Query regarding file

<p>Dear Members ,</p>

<p>I am uploading three photos and I need your opinions on them . Please see the background of the first and second photos , for the first image of tigress, the shutter speed was 1/500 , the effective focal length was 850 mm , the lens was tamron 150-600 mm with vc on . For the second image , shutter speed was 1/400 , effective focal length 750mm , lens was same with vc on . Camera was Nikon D5300 .</p>

<p>In both the images , there was no wind but it seems there is movement of the vegetation . The animals are sharp , however . Is there anything worth noticing from the angle of post processing in these images , other than the backgrounds ?</p>

<p>For the third image , there is branch over the face of the man on the right taking a photo with his mobile phone . Is it possible for the expert hands to clone the branch over the face ?</p>

<p>Regards .</p><div></div>

<p>Second image</p><div></div>

<p>Third image</p><div></div>

<p>You aren't seeing movement in the foliage. That's how your lens renders out of focus areas behind the subject, what is commonly called "bokeh." Specifically, you lens creates bright edges, which results in an appearance resembling motion in linear objects. A bright spot would appear as a ring with a darker center.</p>

<p>Hello Edward :) ,</p>

<p>Regarding first and second photos , I think I have prematurely reacted and suspected the involvement of the lens . I would see more photos before drawing a conclusion . </p>

<p>Can you or any other photoshop Guru ( expert ) enlighten me on the third photo , whether the branch over the man's face be cloned ?</p>

<p>Is the purpose to remover the branch, or to further obscure the face? </p>

<p>Regarding the first two images, can you provide what f/stop you were shooting? If the aperture of your lens was wide open (or only reduced by a stop or two) the background will be rendered out of focus as Edward points out. In many instances this is a desired effect because it allows the viewer to direct his/her gaze on the primary subject. When everything is in focus, the image can look rather cluttered, giving your subject less impact. </p>

<p>As for the the cloning, if you mean to eliminate the branches and create a whole face, it might be possible, depending on how much of the man's face is not obscured and could be used to fill in the missing areas. It is difficult to see in this instance because the image is rather small. If you have other photos with this man in them with an unobstructed face, that could be utilized as well. In fact, if you don't particularly need <em>this</em> man, you could use someone else's face/head from another photo to give you the appearance you may be looking for.</p>

<p>For the first image , it was f9 and for the second image it was f8 .</p>

<p>For the first image , the subject was closer , so I would prefer not to stop up because that would reduce the dof , putting the rest of the part of the animal , strikingly out of focus .</p>

<p>For the second image , the subject was more distant . Since the subject was parallel , probably I could have stopped up ( reducing dof ) .</p>

<p>But for the first and second images , does the background , in the eyes of viewer look cluttered ? In such field split second oriented situation , it is not possible to check dof . The D5300 does not have the dof review button .</p>

<p>Matt , I would like to remove the branch over the face . In the original much larger file , I found it to be difficult since the branch has gone over one of the eyes . So , is the question to the photoshop gurus here .</p>

<p>Whatever has been suggested as a remedial measure by David is interesting . I am not that photoshop savy yet . The complexion and lighting needs to match also . What if I clone the other eye and turn it around ?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p><em>But for the first and second images , does the background , in the eyes of viewer look cluttered ?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Sure, you can alter the background, but for a price. If the background is busy in the viewfinder, and unless you are using 400/2.8 wide open and cropping in pp, it will likely remain so on the final photo. The closer you're to the animal, the better bokeh (fuzz effect) you'll have. Sometimes it's possible to alter position to eliminate busy background. Sometimes, the only way to deal with this is to open the lens to the max (presuming F6.3) and have the background go more blurry than at F9. I was going to show you a recently taken pic of a heron shot at 500mm, and on FX camera, it was taken with DOF F6.3 and the beak is (close to camera) sharp and the focus fall-off on the rest of the body is not v. drastic at all....anyway, not much difference between 600mm. OK, granted, having the animal be 10' from me, the eyes would be sharp and however busy the background....it would be, pretty much, an irrecognizable wall.</p>

<p>If one wants to have something personal and special vs snap or a "post card", one can determine what sort of background one wishes to have, how much DOF, where is the ideal light-shadow space, etc,...and 100 other decisions - all of that is part of learning process. Part of the fun too....not to mention aha moments. Anyway, one has to work with limitations of their camera/optics....making the best of it.</p>

<p>Can't help with the pp of the person, since I don't have a PS....and don't necessarily want one, either.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Leszek ,</p>

<p>Previous to my present lens , I used Sigma 170-500 D and whenever I used f6.3 (at longest focal length ) , I got beautiful bokeh . However this lens is new to me and there is a learning curve with every tool .</p>

<p>For , such split second photograph , is there any way to foresee the dof ? Even with cameras with dof preview button , the scene would be lost by the time one finishes the dof preview !</p>

<p>The lens is also not the sharpest at widest opening but few stops down , so that is also the reason for selecting f8 and 9 . </p>

<p>So , if I chose widest apertures for first and second pictures , I would have got creamier bokeh but the image would have been less sharp . Stopping down makes background little cluttered ( if not totally ) . </p>

<p>So whats the solution ? Correct the background through post-processing ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm still old school but have a D300 and use lens from my F4s kit. The old school rule of thumb is 1/lens focal length is the slowest shutter speed one can use hand held and expect sharp results. In the case of VR / VC lens that has possibly changed by a few shutter speeds. <br>

In your photos 1 and 2 the subject to the focal plane is close enough that the VC has adequately compensated for any camera movement that may have occurred during exposure but the more distant background has a wider arc for the same angle as the subject that may be at the outer edge of the VC capabilities or just beyond them.</p>

<p>I suggest you put the camera on a good tripod and shoot some test scenes at the higher zoom settings and apertures similar to what you used in the posted shots then shoot the same scenes hand held at the same settings and compare the results.</p>

<p>When I was in my 20"s to 30"s I could hand hold a 50mm lens on a 35mm body at 1/15 and get sharp results, today its 1/60. When using zooms I go for the monopod.</p>

<p>If I understood you correctly ,</p>

<p>"The effectiveness image stabilisation would vary with distance , the background being distant , the image stabilisation could not nullify/negate the handshake" .</p>

<p>I did not think about this and thanks for pointing it out . I would have to use the lens more , hand held with stabilization on , to actually know the safe shutter speed .</p>

<p>When I do bird photography from a fixed place , I use tripods turning off the image stabilization .</p>

<p>It was not my photographic tour so I had not gone there fully geared . I could not have placed a tripod in the open jungle safari jeep due to lack of space . A monopod could have been useful . I do not have other specialized gear for attachment to the jeep's body . There were vehicles and other jungle safari tourists in front of me . I was standing tall trying to get the view . So , bean bags could not have been useful , even if I had them .</p>

<p>Thanks .</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your third image has far too low a resolution to do justice to any cloning. I increased the resolution by about 7x, did some cloning then reduced the image back to your original posting size. Not a very good example I'm afraid but the best that I could do. I did some cropping and small size adjustment to the image to show my work.</p><div></div>

<p>Grt ! Though it seems seeing the swollen ( ? ) right eye that the man has been punched by someone :) </p>

<p>Thanks all for your responses .</p>