Managed a few more Butterflies than usual this year before our summer came to an abrupt end. However I got very frustrated with the BG's that I was presented with and to date haven't mangaged a really pleasing BG on a Painted Lady which at present are very common. Decided to create my own BG in PS by applying Gaussian Blur to one image and creating a layer mask with the other and after selecting what I wanted to be sharp selected inverse and removed the layer with the brush tool.
It's the first one for me David, your BG is superb, it really makes the Painted Lady jump out of the screen, super detail and clarity too, top shot.
Andy...
Posted by David Taylor on July 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I viewed the image before you posted the original and I thought there was something not quite right about it for some reason. Then I read your explanation of the technique you used
and that explained why I felt that way. It is a pleasing image but on reflection I prefer the original with the proviso that some is cropped off the bottom to remove the brown blob in the LHC. I love black BGs so almost anything else is second best. The butterfly is excellent by the way.
Raises some interesting thoughts Dave. The first is obviously the more dramatic and focuses our attention the butterfly. I personally think somewhere a little in between.
What worries me is that this could also be used on birds etc , but would it be as acceptable ?? Might be a worm can. Theoretically a butterfly is ethically no diferent from any other form of wild life.
Making me think a bit. By the way - looks nice the other way up !!
Good stuff anyway.
Cheers
John
I prefer the first image, but I guess it is just a personal thing. I much prefer simple images! Great job on the blurring, although I don't think I would do it myself. Interesting topic!
David
Yes its fine to declare it on a forum like this or a competition etc, but if its used in a publication are they bothered ??
Some of the shots i've seen of late in publications, look very suspect, and then you pick up a camera mag and there's a dozen pages telling you how to do it.
Not sure where it's going to end.
By the way haow did you get around the antennae ??
Cheers
john
The original is my choice as it appears to be more natural. Its a very good well detailed & colurful image. Nicely composed too.
The process you have used on your bg is probably used on alot of images especially if the image is off into a book or mag where text will be added to the page.
This is the same sort of question I was asking with my Common Blue photograph about a week ago so I'm glad you've posted it as you've had a better response from people for obvious reasons.
My first impression was 'stonking image' and after reading the description I thought fair enough but im still thinking 'stonking image' I feel that like other people have stated is that for competitions and forums, as long as you say that it has been manipulated, its fine, and for publication its fine as its an image. So the question is where does this end? I think if you see an image in your mind when photographing the subject, and there's no physical way of removing the background (unless you have a lawnmower handy at the time!!) to get the OOF background that seems to be so important with photographs, then I guess post manipulation is fine to get that perfect image. Its time consuming but is it worth it?? I think your image gives the answer.. and for me its a definate yes! Its either this, or it goes in the rubbish bin and noone gets to see it.
I think its the fact with.. when everything else has been tried then the only solution is manipulation.
With the image itself it's superb but the only crit I can find with comparing images is the work around the antennaes where detail and thickness are lost.
Be interesting to see where this conversation goes....
I would say that if a picture editor had selected this image, I would tell them what I had done with the BG and nine time out of ten they would still use it.
Re the antennaes not easy and as Ian has pointed out I have lost a little detail another 15 minutes in Photoshop!!!
Second image is far better - and more natural looking. First is too clinical and studio-like for me. Second gives a hint of the insect's habitat, without it being at all distracting. My opinion, for what it's worth!
I think that what a commercial photographer does with an image is probably already the deciding factor in what they do to it. The first has more impact and I suggest would be chosen by the majority of editors given that choice. They don't care as much how a shot was achieved as they care whether it serves its purpose in their magazine or not. BBC wildlife have just published a couple of letters of complaint over a cover shot of a captive barn owl. It was an excellent shot, one of Danny's I believe and they had declared it to be captive but some customers complained so I guess ultimately the customer decides whether it is acceptable or not. As somebody who sells his images, you will know how much time you want to spend getting a shot ready for sale compared to what it will earn and that is the limiting factor commercially. I like them both equally and for different reasons, but I bet the first sells better. You've made an excellent job of the manipulation and there are ways of extracting that fine detail. There are already plenty of people (not me I might add) who are extracting smoke and using it in compositions, so, much as in the cinema, anything can and will be done.
If an image is not for sale, it doesn't matter but why bother anyway? If it is then the market will decide. If the image is out there to be judged or critiqued, then as you rightly say it should be admitted, but somewhere there is a fine line over whether it is a manipulation too far. No definitions, no rules, only opinions I'm afraid.
If it was mine, I would keep the excellent original and keep trying for an even better one.
A minefield. Eric
I do prefer the first one, although must admit I would prefer the smooth background to be natural. I'm not sure I would have guessed it had been blurred, I think I may have had my suspicions. An interesting topic. Is blurring a background any different to finding a cold, sluggish butterfly and moving its perch so that the background is less cluttered? I suppose not.
Hi David.....
I would have to say that the original is by far and away the better shot,I am not sure why there is this obsession to get a clear OOF background,I know it adds impact to the subject,but for my money I like the natural look,with just enough detail to give a clue as to the surroundings of the subject,and with a subject as clear and sharp as this one,it has all the impact for me.....
Stewart........
Hi David, I definitely prefer the first one. In your post-processing you haven't achieved anything else, than what you could have obtained at the place with a bit of luck (moving perches, playing with DOF etc). Therefore I think it's what I call acceptable manipulation. That you choose to declare it, just shows you are a man of honor.
Interestingly enough I have had an editor apply similar techniques to a photo of mine after he bought it for a book - it didn't bother me.
As the first one could very well have been photographed that way if you would have moved the BF somewhere else i prefer the first one but understand that there will alwaysbe people rejecting this type of manipulation.
Tough cookie...
Thanks for your comments which are all interesting with some valid points. I was thinking this morning (dangerous at my age) that when you shoot close up with a telephoto lens you are already manipulating what you see with the configuration of your optics and the same applies to many of the lenses we use that you rarely capture what the eye would see. So in reality manipulation has already started before you open Photoshop and you could say that by stating what you have done with your image in Photoshop isn't that different from stating what lenses and f stop you have used!
I suppose it depends upon where people feel comfortanble with the boundaries of photography.
Some would say it is up to the point you press the button and the light is captured. Others would agrue that it is also the darkroom/lightroom skills.
Could you have done the above in a dark room? It would have been quite hard to work that accurately on the negative/slide so I doubt it; therefore could now being able to so so be seen as progress - he says running for cover
Whilst I can see the anology to the lens i would say that to get the first bokeh from a lens with the encumbant DOF that the image subject has, well, it would have been some diaphragm and a huge F stop. I owned the king bokeh lens, a 85mm F1.2, and even at close focus with a distant BG similar to that in the second image it would not even come close.
In my opinion photography is an art form! We have many tools to help us produce an image that we have in our minds eye, such as controlling our exposure, using filters, varying lenses and many, many, more before you even get to post processing an image! They all manipulate an image, even if it is a subtle change – is it right or wrong?
The first image is truthful in its representation of the subject as it does in the original. The change in background makes the subject pop more and allows more focus on the subject. It is something that is done constantly in the fashion world today!
But as always it’s a personal thing! For me both images are good as show the subject well, so choosing between them would depend on the final usage for me.
Time doesn't permit me to read all the comments on this post so apologies if I repeat what has gone before.
Ethics and theory aside, does the applied manipulation work? In the case of the first image my honest answer is no. While the enhanced differential focus does wonders for the overall effect, the image is let down by the fact I can tell it has been manipulated. The area around the butterfly is great, however, the leaves and stem at the top show obvious signs of manipulation.
Ok, Assuming my view is correct . . . bare with me . . . I then start to consider not just the image but the photographer who took the shot and manipulated it. I start to think, "hmm, that David Kjaer bloke is a sound photographer but this is below par for someone with his ability. What's he manipulating images to this standard for, are his standards slipping?".
The point I'm trying to make is that some dodgy photoshopped images might impact on a photographer's reputation more than he/she realizes. While I understand where you were going with the manipulation, unless you can pull it off 100% then don't bother. The second image is just fine as it stands because it shows quality on all levels.
I like both ( that way I can stay on the fence) personally I am against too much manipulation as one can always see that it has been done, however editorially and for presentation here the first image is the strongest.
I think perhaps I would prefer it more if the bg was blurred less, but the trouble is Gaussian Blur looks far from a natural OOF blur, maybe one of these Bokeh PS plugins would do a more plausable job? I haven't tried them so do not know....
All the best
Posted by Brett Lewis on July 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Hi David, I to can see both sides of the argument and it really does depend on the task in hand I suppose. I would suggest however that the image is left untouched and let the editors decide.. However, be careful that they don't make a hash job of it as this will only reflect on the person being credited.. I try and go for an attempt to diffuse the BG through the camera first, but this is not always possible but the resulting shot can be just as good as it is here.. Fine detail and excellent colouring, processing etc..
Brett
Posted by David Kjaer on July 30, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Hi All
Thank you for your replies - refreshing to hear that a good number favour the original image. Chris 'are his standards slipping' I hope not! This was my first attempt at this kind of PS work and unlike you I was quite pleased with the result. Would I do it regularly 'no' however if a client wanted this sort of image yes I would do it as even the best natural history magazines like 'Birds' and 'BBC Wildlife' cut and paste onto plain BG's and text to give the subject more impact or improve the page layout!
Discussion
24 repliesWhich image do you prefer?
Canon 1D MkIII + 180 macro iso 640 1/800 @ f9
David
It's the first one for me David, your BG is superb, it really makes the Painted Lady jump out of the screen, super detail and clarity too, top shot.
Andy...
and that explained why I felt that way. It is a pleasing image but on reflection I prefer the original with the proviso that some is cropped off the bottom to remove the brown blob in the LHC. I love black BGs so almost anything else is second best.
What worries me is that this could also be used on birds etc , but would it be as acceptable ?? Might be a worm can. Theoretically a butterfly is ethically no diferent from any other form of wild life.
Making me think a bit. By the way - looks nice the other way up !!
Good stuff anyway.
Cheers
John
Hi David,
I prefer the first image, but I guess it is just a personal thing. I much prefer simple images! Great job on the blurring, although I don't think I would do it myself. Interesting topic!
Cheers,
Lewis.
I don't think I will be doing it too often as done properly it is a nightmare where fine and irregular surfaces are involved.
Hi John
Yes you could use it on any subject and only acceptable IMO where you declare how the image was achieved!
David
Yes its fine to declare it on a forum like this or a competition etc, but if its used in a publication are they bothered ??
Some of the shots i've seen of late in publications, look very suspect, and then you pick up a camera mag and there's a dozen pages telling you how to do it.
Not sure where it's going to end.
By the way haow did you get around the antennae ??
Cheers
john
The process you have used on your bg is probably used on alot of images especially if the image is off into a book or mag where text will be added to the page.
Lee
This is the same sort of question I was asking with my Common Blue photograph about a week ago so I'm glad you've posted it as you've had a better response from people for obvious reasons.
My first impression was 'stonking image' and after reading the description I thought fair enough but im still thinking 'stonking image' I feel that like other people have stated is that for competitions and forums, as long as you say that it has been manipulated, its fine, and for publication its fine as its an image. So the question is where does this end? I think if you see an image in your mind when photographing the subject, and there's no physical way of removing the background (unless you have a lawnmower handy at the time!!) to get the OOF background that seems to be so important with photographs, then I guess post manipulation is fine to get that perfect image. Its time consuming but is it worth it?? I think your image gives the answer.. and for me its a definate yes! Its either this, or it goes in the rubbish bin and noone gets to see it.
I think its the fact with.. when everything else has been tried then the only solution is manipulation.
With the image itself it's superb but the only crit I can find with comparing images is the work around the antennaes where detail and thickness are lost.
Be interesting to see where this conversation goes....
Great work as usual.
Cheers
Ian
I would say that if a picture editor had selected this image, I would tell them what I had done with the BG and nine time out of ten they would still use it.
Re the antennaes not easy and as Ian has pointed out I have lost a little detail
David
If an image is not for sale, it doesn't matter but why bother anyway? If it is then the market will decide. If the image is out there to be judged or critiqued, then as you rightly say it should be admitted, but somewhere there is a fine line over whether it is a manipulation too far. No definitions, no rules, only opinions I'm afraid.
If it was mine, I would keep the excellent original and keep trying for an even better one.
A minefield.
Matt
I would have to say that the original is by far and away the better shot,I am not sure why there is this obsession to get a clear OOF background,I know it adds impact to the subject,but for my money I like the natural look,with just enough detail to give a clue as to the surroundings of the subject,and with a subject as clear and sharp as this one,it has all the impact for me.....
Stewart........
Interestingly enough I have had an editor apply similar techniques to a photo of mine after he bought it for a book - it didn't bother me.
Very nice photo btw
Tough cookie...
Jeroen Stel
Thanks for your comments which are all interesting with some valid points. I was thinking this morning (dangerous at my age) that when you shoot close up with a telephoto lens you are already manipulating what you see with the configuration of your optics and the same applies to many of the lenses we use that you rarely capture what the eye would see. So in reality manipulation has already started before you open Photoshop and you could say that by stating what you have done with your image in Photoshop isn't that different from stating what lenses and f stop you have used!
David
Some would say it is up to the point you press the button and the light is captured. Others would agrue that it is also the darkroom/lightroom skills.
Could you have done the above in a dark room? It would have been quite hard to work that accurately on the negative/slide so I doubt it; therefore could now being able to so so be seen as progress - he says running for cover
Whilst I can see the anology to the lens i would say that to get the first bokeh from a lens with the encumbant DOF that the image subject has, well, it would have been some diaphragm
T
The first image is truthful in its representation of the subject as it does in the original. The change in background makes the subject pop more and allows more focus on the subject. It is something that is done constantly in the fashion world today!
But as always it’s a personal thing! For me both images are good as show the subject well, so choosing between them would depend on the final usage for me.
Great images David!
Time doesn't permit me to read all the comments on this post so apologies if I repeat what has gone before.
Ethics and theory aside, does the applied manipulation work? In the case of the first image my honest answer is no. While the enhanced differential focus does wonders for the overall effect, the image is let down by the fact I can tell it has been manipulated. The area around the butterfly is great, however, the leaves and stem at the top show obvious signs of manipulation.
Ok, Assuming my view is correct . . . bare with me . . . I then start to consider not just the image but the photographer who took the shot and manipulated it. I start to think, "hmm, that David Kjaer bloke is a sound photographer but this is below par for someone with his ability. What's he manipulating images to this standard for, are his standards slipping?".
The point I'm trying to make is that some dodgy photoshopped images might impact on a photographer's reputation more than he/she realizes. While I understand where you were going with the manipulation, unless you can pull it off 100% then don't bother. The second image is just fine as it stands because it shows quality on all levels.
Cheers,
Chris
I think perhaps I would prefer it more if the bg was blurred less, but the trouble is Gaussian Blur looks far from a natural OOF blur, maybe one of these Bokeh PS plugins would do a more plausable job? I haven't tried them so do not know....
All the best
Brett
Thank you for your replies - refreshing to hear that a good number favour the original image. Chris 'are his standards slipping' I hope not! This was my first attempt at this kind of PS work and unlike you I was quite pleased with the result. Would I do it regularly 'no' however if a client wanted this sort of image yes I would do it as even the best natural history magazines like 'Birds' and 'BBC Wildlife' cut and paste onto plain BG's and text to give the subject more impact or improve the page layout!
David