

I still see it ever so slightly

If it is there your eyes are a lot better than mine :) :) :)

[Maxis Gamez]

I agree about the box. I can see it too!

[Ramon M. Casares]

Love the shot, the pose and light, BG is nice, the leaves arround the bird are not that distracting to me in this particular case, the colors are great, the only thing that felt oversharpened, were the primary feathers, IMO these feathers (in an already sharp image) almost never really need sharpening as their are preety much just lines and with a tad of sharpening they usually get crispy. Still, as presented it looked great! Congratualtions Arthur!

[Tony Whitehead]

I agree with Ramon , sharpening looks fine apart from the folded flight feathers and tail.

[Desmond Chan]

Quote:

Lots to say here. If neither of you like clean o-o-f backgrounds, I am fine with that. I love them and they have served as the basis of my career. [snip]

I knew I would get into trouble :D:D

Just to clarify. I think my position is more like I do not have preference to o-o-f backgrounds or any other backgrounds for that matter. I think both have its place in photographs.

As for the second image looking "more natural and not oversharpened" that is not a matter of opinion but rather a figmemnt of your imagination; both images were generically sharpened from the flattened master file TIFFs via the same action...

Oooops ! I stand corrected, Artie :o:o

[Arthur Morris]

I knew I would get into trouble :D:D Just to clarify. I think my position is more like I do not have preference to o-o-f backgrounds or any other backgrounds for that matter. I think both have its place in photographs. :o:o

Hi Desmond, Let me start by saying that I have enjoyed your participation here on BPN--when I see your name, I get good vibes. However, I need to remind you that above you posted this above:

"Totally agree with you, Mark, especially on the "studio" and "boring" part !! ;)"

On the web, you will be brought to task for anything that you say, even when you retract it :) :) :)

I too feel that there is a place for various types of BKGRs; I just try to avoid the really cluttered ones and prefer the smooth, clean, o-o-focus ones, you know, the boring ones!.

[Desmond Chan]

However, I need to remind you that above you posted this above:

"Totally agree with you, Mark, especially on the "studio" and "boring" part !! ;)"

On the web, you will be brought to task for anything that you say, even when you retract it :) :) :)

All right, all right. Guilty as charged :o:o

[snip] I just try to avoid the really cluttered ones and prefer the smooth, clean, o-o-focus ones, you know, the boring ones!.

But, I think I've got some "boring" ones, too:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=22236

I'm learning :D