May I be the second

[Edu Lorenzo Jr]

Hello,

May I be given the honor of being the second "client" of this thread please?

I have here two images, the first one is straight from the camera and I decided to photo-CHOP it ;D to look more natural. My goal is to make it look like taken from nature and to my untrained eyes, the bird just pops out too much.

Original taken with a Nikon D60 and a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG at F5.6, 1/160, ISO 100



As anyone can see, it does not reflect an image from "nature" because of the cables.

here is my edited image..



There are still some minor details to be cleaned up but my focus, as I have mentioned is that I think the bird pops-out too much (easily seen by predators )

All critiques, comments, suggestions, even laughter are welcome. ;D

Edu

[Romy Ocon]

Hi Edu,

First, let me get this off my chest - I don't encourage fellow bird shooters to regularly do "major post processing surgery" on their bird photos and post these in their gallery together with their captures that were processed minimally. If at all, such majorly altered images may be posted with full disclosure of the PP done, so as to preserve the integrity of one's other images.

I personally subscribe to Naturescapes' convention of presenting bird photos as natural history images, with minimal PP work, and with most factors affecting aesthetics done during capture instead. Major PP work would turn the image into a digital art piece, and may be cause for non-publication by well respected groups like Nat Geo. Digital alterations, together with baiting and bird calls, are among the hotly debated and discussed topics among serious birdshooters in net forums.

With this in mind, I have the following comments on the capture, but wouldn't suggest a PP approach other than the usual, straight-forward one.

The perch being unnatural is not ideal, the shooting angle is too steep, the light is on the flat side, and the BG is a featureless blown sky. Personally, the only time I'd raise my camera in this situation is when the bird is a lifer. My intention then would've been just to make a record shot, to be processed without bells and whistles, and to be presented as a documentary image instead of an aesthetic one.


Romy

[Edu Lorenzo Jr]

All points taken and I agree on all points. I have a separate set in my gallery for my post processed images. A set for those images that has gone extreme surgery. Even if most of my pics are post processed (as of course I also consider cropping as post processing even if I did in "in-camera")

As for the image itself, I had no choice, I was hiding and keeping still while trying to document the behavior that I observed so I did not have the luxury of changing my angles but I still had a blast taking the images. I believe the experience is half as important as going home with a picture. I am actually happy with the original image and it's companion images that describes the behavior. Then I went overboard to produce a "natural" looking image.

I just hit a goldmine in this thread. I have been honored to experience the mastah's generosity in giving tips and words of wisdom. A million thanks to Mastah Romy

[Romy Ocon]

Hi Edu,

Post processing is an unavoidable fact of digital photography. How much processing is too much depends on the use of the bird photo, on the personal preference of the photographer and on the terms of the image's end user.

If the photo is to be presented as a natural history image, say for submission to Nat Geo or posting in well-respected sites like Naturescapes' Birds section, then the following boundaries we have adopted in the National Museum exhibit loosely apply:

No "major post-processing surgery" is allowed, except cropping, sharpening, resizing, mild noise reduction, and adjustments of exposure, contrast, brightness, levels and saturation.

Please note that Naturescapes itself has a board called Digital Art, where any PP technique can be used. This tells us that digital art is a legitimate art in itself, distinct from natural history photography. It does pay to learn the basics of digital art (creative PP work), or better yet be proficient at it. There might be situations in the future when the image’s end user will not only allow it, but will actually ask for its application.

At PBPF, there’s no hard and fast rule on what images are postable. It would be more ethical though if one gives a full disclosure on any major PP done on a posted image.

Please don't be offended by my candid (read: harsh) comments on the bee-eater capture. This is intended to be constructive, and to assist you in not committing the same errors we had when we were starting out. I actually posted in international forums early on and got my share of adverse comments (some less diplomatic and sensitive than others). The comments were naturally a bit tough to digest at first, but these made me a better birdshooter in the long run. ;D

Romy

[Edu Lorenzo Jr]

Mastah Romy,

I am the hardest person to offend, as I have probably the most lighthearted disposition in life that you will see . I am in the IT world and IT forums are "less friendlier" than ours here. This is actually the first board where I belong that the main-man does not go about like an alpha-male and I love it here. This is the first time I went that far in post-processing as I believe this is the best thread to post an image with that much processing.

"but these made me a better birdshooter in the long run. ;D" -this part, holds true for me too.

Thanks a Million mastah!

Edu

[Romy Ocon]

Rey posted a comment which I have to delete, as comments are not allowed in the sub-board, except by the topic starter and the critique giver. Thanks anyway, Rey!