Hi Craig,
Differant crop from the norm but I can see this would be good in a magazine. So where you transporting spoonbills? Amazing, I wonder if its the same bird that appeared in lancaster recently.
Nice image of the bird itself but if I am being absolutely honest, I am not too keen on the way you cut out your subjects from their background (with PS I imagine).
It makes them look too "unreal" for want of a better word as if they had been cut out on paper and stuck onto a cardboard background and rephotographed
It doesn't but I do a lot of mats and cut-outs for advertising etc and this just "reeks" of it. If it's not a cut-out it's a case of heavy background blurring to produce a similar effect.
In fact, if you look at the nape of the neck, you'll see evidence of some hefty PS editing.
To me (and it is only my opinion), it makes it look a little unreal.
Mind you, I have been known to be wrong on the odd occasion
The only editing I have done is crop by about 15% Used Noise Image removed a tiny piece of fluff from its beak and sharpened image all in lightoom. It was sitting on a bridge with a grass field behind it. If you look on my pbase/peregrine site you will see that I try and get clear backgrounds as much as is possible.
It does look very similar so as I say, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it's a feature of the bokeh from this lens. Can you see the bit behind the nape of the neck I was referring to?
I still think it looks a little unatural but maybe that's because I like contextual images rather than 'big' pics of animals (sorry all - only my opinion which is why we post images for critique isn't it?)
Having said all this, it would be a very suitable image for publication as it has a nice lot of space for editorial use.
Discussion
7 repliesDifferant crop from the norm but I can see this would be good in a magazine. So where you transporting spoonbills? Amazing, I wonder if its the same bird that appeared in lancaster recently.
Tim
It makes them look too "unreal" for want of a better word as if they had been cut out on paper and stuck onto a cardboard background and rephotographed
In fact, if you look at the nape of the neck, you'll see evidence of some hefty PS editing.
To me (and it is only my opinion), it makes it look a little unreal.
Mind you, I have been known to be wrong on the odd occasion
Barrie, have a look at this shot.
http://paulgibbs.fotoblog.co.uk/p40567130.html
This was with my Sigma 500. No PS was used other than sharpening in Focalblade. So no cloning or blurr added.
Looks very similar to me.
It does look very similar so as I say, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it's a feature of the bokeh from this lens. Can you see the bit behind the nape of the neck I was referring to?
I still think it looks a little unatural but maybe that's because I like contextual images rather than 'big' pics of animals (sorry all - only my opinion which is why we post images for critique isn't it?)
Having said all this, it would be a very suitable image for publication as it has a nice lot of space for editorial use.
Barrie