Thinking Digitally....

[Arthur Morris]

When using film (ugh!) I would rarely create an image like this. As soon as I saw a second bird in the BKGR in a bad position, as here, I would simply not make an image. But, with digital and Quick Masking, all that you need to do is try to push the button when there are no merges between the subject and the bird or birds in the BKGR. Then, if it fits with your personal ethics (as it does with mine), you can--in most cases, as long as the BKGR is not complex--QM out the offending background bird. Please see the next pane for the results.

[Arthur Morris]

Had I managed to get the feet of the BKGR bird into the frame, I might have opted to include the 2nd spoonbill, but with the feet cut off, it had to go (using Quick Masking techniques). Clean-up of the bright spots in the mud was done with the Patch Tool.

This Roseate Spoonbill was phtographed aboard James Shadle's pontoon boat Hooptie Deux with the Canon 800mmm f/5.6L IS lens and the EOS-1D MIII. ISO 400/early morning light: 1/1250 sec. at f/8 set in manual mode after histogram check.

[Gus Cobos]

Nicely done Mr. Morris,
Thanks to the modern marvals of today's digital age and advancements in post processing...I like your composition, image and capture...good show...:cool:

[Alfred Forns]

A beauty Artie !!!

PS work looks good ... all very natural !! Hope to be getting some of my own soon !!!

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Good PS work Artie. I find water hard to do sometimes because of the sheen. Digital gives you a lot more control in the Photoshop darkroom. Beautiful image.

[Ilija Dukovski]

It is worth to notice, I think, that the subject's feet do not
reach in the focused water region. If they did the clonning work
would be a bit more difficult. The crop is just about
right to make the clonning as easy as possible with the second
bird fully agains blurred region.
Am I right?


Cheers,

Ilija

[Harold Davis]

did the bird get the proper eviction notice!!?:D nice job and a great example of what can be done with PS. i love the wing position on your spoonie.

[Arthur Morris]

It is worth to notice, I think, that the subject's feet do not reach in the focused water region. If they did the clonning work would be a bit more difficult. The crop is just about right to make the cloning as easy as possible with the second bird fully agains blurred region. Am I right? Cheers, Ilija

I think that I understand what you mean but I did not use the Clone Stamp. With Quick Masking the edges blend smoothly most of the time even when working with focused water.

[Ilija Dukovski]

Aha, good to know...

Thanks,

[Christopher Miller]

Very nice! I'm curious, how do you clone using Quick Masking?

[KurtPreston]

When I'm looking at the two images, the first image looks a bit more contrasty (especially in the wings) and I like it slightly better than what I see in the second image. But I wonder if that contrast would look out of place against the softened water in the second image?

[Arthur Morris]

Very nice! I'm curious, how do you clone using Quick Masking?

Hi Chris, Sorry that I almost missed your question. The basics of Quick Masking (and using the Patch Tool) are covered in my Digital Basics file and the more advanced QMing stuff is in Robert O'Toole's APTATS CD. Both are available only through BAA.

As I noted above, the amazing part of using QMs is that they offer seammless blending. And unlike the Clone Stamp, they blend texture rather than cover only with color.

I am pretty sure that the very basics of QMing can be found by doing a search in the BIRDS AS ART Bulletin Archives.

[Arthur Morris]

[quote=KurtPreston;223673]When I'm looking at the two images, the first image looks a bit more contrasty (especially in the wings) and I like it slightly better than what I see in the second image. But I wonder if that contrast would look out of place against the softened water in the second image?[/quote

Hi Kurt, I understand your question but do not know the answer--it surely depends on personal preference.

Do understand that the first image is simply a JPEG representation of the unproccessed image while the second is a JPEG representation of the optimized TIFF, thus the differences in contrast.

[KurtPreston]

Hi Kurt, I understand your question but do not know the answer--it surely depends on personal preference.

Do understand that the first image is simply a JPEG representation of the unproccessed image while the second is a JPEG representation of the optimized TIFF, thus the differences in contrast.

Ah! Didn't realize that there was that much of a difference between JPG conversion from RAW and from optimized TIFF. Thanks for replying as I was thinking you did some extra post processing and was curious about it and the decision. I find knowing how experienced photographers make decisions in thier workflow to be as valuable as knowing the specific method used.