Richard the only worry for me, but then it may be old time habit, the eye without a highlight always looks dead, fill in flash no matter how small will just register a highlight, I know the light angle in your photo , which is overhead can never register a highlight, all other improvements are for the better.
Loukie, beleive it or not there was a double catch light in the original---I cloned out the top one and left the smaller bottom one. Its tiny; its hard to see,but its there. I agree, the eye looks dead without it. Thanks.
This looks definitely much better. You can also reply to your own thread to post an altered version of an image.
I would emphasize the catchlight a bit more and might crop a bit off the left as the bird is a bit centered in the frame for my taste. Keep them coming!
I never saw the original but do like this shot a lot, it's a beautiful bird in good light and nicely posed.
I would crop a bit off the left as well and work the highlight a bit more.
I much prefer the BG in this version, but I preferred the saturation on the bird itself before. Good job on toning down the whites of the perch too. I agree on accentuating the catchlight.
Hey Dick, This is definitely looking better. Agree on some selective saturation on the bird. You done good on the bright branch for sure. Usually when I clone a double catch I get rid of the lower one. A natural catch light from the sun or sky should always reflect in the top half of the eye. Catch lights from flash are usually a little too small and too low to look natural. I did a crop from left and bottom, fixed the eye up a little, did a slight curve adjustment and a big shadow adjustment in shadow/highlights. I then saturated just the bird and sharpened a tad with USM. What do you think?
Like the colours and sharpness.
The re-post with the catch-light seem to bring in some excitement in the image. Catch-light makes such a big difference.
Reply With Quote