Prairie Warbler - how much PP is too much?
Here's the final version of this guy singing up a storm. Took out a lot of busy background. Please see the next frame, and let me know what you think.
D7000 | 500f4 + 1.4 TC | ISO 2500 | 1/5000s @ f7.1 | + 0.7 EV | monopod
(Didn't need the high ISO and SS; got excited when I saw the bird singing, and I guess I didn't check my settings.)
Here's an earlier version, with some adjustment made to the busy BG. I felt I just couldn't make it look right, and the X-shape behind the bird was distracting, so I took it all out in the final version. I'd appreciate your comments.
an excellent job. Having gone this far, I might be tempted to go for a more interesting colour than grey for the background though!
Nice PS job on this one, nice eye and angle is not too steep. I am on work monitor but the cleanup process looks solid. Aperture is good as well and I know what you mean about the excitement factor. When ever I get a good view my heart always pounds a bit too.
There seems to be a bit of a trend for singing birds at the moment. Nice shot of the Prairie Warbler.
I tend to agree with Geoff. A more natural bg such as an OOF shot of trees or bushes would look better.
Joe
Nice job Bill, and I don't think it's too much at all. I am from OOTB, after all...I think I would have left the one bit of leaf in the upper left.
Following Joe's lead about the bg, I would like to mention that I have a tutorial on replacing the entire background here - http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...eMask-Tutorial
"It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson
Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com
Oh oh Kerry, now I've got some thing else to learn. But might be useful with all my limbs here in AZ.
Bill, I agree with the X as distracting but I would have left some of the leaves particularly in the upper left. But that's really up to us as individuals I think, The good thing is you nailed the shot, nice singing bird, good exposure and IQ, so to me any way, some of our comments are just each of our personal taste. To be considered or not. I like your term "keeper", this is sure one I would keep, leaves in what corner or not.
And I'm so glad to see some of you guys I look up to get "trigger itch" and forget to check the settings.
Thank you all for the comments. I've stopped short of pasting in an entirely different BG, but I have brightened it up and altered the blue a bit; and I've added back in one leaf. It does look better, and I appreciate the suggestions. Although I feathered my selection, the whole thing does seem to have a little bit of cookie cutter look to it.
Kerry, thanks for the link to the tutorial. I haven't yet absorbed it fully, nor do I yet have ReMask, but I'll spend some more time digesting it -- it looks very helpful.
As a beginner PS5 user, how do I start to do what you did here Bill? What are the baby steps involved ai anyone could offer that to me? BTW, I can hear the singing, beautiful bird.
Ann, I use PS Elements 9, so my methods are primitive compared to many BPN folks. Elements does maybe 90% of what CS5 can do, but layer masks are one of its shortcomings, and that is the key to what I did here. You might want to look at Kerry's tutorial for Topaz ReMask, which looks like a winner. But to answer your question, I start by selecting just the subject, feathering the edge by maybe 2 px, and saving the selection with a name like "Bird and perch". This allows me to do lots of things independently to either the subject (like s/h) or the background (like NR). The more care you take selecting the subject, the better the results will be. I make liberal use of the Quick Selection Tool and the Magic Wand Tool to separate the bird from the BG, using gradually diminishing brush sizes to fine-tune the selection, sometimes getting down as small as 3 or 4 px; but ReMask could probably do a better, quicker job. Once that's done and saved, I load the selection, select inverse, and make a working layer of the BG. I run Topaz DeNoise on the BG first. Then (on another BG layer) I use the Clone Stamp to remove distracting elements of the BG, cloning desirable areas of sky or foliage over undesirable branches, etc. After removing what I want, I use a larger Clone brush at low opacity (20-30%) to smooth out the result. In this case, I kept cloning out more and more undesirable elements, searching for the right balance, and wasn't satisfied until I had removed everything and left just the sky. So in this case, I could have just pasted in an entirely new BG, I suppose, as Kerry's tutorial does.Originally Posted by annmpacheco
When I get the BG where I want it, I go back and work on the subject, using multiple layers to fine tune the s/h, levels, eye-doctor work, and other aspects as needed.
I don't know if that answers your question. As I say, my methods are pretty primitive, so hopefully one of the power users of CS5 will chime in with a more sophisticated approach.
Hi,
It's just my opinion, and I'm probably in a significant minority. Perhaps it's just an excuse, as around here it's almost impossible to get images of small woodland birds without a cluttered background. But I like natural backgrounds that show the bird as a living being in context, instead of an isolated object. So I actually prefer the original to the post-processed version. I also rather like the v-shaped branches above the beak.
Richard
looks like lots of opinions here. IMO the plain blue is just too stark and seems fake. I like the blurred background as it seems more natural. If you think it conflicts with the bird, you could do a slight desat with or without a bit more blurr. Good shot of the bird. It's nice to have so much input also and see what so many others think.
Thank you Richard and Hazel. I do appreciate the variety of opinions, which is what I was hoping for when I posted this. I also prefer some background other than blue (or grey) sky, and tried to achieve that through various degrees of blur and desat, but somehow just couldn't make it look right. I think what really bothered me most (notwithstanding Richard's comment) was the Vee shape emanating from the open beak, as if he were broadcasting it. Maybe when I get a moment I'll take another stab at it, and see if I can get rid of that vee while keeping some BG. Thanks for your thoughts.
Posting Permissions
