Great Egret

The Great Egret.

now thats a nice picture

Beautiful background and very sharp image of the subject. Excellent capture!

Is the bird "cut" into the background? The lighting on the bird doesn't seem to match the background lghting. It just seems fake, even if it isn't. So, I was curious if this image was constructed or not? Thanks

 

Todd

beautiful....but I dont understand why people dont check the 'manipulated' box...its misleading if the photographer did. I dont want to rate a photo unless I know this one large difference

This is a combination of two photos on the same day. The first was the egret flying with a clear blue sky. The second was the sunset that night. The egret was cut and pasted onto the blurred sunset to give a sense of color and motion.

I suppose traditional teaching states "don't manipulate a nature photo." I thought this might spark an interesting debate on this topic. Is there merit to manipulation? Is there an acceptable limit of manipulation?

In my humble opinion: Manipulation can be done off course, but you've got to tell people you did it! There are too many people around that are trying to make a 'quick score' on photonet with manipulated images without telling upfront they altered the photo after it was taken. More and more people 'pretend' to be good photographers, when all they actually do is enhance an 'average' photograph in photoshop to make it spectacular for 'the eye' and the big public without telling people it was not the real thing they saw when looking through the lens of their camera.

 

I will get blasted again by people having a different opinion. But hey, at least this is my opinion. Be fair and tell what you did!

 

By the way... Very nice shot of the egret! Wish to see the original please! Thanx.

Ron, you hit everything I was thinking right on the mark....including wanting to see the original egret only photo.

 

I could wax on all day about the merits of manipulation and how much is ok, but I get bored just thinking about it.

Here is the original photo. This was taken in Large/Fine JPEG mode on a Nikon D100. I saved it for the web in photoshop. I apologize if I caused anybody any discomfort in regards to manipulation, but I'm new to photo.net and no deception was intended.

Here is the original JPEG file after I cropped it and adjusted the levels in photoshop. What do you think?

Welcome to Photo.net Mark! This is a huge site and you will quickly find that a quick undressing can happen if others do not think you are sincere. Personally, I agree in that *knowing* whether this is a composite does make a difference. If this was a straight up photograph, it is simply a spectacular capture, and deserves nothing short of a 7/7 in my book. The beautiful, colorful, blurred background, contrasting dramatically with the tack sharp Egret is really exceptional. However since you DID use two images here, I will still give the 7 for aesthetics (that does not change in my opinion). However composites like this are not near as original when compared to ONE original capture. So a 5 or a 6 would suffice. Since you are new here and did share the truth, I reckon the 7/6 would be more than fair. Anyway, it might be better in the future if you tell everybody before you post her up.

 

Once again, a really nice image here! Aloha.

Hi Mark, I very much like the cropped and level-adjusted original of the egret. So you see you do not have to alter a pic too much to make it more interesting. If a =>photographer<= wants to make his pics more exiting he/she has to put more effort in the shot itself rather than in photoshop afterwards. Especially nature photography... Thanks for showing us the original picture. There are many people around on photo.net that start blasting other people when commented on their pics. But what is this site for? Personal fullfilment? (Be on the frontpage?) or to learn how to shoot a pic? You tell me.. Off course everybody wants their two seconds of fame, but at what cost? Manipulating their way into 'Photo.net heaven' (Frontpage) is the wrong way IMHO.

 

Keep up your good work and you'll see you learn how to improve your photographing skills from looking at other people's work. I did.... Check my portfolio if you like.

Ron, Thanks for the nice words. As you can see I'm new around here... what does IMHO stand for? I like the original cropped version also. I just started learning how to use photoshop and wanted to get an idea on how people feel about manipulated photos. I checked out your folder and loved the shot of the two horses battling.

"IMHO" stands for In My Humble Opinion, IB (I believe)...

Excellent photo; I agree with Vincent Tylor above that aesthetically, this is an awesome visual. I also agree that acknowledging "special effects," as in this photograph, is paramount, so as not to mislead folks.

I would like to add, however, that changing levels (as long as it is within "reasonable" limits), esp. with nature photographs does not strike me as trickery, or somehow illegitimate - as long as it is acknowledged. Ansel Adams changed contrast on many of his prints, to find that they sold in greater numbers. In the end, it depends whether you are aspiring to be a gallery photographer (in which case artistic license is fine), or a National Geographic / journalist photographer (in which case you present photos as true to your own observation as possible) - IMHO.

 

Your photo here is just beautiful to look at - and for me, at this moment, and in this place - is all that matters.

 

I look forward to further creative work from you...

I prefer the original image. My 2nd choice is the cropped image with levels adjusted (was the sky really that deep of a blue?).

It also seems as if Ron is still not getting it.

This website here, Photo.net is for all photos, meaning everything from little kittens, to portraits, nudity, architecture, nature and everything in between and in all these categories there are people that choose to manipulate to some degree and just because you dont like manipulated images doesnt mean others here cant manipulate. If you have this big of a problem with it then you are in the wrong place my friend,,

BTW -This is a quote made by you on your most recent cow picture.

On this shot I already did some level work in photoshop to bring the cows more 'to life'.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldnt this image be considered art and manipulation, that image looks pretty damn manipulated to me? So who are you to be making all these comments anyway? This is exactly what I do to my photographs. I bring the sunsets more to life by adjusting levels and saturation and that is it. Seems like you are looking for attention more than anyone here.

As far as people making a quick score. I have been taking enhanced sunset photos since the day I started taking photos. In fact, the day I bought my first camera. This was before I heard of photo.net or even had a computer for that matter. I always have and most likely always will, I like color saturation, this is what I do and you think I would spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time finding locations, returning to those locations, sometimes 3 or 4 times until the light is right, getting them developed, scanning, editing, etc., etc. Simply for ratings on Photo.net? Come on!" I take photography pretty seriously my friend and have had enough ratings now, that they dont matter nearly as much as peoples reaction to them and them telling me what I can do to improve on them.

As far as what you call Blasting people this is what you do every time you make these over-the-top comments to manipulated photos as you have done and trying to persuade them to your liking.

I do agree that the photographer should post up front that the image has been manipulated, so as to eliminate any confusion, but frankly I spotted this one as being manipulated a mile away and as far as my last photo goes would imagine others did that one as well, but I will state this in writing immediately upon upload in the future with other manipulated images. BTW, I have never checked the unmanipulated box and didnt on that photo as well.

If you have these extreme problems with manipulation then I would suggest you look and comment on the photos at nature photography only sites where they dont do any manipulation, because a very large percentage of these photos are manipulated and the numbers will increase with each day, I guarantee it.

You have a good portfolio Ron, but dont tell others how to take their pictures not in the way you have been doing it anyway. Let them learn and grow by themselves and make their own choices and spend your time making your own photography better.

I guess Im done, (-:

Mark- this is an awesome photo, I have tried a few of these around S. Calif. and know how difficult it is to capture these in flight with good lighting and being in focus. I believe digital is the way to go here, for this type of photography anyway (-: I do like your original version better though. This is excellent!

Regards, Steve

FYI Steve, I give u an un-enhanced sunset. I try to get every shot I do as perfect as possible, as if it were to be a slide, with ZERO cropping, enhancement, modification.. this is purely for my personal satisfaction..that I have been able to master the camera and the technique and the feeling..tomturkphoto.tripod.com.. It is not ART, as vigorously debated on the Leica forum. Each photographer takes shots for personal satisfaction and enjoyment whether their work is 'pure' or enhanced, cropped, modified, whatever...or for income, if somebody else appreciates that 'creation'. Anything goes, as u say, and we, the creators get the pleasure....... maybe even if it got trashed by some critics, who didnt make that 'work', but then, did not share in the creational pleasure..What I can make of photo.net is that 90 percent are fishing for compliments, and the rest want serious criticism..Both are great.

Thanks Thomas, My comments weren't meant to stir up a debate about which type of photography is better than which and which is right or wrong, this has been overdone over and over again and is pointless, but imagine this will happen anyway.(-: I respect any photographers decision to do anything they want with their photos as it is up to only him/her to decide. The comments I made were intended for Ron and "his" overly rude comments.

With each image I have posted here, I state that "all comments positive and negative are always appreciated" and they always are and have learned much from the negative comments, that is what I want an honest critique and this is how I learn. As you say they are both great. But Ron doesn't have much to offer or contribute when he makes comments stating nothing except that your image is a fake or that he is trying to convert the people using image manipulation to do it his way. This is not a critique even in the slightest, it is an insult and there is nothing constructive about it.

Regards, Steve

Thank you very much for the dialogue. I think we all agree that we want to learn more and have fun doing it. There are three particular aspects of this photo that I had to work on and want to learn more about. First off is getting a sharp close up photo of a white bird flying. The Great Egret is entirely white and therefore can be very difficult to get the proper exposure to show texture. Second is getting a good shot of the sunset that shows color and motion. Third, and a new area of exploration for me, is how to cut out a subject from one photo (the egret) and paste it in another photo without a "halo." If you look at the original photo you can see it was an all blue sky. This translated into a blue "halo" around the egret when I tried cutting and pasting it. It took many different attempts and techniques to get to this photo. I welcome any tips on any of these three topics.

Hmm... The shot is very nice. And I didn't notice it was edited at first. It's well edited through, but it would be better with the blue background and some clouds. One would expect from the background that the sun is setting, so a reddish glow should be cast on the purely white bird, so the bird looks a bit cut out of the picture as it actually is. Also the shadow that is cast only can exist when the sun is high. But still, it's a very nice piece of art.

Steve, I just finished looking at your portfolio and really like the colors. I noticed you use Fuji Velvia a lot. I've been using the Velvia for the past few years because I love the saturated colors. However, I just switched to digital (Nikon D100) and can only achieve the same colors by increasing the saturation in Photoshop which sometimes gives it a grainy look. Since I don't have a slide scanner and don't want to carry both camera bodies can anyone suggest how to best get Velvia results with digital?

Nice image, but looks more like a painting. It does not look real. Reason for that is color and direction of light. But I have no problem looking image like that, it would be just cooler if it looked real.

Mark..If u still have yr. film camera, try negs using Fuji Reala Superia. Dunno y u all going to digital, the fuji colors are so real and beautiful, and going digital does not necassarily improve yr composition.... I put one sunset shot using Fuji RS on http://tomturkfoto.tripod.com to show u the colors u can get with todays top Fuji negs, (if u dont want to shoot slides), with zero touch ups..

Depending on what your scanning needs are, you might do fine with an older scanner of the 2800 dpi ilk, such as the Nikon Coolscan IV ED. A 2800 DPI scan will get you a sharp 8x10 print, and for posting photos on the web has "more than enough" resolution.

 

For changing the saturations with your D100, I would suggest photographing a scene with Velvia and also with the D100 with "bracketing" (for lack of a better word) by trying different custom white balance settings which might boost the reds or greens. You may find a custom white balance that matches the results you get with Velvia.

Thanks Mark, Don't pay to much attention to the most recent upload though, I was just trying a different look to see if maybe this color scheme would work.(-: As far as acheiving similar colors with digital I would like to know more about this as well as im not to familiar with digital yet, but I hear the Fuji S2 seems to get closer to Velvia's colors. Although I have seen many outstanding sunsets, landscapes, etc. here made with the D100 the colors still don't seem to compare to Velvia in my opinion. I will probably stick with film for this type of photography, Medium format would probably be an even better option, for me anyway. I hope you didn't take it the wrong way when I mentioned above that this photo looked manipulated at first glance, I simply meant that the background looked somewhat unnatural to me, but at the same time your photoshop skills at putting this together as good as I have seen and it is an excellent photo, just prefer the original.

Regards, Steve