Getting Better with Quick Masking...

[Arthur Morris]

After teaching all day SAT in NJ and all day SUN on Long Island, it was great to get out to Captree State Park with Tom Pfeiffer and a few loaves of bread.

Image created with the handheld 400mm f/4 DO lens and the EOS 1-D MIII. ISO 400. Evaluative Metering +2 stops off the grey sky: 1/1600 sec.at f/5.6 set manually. Fill flash at -1 stop.

As is almost always the case, I clipped the wingtip on my very favortie pose. Used the techniques in Robert O'Toole's APTATS PDF to make the repair quickly and easily. I am learning. See the next pane for the original image.

[Arthur Morris]

This is the original image with four clipped primary feathers.

[Philip Lombard]

Excellent image, amazing at f/5.6 how you kept the head so sharrp.

[Judy Lynn Malloch]

Wow very impressive image and excellent work on the wing tips . Many thanks for sharing the how to;s in this type of situation Artie.

[Maxis Gamez]

Lovely work Artie.

[Stephen Stephen]

Very nice Artie. The wing tip repair really adds to the image as does the clear overlaping wing feather layers throughout. I love the boost in contrast. It makes the eye really pop in the re-worked version

[Dan Brown]

That is a great technique for saving an image! I have one suggestion though. I know that this is a bit much but as an avid birder, I immediately looked at the two primary wing tips and notice that the tips of these feathers are black and not white, as in the opposite wings matching primary feathers. This would be very easy to fix, I would think. Dan Brown, Sacramento

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Pretty impressive PS work! What is that black thing on the bird's right foot?

[Isak Pretorius]

Great work, it looks stunning! Thanks for sharing!

[Arthur Morris]

That is a great technique for saving an image! I have one suggestion though. I know that this is nit picky but as an avid birder, I immediately looked at the two primary wing tips and notice that the tips of these feathers are black and not white, as in the opposite wings matching primary feathers. This would be very easy to fix, I would think. Dan Brown, Sacramento

Hi Dan, Thanks for your suggestion; it was a great one. When I first read you post, I was thinking, "This guy is nuts; the first and second primaries were taken from the opposite wing--the primary tips must be identical. Then I looked at the image. I had warped all three of the wingtips (primaries 1-3) that I Quick Masked to make them look slightly different, but then I "repaired" (you could say that I ruined the scientific accuracy) of wingtips 3 and 4. How? In an effort to make them look different from the tips of P3 and P4, I repaired some rips in the tips, but used black instead of white...

As the primary tips are vital to gull identification, this was a grievous error so I thank you for pointing out my mistake. I just love learning on BPN.

I do take issue with one part of your post. You said, "I know this is nit picky." Your suggestion was not nit picky. I have always disliked the use of the word "nit" and the phrases "nit-picky" and nit picking" as I have always felt that they carried negative connotations. So I went to an on-line dictionary and found this:

nit·pick·ing (ntpkng) n. Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

While your suggestion may indeed concern minute wing tips, it certainly did not qualify as unnecessary, unjustified criticism. It was quite an important suggestion.

I do believe that there is very little actual nit-picking and will be starting a campaign to reduce the use of the various forms of nit-picking here on BPN. When someone takes the time to post to a thread with a suggestion for improvement, they are simply stating how they think that an image might (have been) improved. If they themselves refer to this as nit-picking, then they are insulting their own efforts, and if others call it nit-picking (as in "all the nits have been covered" then they are insulting the original poster.

Everyone will be hearing from us soon regarding my anti-nit-picking campaign. And if some folks wish to call my anti-nit-picking campaign nit-picking, I will be fine with that. In the meantime, thanks to Dan, a scientifically correct version of the original post appears in this pane.

[Arthur Morris]

Pretty impressive PS work! What is that black thing on the bird's right foot?

Hi Ax, It is a piece of dried grass. I actually decided to leave it rather than to make the image absolutely perfect. Weird, I guess...

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Arthur,
I like it the way it is,
Very nice composition and details on your subject's wings. :D

[Dan Brown]

Your welcome Art. I thought about the use of "nit picky" at the time and as a new forumer, I sort of wanted to be careful not to step on toes. I have read posts from listserves, emails etc, that were probably ment as constructive criticism but were read and taken as sort of rude comments. Thanks for your post and from this point on, I will not be afraid to post my observations and I definately will not use the "nit" term. Dan

[Dan Brown]

P.S. Fantastic job on those primaries in the redo!! Dan

[LouBuonomo]

Artie,

Thanks for sharing the techniques on LI Sunday... Hope you enjoyed coming "home", we enjoyed your presentation very much.

Good seeing you again,
Lou

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for your post and from this point on, I will not be afraid to post my observations and I definately will not use the "nit" term. Dan

YAW. We do want to encourage folks to share their honest thoughts and feelings about the images. And when someone takes the time to comment on an image, it is simply degrading for them or for others to call it nit-picking. Only once have I been subjected to nit-picking and in that case, it was maliciously motivated. This did not occur on BPN. As I lover of what is, I look back and realize that those malicious posts were in fact a good thing: they led indirectly to the birth of BPN!

ps: What some see as nit-picking I see as excellent suggestions by folks with great artistic vision, with amazing technical and Photoshop skills, and sometimes, with vision far better than ours... (I often cannot see the ghosting or the noise, but that does not make those comments nit-picking...)

pps: I simply grabbed the tips of the 3rd and 4th primaries, flipped them horizontally, and moved them in place.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, Thanks for sharing the techniques on LI Sunday... Hope you enjoyed coming "home", we enjoyed your presentation very much.Good seeing you gain,
Lou

Thanks Lou! It was a great group and I thoroughly enjoyed my day.

[Manos Papadomanolakis]

A masterpiece!

[Christopher Hill]

Okay - in the true spirit of nit picking then :)

I noticed in this post that you indicate that the image was taken with the 400mm f/4 DO lens at +2 off the gray sky. But in your BAA notes for April 14 (which has a pointer to this thread and image), you labeled the image as follows:

"Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS (handheld at 185mm) and the EOS 1D Mark III. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 2/3 stops off white sky..."

Since the EXIF info was stripped out of both images, I'm now dying with curiousity - which was it???

As far as the image goes, I love the composition and motion in the wings while the eyes are so deadly sharp and clear. Exposure on the whites is perfect!

[Arthur Morris]

Okay - in the true spirit of nit picking then :) I noticed in this post that you indicate that the image was taken with the 400mm f/4 DO lens at +2 off the gray sky. But in your BAA notes for April 14 (which has a pointer to this thread and image), you labeled the image as follows: "Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS (handheld at 185mm) and the EOS 1D Mark III. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 2/3 stops off white sky..."Since the EXIF info was stripped out of both images, I'm now dying with curiousity - which was it???

Hi Chris, No clue. It was one of the two... Actually, it could have been +2 off of one portion of the sky and +1 2/3 off a nearbly portion of sky... And even with the EXIF, you could not tell as they do not give you the EXP COMP relative to the metered EXP... They could, and they should, but they do not. And, even if they did, that would give you the EXP COMP at the moment of exposure not the amount of over-sexposure off of the sky.

And yes, I would have to agree on actual, real nit-picking :D

[Christopher Hill]

Actually, I was curious which lens you used. I've been wondering about the 400mm f/4 DO and how it performs under difficult lighting conditions. To me, this qualifies as difficult and the resulting contrasts and colors are so nicely done...

[Arthur Morris]

Actually, I was curious which lens you used. I've been wondering about the 400mm f/4 DO and how it performs under difficult lighting conditions. To me, this qualifies as difficult and the resulting contrasts and colors are so nicely done...

I used to borrow the 400 DO from Canon Professional Services for various trips. I liked it so much that I purchased one. I am even considering selling the last of my beloved toy lenses, the 400 f/5.6. As I have said many times in Bulletins and elsewhere, I do not have a critical eye for detail but I love my 400 DO and the images that I create with it. You can go to the Bulletin Archives and do a search for the lens. There you will find many additional comments and images.