Mr Percival, Big Boy and Babe sing!

I agree with Dick! But By removing the bigger pelcan in the background and removing the segal that is faced the other way in the bottom lef-hand corner, would make the picture even a bit more better for advertising purposes. Also removing the clouds and having a beautiful blue sky would make it a very nice picture!

Hi John,

Great photo. I've got a side question... where did you take this shot? I was in Australia this summer, and I've got a photo that's really similar to this one--I took it at Tangalooma Resort, on Moreton Island. I'm just curious... thanks for any info!

This is a GREAT photo...capturing a split second in time. As a previous person said, don't mess with the integrity of the photograph. That is not to say there is no creativity in the use of PS, there certainly is, but I think too many people use PS to fix what is not broken. Leave this as is, a photograph. Don't change it to an image through the use of PS.

Congrats on POW.

Why not kill all the birds (plus a few extra for spares), have them stuffed, arrange the birds in a pleasing manner, take another photo in the studio using filtered sand against a painted backdrop and then hang the finished print on the wall so we can appreciate the unspoiled wonder of nature from the safety and comfort of our own homes? That photo was from Kansas, right?

 

"Ignore that man behind the curtain, I am the Wizard of Oz."

Such a funny and natural shot! I suppose it was quite hard for you to keep them all playing ; )

 

You are asking about cloning the seagulls, I wouldn´t do it, I would probably get rid of the fourth pelican, but then, it would look too "arranged", I don´t know. I like you low point of view, but a lower one would even be better. OK, I know how easy it is to suggest when we were not there, but you were and at the right moment.

 

I´ve uploaded a copy of your shot after adjusting the blue tones.

 

I almost forgot it: congrats on this fresh, natural, funny POW!

This is my first critic on photo.net. I am not an expert therefor I don't dare to critic on others pictures but picturem this is so wonderful, it compled me to say "it's a great picture" please don't do any modification to this picture. It looks like an orchestra.

First let me say that I like this picture very much. It's funny, it needed patience, it's well executed. The only thing, and I know it's difficult, and maybe the 17 mm of the zoom just wasn't enough wide angle, but I think it's a pity that the seagulls on the right and at the bottom are cut off/cropped. It wouldn't have changed the general idea of the pic, but it would have been a perfect 10 for me if they would have been there. Otherwise, almost perfect and very funny original animal picture. Congratulations again. Bye, Rienk

An interesting comment earlier in this thread:

"By removing the bigger pelcan in the background and removing the segal that is faced the other way in the bottom lef-hand corner, would make the picture even a bit more better for advertising purposes."

While I agree that an ad agency may *wish* to clone of this or that, and change this or that, and perhaps even to put something in each pelican's mouth - why not ?! -, I do know that advertising agencies have Photoshop, and they would know what to do with this image based on their own requirements.

I see absolutely no reason why a photographer would retouch such an image without knowing what the end buyer wants exactly. Only if he is requested to do so for the specific purpose of selling the image, should the photographer consider any amendment. The original shall remain the original, and most buyers will crop or touch-up this or that, but that's THEIR responsability - not the photographer's responsability, unless he's requested by this buyer to produce an "amended version" of his original. Most ad agencies would prefer to do the Photoshop bit themselves anyway.

Conclusion: get the sky color right (adjust cyan at top) and leave it at that imo...

Forgot to mention earlier, but I agree with Rienk about the cropped seagulls. No big deal, but I'd rather have them in full than not, obviously. Doesn't take much away from the picture, though...

Is there really a need to resort to cloning? Can't you just breed it out?

7/7

 

The picture is as good as is. I wonder if this picture is not about singing birds but a threat display at an incoming flying bird to the small space in the sand bar. The fact that other species of birds (sea gulls) are looking up as well tells me that this is happening. I do not want to spoil the fun of your audience but as a nature photographer, I like to record nature as is. Would yo let me know what was happening.

 

Regards

 

Leo Garcia / Venezuela

Big hand to John for this POW. This image is near perfect (you can't possibly control animal, can you ?) Clone or not, for the commercial world, probably yes but for the purpose of discussion in this community, I wouldn't. At most i would consider a crop like the following., but in comparison, i still consider John's original a better reflection of this "Bird Chorus".

"A River Song by the pelicons in the Seagulls opera"

 

Simply Great, Don't distrub the naturality!!

 

Susheela

It's a wonderful shot.

 

Marc is quite right to leave the image alone and let the end users

decide what, if anything, they want to do with it. I would say this

is true of most images regardless of subject matter, but

especially of PJ and nature where even the most subtle change

is taboo.

 

It's my understanding that 'Nature's Best' accepts only slides for

their publication, for reason's of authenticity perhaps. I wonder

how they would react to this image in terms of both content and

capture format.

This is a wonderful, humourous photo. The seagull audience is really hysterical. I love the light and color, very crisp and clear. Since no one else has asked, not sure if the photographer is "here" or not, I would like to know specifically how you got this shot. Were you sitting/ crouching, waiting, taking many frames and happened to get this, did you see them doing something like this and think I'll try and get that etc.

Animals are so hard to photograph from the perspective of even getting them in the frame sometimes so to speak, but as this shot shows they can be the most wonderful, funny, unselfconcious models.

Wow. I love it.

I say play or don't play, its up too you!I believe playing in the dark room digital or not is the difference between a point and shoot shot and a well set up well exposed ...piece of art.

The only question you need to ask your self (for the photo) is, are you an artist or a photojournalist?

I think you should market this photo, there be a lot of money in it for you, especially if this is your style of work...

Best of luck,I love the shot, truly love it! Love ya all,Scarlett

I don't think you need to clone anything. The initial impact of the images works, and it continues to work long after as well. Wishing to clone the seagull out is simply a case of being too analytical. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is my recommendation.

 

It's a lovely shot - very funny. Well done.

The spacing of the gulls would be ruined if you remove the front bird. All the other "distracting" birds actually add to the viewing experience (gives you more to look at after the initial imapct of the image... a transition from humor to nature) Actually, my reaction was similar to another post about seeing it as an interesting natural pose... humorous, but in a different way. About the bird in the water... what is that at the end of it's beak? Remove it and keep everything else (adjust levels, ect. but don't overdo it... keep it "real"

I forgot to mention: please change the title

Stunning shot. I'm not a photographer, but for what it's worth, here's my two cents on whether or not to alter the photograph:

 

Don't. Our culture has already ruined beauty. It used to be that beauty was something one found, and treasured because it was rare yet real. Now we create it in a lab, on an operating table, or in Photoshop. And we wonder why 'reality' so often dissapoints.

 

The magic of this kind of photography is in its power to capture a moment in time where uncontrolled events and objects coalesce to create beauty and meaning, like a naturally occuring gemstone. The tiny flaw authenticates the moment. It says, "this really happened, and you were there."

John:

 

Have you entered this picture in a photo contest or had it published (perhaps photolife)? I swear I have seen this picture before. It's a great shot.

How the hell did you get so close to them???

Wow! A delight :-)

 

I don't think cloning is cheating unless you're claiming the photo represents the exactly real moment (insofar as any photo can really do that anyway). I'm however with whoever said the prime candidate for cloning out is the pelican at left back. The seagull in front only covers a bit of the front pelican's foot and is I think otherwise quite significant in the success of the composition and depth of the whole image. Perhaps if you just _moved_ him a tad to the left... :-)

 

Peace,

Sanaka

7/7.

 

And, it's "theatre in the round" of course. And, one patron is headed for the powder room, what a charming bit of reality that brings to the composition. Obviously you have a fine knack for identifying the decisive moment.

I think nature shots should be left alone, as a general rule. Besides, there are no obvious flaws in this picture, and so no real need to clone anything out. Congratulations on a great capture--and for getting the PoW.