Editing images

As a nebie here, I have a question regarding the backgrounds of bird images. Most of them have very blurred backgrounds - how many of these are due to depth of field, and how many due to editing work in Photoshop?

How much editing is 'allowed' in images? I have many images that would look fantastic if I masked and replaced the backgrounds

Just wanting to get a feel for what level of editing is accepted practice.

Ray.

Raymond - A post probably would say if the BG was actually replaced - like with something from a different shot, or a huge amount of blur (which I think is very rare). I'd guess that in general, very little of the BGs in the shots here are changed much from the original image. I think some may have a slight blur added, but most are pretty much as shot with the usual post processing for crop, color, tones, and sharpness.

I'm not much of an avian guy though, so maybe one of the guys with the big lenses can chime in.

And as far as what's "allowed" - that's up to you. But if it's a big change, disclosure of what you've done to an image should be made when posting too.

Raymond, those smooth blurry background are the hallmark of the Arthur Morris school of bird photography. If you like the style you may want to get his book "Birds as Art" and/or visit his web site for more information on technique.

Guy

Raymond,

While I haven't done bird/wildlife photography in a while, the concepts don't change. And I can't speak to any specific images, but in straight-forward wildlife photography, blurred backgrounds are usually the result of wide-open lenses with the subject close and the background far away. If folks are "replacing" backgrounds or using some significant amount of blurring in PS, then they should be posting in PhotoArt, as many do. If you do any purposeful blurring in PS, you should indicate that in your post.

Lon

What Lon said. My rule is "what looks good to the eye, and what is acknowledged." If the bokeh looks kind of clunky, I don't mind enhancing it, but I will tell you about it. If there is a piece of distracting trash, I am not above cloning it out, if I can. And I will tell you about it.

Thanks for the replies.

I for one can't afford a £4000 lens, so would not be able to shoot 'wide open' on many occasions. For the price I can afford, I may end up shooting at F8 to get acceptable levels of sharpness in the subject. I would love a lens that allowed me F2.8

I have just replaced a background behind a bird. The bird itself is sharp, but the background was cluttered due to the apperture. The background was from the same location but shot out of focus. What I don't want to do, is post the image with an explanation, but still be thought of as a 'cheat'

As long as you disclose that you did some editing and tell what exactly you did then no one should call you a cheat. If you are really concerned you could always post it in the photo art forum.

You may want to ask around about what lenses others are using Raymond. I certainly don't believe it takes a multi-thousand dollar lens to get good results at wide open apertures. I've seen great shots from lesser lenses - maybe not as many, and certainly most bird photogs end up buying expensive glass. But it's definitely not impossible by any means.

Hi Ray,

What lens are you shooting with at the moment?

Using TC's can help increase focal lengths while retaining a shallower DOF. i.e. say a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC would become 450mm @ f/5.6 but still have an effective DOF of f/4 - this lens isn't £4000. It will smooth out your background though.

You don't need f/2.8 when using longer lenses. f/4 on a 500mm or 600mm is fast as is f/5.6 on a 800mm.

Email me direct if you want more info on some cheaper options for telehphoto's in the UK (I know of a few dealers that can help new & used).


Using layers is something some do. I think it's ok as long is it is stated. I prefer camera techniques to post production - simply because I'm not as adept as some when it comes to processing my images.

I have been using the Canon 70-300mm lens. I have been reading reviews of lenses around 400-500mm. I can't go above £1000

The Canon 100-400mm looks good and with a 1.4 TC should be reasonable for bird photography. However, the Sigma 50-500 'Bigma' gives extra reach, but no image stabilisation - how is it with a 1.4tc?

I will mainly be shooting birds, so want to spend my £1000 wisely

Ray

I would say that the smooth backgrounds in most of the posts in Avian are done in camera. Look at the settings for most of these photos and you can see... big lenses shot at f4 or f5.6. It's pretty tough to doctor a background and make it look realistic, and not really worth the effort. It's much easier to get it right in camera.

Hi Ray,

I'm a nikon shooter but from various things I read and heard about the 100-400mm is;

1. A good lens all-round and sharp but every once in a while a bad 'un turns up.
2. Not that sharp nor fast with AF when a TC is connected.

Check out some posts on the UKNP as this was covered not that long back.

Hi Ray,

These posts will help explain more about the Canon 100-400mm + TC

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=27154&CGISESSID=920c4cbf1149acc2568634846d6d6dd4&u=4813

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=27045&CGISESSID=920c4cbf1149acc2568634846d6d6dd4&u=5023

Hope it helps!

Hmmm, I would have opted for the 100-400mm with a 1.4, but that combi does not look like it gives good quality results. As I like taking shots of birds, it looks like the sigma 50-500 'bigma' for me until I can afford the Canon 500!!

Ray.

Don't dismiss the ‘Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 SP AF DI Lens’ this is an affordable lens which is good on it's own (no TC added).