I am a fervent believer in trying to get the best possible image in camera. But sometimes, Murphy's Law hits you in the head with a hammer, and in the best pose of the day at that. It is comforting to be able to make exceptions and rescue an image that would otherwise go to the trash.
I'm only using this as an exercise in observation and possibilities, and would never try to pass as a bona fide image.
Can you guess what went wrong and how did I rescue it?
Note: To those of you who may not be familiar with the Law, it states that if something could go wrong, it would :)
My guess is that the fish was lower in the pic. Lower chest area, where there appears to be a line crossing the chest. Super photo, I would love to take that pic. no matter were the fish ended up!
There looks like there was something removed from the chest area of the bird. The pixels are looking a little strange. All else looks in place to my eyes.
I'm guessing that you did something with the fish - repositioned it or brought in a better version from another image. The end result makes a very nice image.
Obviously, fish magic: nothing in the first image - poof! - fish in the second image!
The question remains: if you did add the fish, why add a fish with a belly that has been opened in some manner, and why is the title of the image Ststicht?
I am not too sure about the fish up there, but the story says that those birds love fish so... it all makes sense, now, did you clipped the tail? I can see some PS work down there.
Did all the elements go wrong or just one? My guess is the fish too. Not perfectly placed. Still cool though and I totally love your fervent beliefs on the ethics! :)
I am not sure, but I see some dark areas near de bird's feet, belly and chest, so my guess would be that there was another bird behind your subject that you removed...
Hi Fabs, I think you cloned out the Heron that caught the fish and then cloned in the gull :) Seriously I think you cut off the feet of the gull in the original and then cloned them back from another frame ?
My guess is that the upper wing in the right of the frame was clipped. The fish does look 1/2 bitten, so you could have taken a tail from another frame and inserted the head, or tail portion. Then again, maybe nothing was done and you're just showing us all how people like to believe things were Photoshopped!!! LOL ;)
>Was it a lucky guess or observation, tell us please!
Well Fabs, I thought it was the feet but looking at your original capture now I have to admit that it seems I was just lucky. The reason I went for feet was because I thought the top right leg (as we look - the birds left) seemed to be bent in a 'rounded' way which didnt seem natural to me, but that bit of leg is there in your original capture so it must just be my eyes. Incidentally now we know exactly what you did and where, I personally cannot detect any evidence of the joining in the original post - extreemly well done :)
Photoshop vs. Murphy's Law
Reply With Quote
