C&C Bird Crop

Muineach

So here I am again, 2 photo's, I just can't decide on the "cropping", any other suggestions on the photo are of course welcome.
I think I still have a bit of sharpening to do on number 2.
Thanks
Muineach

Full


Proposed Crop


Full


Proposed Crop

Calina

I wouldn't crop the second one. the first one I'm not too sure about.

Muineach

hmm i just tend to find the background a bit "busy" on number 1, but the log in the crop doesn't look right to me.
to crop or not to crop, that is the question

majiktripp

Very nice pics first of all, I have to say I like both originals and not so much the crops on either of them. Love the subject matter though, we have several of those birds here in Galway (They're not Cranes but thats the only name comming to mind) and their fantastic birds.
Once again thanks for sharing!

AnCatDubh

they're all nice to be honest. but I agree the backgrounds are busy - a little more depth of field at source would have been better. I'm generally a fan of tight crops so I think crop away to your hearts content. i think the crop will reduce the % of ‘busyness’.

nice work. cheers.

Calina

You could apply a Gaussian blur to the background to de-busify it I think.

Muineach

Well I went and "blurred" the background (lens blur, PS) to reduce the "busyness". I didn't want to go too far, plus creating a mask for those long thin feathers on the front of his chest was a bloody nightmare
So does it still look realistic ? or did I go too far ?

BTW the bird is called a "grey heron" according to a little book I have.


Original


DOF


Original vs. DOF

Calina

I like it.

On the subject of the mask for the feathers, I sympathise. You have not truly hated life until you have had to pick your way around the head of a kitesurfer 7 times for a sequence shot.

Muineach

Calina wrote:

I like it.

On the subject of the mask for the feathers, I sympathise. You have not truly hated life until you have had to pick your way around the head of a kitesurfer 7 times for a sequence shot.

Hmm do you know that the quick selection tool is pretty good especially if there's a change in color (surfer vs. sea), try looking at the picture in one of the channels, red green or blue, generally you can get a better contrast in one of those channels.
Run the quick selection tool on 1 channel, then enable the RGB version and you should have a decent selection made ? might be worth a try
In my case the color of the rocks were all over the place

5uspect

Yeah the lens blur is probably more accurate (or less accurate in terms of reaslism!) than the gaussian blur.

As for masking errors there's always the history brush...

AnCatDubh

Well done Derek. I like the progression of this image.

The one i like best at this stage is; IMG_3901_dof



I think the difference between 'gone to far' and being ok is when your image remains in the 'realm of believability' and in the case of your work on this image (and in my humble opinion) i think it is very much still believable.

Cheers.

SOL

I still think you could put in a lot more blur, imagine if that was taken at f2.8 on a long telephoto lens, the back ground would be much smoother... give it a go

Muineach

I know what you mean, the problem is that the photo would begin to look unnatural, I tried it out and using the on-line DOF calculator to calculate the DOF, as I took it(might be wrong), it was about 0.4ft either side of the bird, which as the bird is large/wide/thick enough I just about managed to keep the whole bird within the DOF.
By jumping to 300m it drops down to 0.2ft and at f2.8 it drops again to 0.1ft,which means the DOF would be about 6cm.
As the photo is now, i really should put a lens blur in the foreground as well.

As it was shot:

Subject distance Approx 25 ft

220mm, f5
In front of subject 0.38 ft (49%)
Behind subject 0.39 ft (51%)


300mm, f5
In front of subject 0.19 ft (50%)
Behind subject 0.2 ft (50%)


300mm, f2.8
In front of subject 0.11 ft (50%)
Behind subject 0.11 ft (50%)