Galapagos #4/Is it Real, or is it Counterfeit?

[Arthur Morris]

This nestling Great Frigatebird with momma was photographed at Prince Phillips Steps on Tower Island with the handheld 400mm f/4 IS DO lens and the EOS-50D. Evaluative metering at zero: 1/800 sec. at f/6.3. I just love the 400 DO in the Galapagos.

Is this simply a low crop or did I do some extensive Photoshop work? If the latter, where and what?

Do feel free to comment on the image. Don't be shy; all comments are welcome.

ps: I would have loved a better head angle for the adult...

[Don Anderson]

It looks like something was removed bottom just to the R of the adults wing.
And I'd like to see some catch lights in the eyes. If you added the baby
you did a wonderful job! Might also be a tad tight on top and right edge.

[Ilija Dukovski]

Very complex composition here, nicely done. I don't mind the HA on the adult. The juv. takes all of the attention
so it is not bad if the adult is in "thoughtful" pose.
The contrast of colors and expression on the two birds makes the image. Curious juv. vs. serious mom.
Hm, PS cloning work? Well I really tried hard and all I can say the lower edge on the adult bill tip, just below the curved tip looks bit too straight, hard to find straight edges in nature. Did I come even close?

Cheers,

[Fabs Forns]

I you did anything, I don't see any trace
Love the chick's joy de vivre and smile.
Light looks a bit flat to me, I tried a Skylight filter at 20% opacity in Nik Color Effex Complete, hope you like it.

[Phil Ertel]

I like the placement of birds in frame. The composition of chick and adult is very pleasing. If you did any extensive PhotoShop work it is not obvious to me. The only thing I noticed when I reviewed it at 400% was a thin white line on the chicks gullet. If you did anything I would hazard a guess that it was here. However, I do not see it at normal viewing. It will be interesting to read what if anything was done to the image. Thanks for sharing.

[Tell Dickinson]

Hi Art, I think you added the 'little un' to an image of the mum - the light on the 'little un' looks a little more directional on its back compared to the light on mums head to me but I have only looked at it at the posted resolution so I am probably so very wrong

Tell

[Ramon M. Casares]

I think that you added part of the adult's bill.
Nice Portrait though, great atitude and exposure, BG and comp.
Congratulaitons!

[Doug Brown]

The tip of the adult's bill looks too sharply focused.

[Peter Kes]

Hi Arthur - did some hard looking here too at more than my usual magnification and could only 'see' work to the right of the left wing, as Don mentioned. I do think that the pupils could be darkened a tad. I don't agree with your own review re. head-angle: mom is looking back at the chick and the beak is a degree towards us and adds to the parental guard of the image. I can't imagine you pasted the juvenile in. Agree with Fabs about a little more warmth.

[Jay Gould]

I am only looking at the image as posted. To magnify it significantly IMHO defeats the purpose of the exercise, and goes back to the issue of magnifying to find fault that isn't there without the magnification.

Perhaps, it OK in these types of "tests" to magnify to find the changes, is it?

Anyway, my gut suggests that the chick was added.

I keep looking at the front outline of the chick against the mom and it is too clean.

Also the line of the chick's throat against the dark brown of the mother is too clean.

I would expect that the chick would be very close to the adult; yet the line of the chick is so much sharper than the adult's feathers.

Having said this, the adult's eye does appear to be looking back and therefore could be looking at the chick or something else.

On the adult's left wing edge there is a bit of a feather sticking out, and the BG at that point on my monitor is lighter than in that general area close to that particular feather sticking out than farther away towards the adult's beak.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Art, I think you added the 'little un' to an image of the mum - the light on the 'little un' looks a little more directional on its back compared to the light on mums head to me but I have only looked at it at the posted resolution so I am probably so very wrong Tell

You are a pretty smart guy....

[Arthur Morris]

I am only looking at the image as posted. To magnify it significantly IMHO defeats the purpose of the exercise, and goes back to the issue of magnifying to find fault that isn't there without the magnification.

Perhaps, it OK in these types of "tests" to magnify to find the changes, is it?

Anyway, my gut suggests that the chick was added.

I keep looking at the front outline of the chick against the mom and it is too clean.

Also the line of the chick's throat against the dark brown of the mother is too clean.

I would expect that the chick would be very close to the adult; yet the line of the chick is so much sharper than the adult's feathers.

Having said this, the adult's eye does appear to be looking back and therefore could be looking at the chick or something else.

On the adult's left wing edge there is a bit of a feather sticking out, and the BG at that point on my monitor is lighter than in that general area close to that particular feather sticking out than farther away towards the adult's beak.

You too appear to be a very smart man.

[Arthur Morris]

I like the placement of birds in frame. The composition of chick and adult is very pleasing. If you did any extensive PhotoShop work it is not obvious to me. The only thing I noticed when I reviewed it at 400% was a thin white line on the chicks gullet. If you did anything I would hazard a guess that it was here. However, I do not see it at normal viewing. It will be interesting to read what if anything was done to the image. Thanks for sharing.

Another smart man....

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Arthur - did some hard looking here too at more than my usual magnification and could only 'see' work to the right of the left wing, as Don mentioned. I do think that the pupils could be darkened a tad. I don't agree with your own review re. head-angle: mom is looking back at the chick and the beak is a degree towards us and adds to the parental guard of the image. I can't imagine you pasted the juvenile in. Agree with Fabs about a little more warmth.

Ah, "the work to the right of the left wing...." Another very smart man. I am glad that you like the HAs. Thanks for the other suggestions.

[Brian Barcelos]

Looks as though baby is saying cheese and mom is shying away from the picture. I can't believe the way you worked this one. I'd love to see the original image(s). Congrats Artie and I hope to some day be able to join you on one of these great trips.

Brian

[Harshad Barve]

This is such a cute image
My 2 questions Arthur
1) Whites looks hot to me on chik, i am correct or wrong
2) is this a crop, bit tight for me on top

all in all i like it
TFS

[Stuart Bowie]

Hi Artie, coming in so late on this, and the time difference, it was midnight here when you posted this,and I was in dreamland. All I can say is great pp work. Amazing looking beaks these guys have, and looking forward to more from your trip.

[Arthur Morris]

This is such a cute image
My 2 questions Arthur
1) Whites looks hot to me on chik, i am correct or wrong
2) is this a crop, bit tight for me on top
all in all i like it
TFS

Hi Harshad,

1-In the posted j-peg none of the white feathers are over-exposed. They look OK here. Have you calibrated your monitor yet?
2-No crop from the top but it would be easy to add canvas there is I wanted to.

[Harshad Barve]

Thanks a ton Arthur
lot to learn from you

1) my monitor is calibrated , I thought I MUST ask you about this , as I have to deal with so many whites in Tigrers

2) As you said no crop , I wont ask for adding canvas digitaly, 100% ok for me

TFS
Harshad

[Arthur Morris]

OK, here goes. This is the original. I simply could not back up any more with the 50/400DO....

[Arthur Morris]

At first I thought that adding the bill tip would be impossible as all I had was the sharp bill in this image.... I brought it into the original with a QM. After I placed it, I warped it and followed that with a Gaussian blur. But I was careless with the area noted first by Ilija. Darn! Kudos to Ramon and especially to Doug who noted the difference in sharpness. All of the other telltales signs of poor Photoshop work were in the original post.

[Arthur Morris]

But all was not lost, with the help of the sharp-eyed detectives who spotted the bill tip work, I went in and redid the image. I think that the results are much better. Ilija, Ramon, Doug: whaddy think?

Thanks a ton to all who played and especially to the sharp-eyed three who helped me create a better image.

[Arthur Morris]

ps: As you can see, I have already lightened the dark eyes and did not want to over-do it....

[Ramon M. Casares]

Well, I love the repost even better, but I would still suggest to blur a bit more the edges of the bill. Great image as said though. Something a little more like this IMO looks even more real. What do yuo think?

Congratulationos again.

[Krijn Trimbos]

I would defenitely go for Ramon's repost IMHO. Some of the edges of the bill were still too sharp compared to the rest of the bill in your last repost. The shot itself is really cool! Love the chicks vivid look, heardoo and dark parent really sets the chick off. It might be my work monitor but could there be a slight halo around the parents head, maybe because of lightening the blacks in shadow/highlight??? Great shot Artie......in these kind of situations it is just great to have PS isn't it!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Ramon. It looks as if your blurring was along the upper section of the bill. I will take another crack at it ASAP.

[Ilija Dukovski]

But all was not lost, with the help of the sharp-eyed detectives who spotted the bill tip work, I went in and redid the image. I think that the results are much better. Ilija, Ramon, Doug: whaddy think?

Thanks a ton to all who played and especially to the sharp-eyed three who helped me create a better image.

Sorry for late response, spend the weekend at the beach (some marshes too). Yes the bill tip is much better now, the lower edge follows the dark curve in the lower part of the tip and creates perfect natural feel. Ramon's repost is great too, but I'm not sure I'd noticed that if he didn't tell us. I certainly didn't notice in the first post. In any case great work here by everyone and learning a lot by me.

[Ramon M. Casares]

Thanks Ramon. It looks as if your blurring was along the upper section of the bill. I will take another crack at it ASAP.

You're welcome Artie, upper section was blurred but also the lower and a tad on the tip too.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks again. Did you use Gaussian blur?

[Ramon M. Casares]

I used the Blur Tool so I can, easily and quickly apply some blur only to the edges. It is a basic tool, but IMO for these type of needs it can be very usefull.