Pelicano I

Moderator note:

For those newcomers to the POW forum that are not aware of the policy with regard to posting comments on the POW. Here is one of the guidelines for posting in this POW forum.

No short congratulatory comments and no short despariging comments."Good work." "Nice photo." "Congratulations on POW." Comments such as these are nice for the photographer to hear but we recommend sending an e-mail to the recipient. Negative short comments with no details will also be deleted. For example: "This photo stinks." "I don't think this is deserving of POW." "I find this photo boring."

I've had to delete many comments of a short congratulatory nature this week. So I thought I'd explain here in the forum rather than email each one of you. For those of you who are writing in another language. Those were deleted only because they were "congratulations" comments with no critique. Also - please go to Free Language Translation to change yourcomment to english so that we can all read your critiques. For more info - Please read Guidelines for Posting Comments on POW

"Carl, along the way I've even learned to enjoy the occassional black velvet

Elvis. Sometimes we have to appreciate the lesser things in life. That having

been said, I think the background certainly doesn't add anything and may well

subtract something. This is a very simple image, and the black background

emphasizes that simplicity - good or bad? I'm not sure." - Sam M.M.

 

1) The difference I still see between this picture and the black velvet Elvis is

huge: judging this POW strictly on aesthetics, I think it's far better than any

Elvis. Ok, it doesn't have the 3D feel and may have been better with the depth

and context of a real background ; but then again, the black background does

not ruin the shot here.

 

2) That's because the black background is not ugly, it is just neutral, and

what's in front of it makes it well worth looking at.

 

3) I don't think it's "bad", to have a neutral background, as it lets the main

subject stand out with no distraction.

 

All I'm saying is: that's the easy way to obtain a first or second rate shot in

terms of aesthetics, but it is also a major concession: the picture will no longer

feel 3D and will be a cliche - one black background pix among so many

others.

You wrote a couple of interesting things here...

 

1) " I assure you that nature magazines are now going to great lengths to

make sure that what they publish is authentic and unadulterated according to

traditional standards of incamera manipulation (film choice, exposure, grad

filter, etc.)."

 

That is very true.

 

2) "So the concept of putting in a fake background to save a shot to please a

client simply doesn't apply here."

 

Quite right. What I meant is that I'd change an element of a background any

day for a commercial shot...

 

3) "This shot is meant for consumption on photo sites like this one."

 

Yes, very much so. But not only for sites like this one.

 

4) "At least I've never seen this style anywhere else."

 

You'd also find pictures like this as postcards and posters.

 

5) "If this image gets a million views on this site alone, maybe that's sufficient

justification."

 

A million views is no justification for anything. Nor does any picture need any

justification, by the way. A picture is what it is. Some pictures aim very high,

some pictures aim a little lower or a lot lower. I have taken thousands of

pictures that were not aiming very high and was at least happy if I thought I

did well. Not every photo needs to be the Mona Lisa. It can still be good,

meaning "pleasing, nice to look at, well done". I personally have respect for

what's well done, even though it may not be great art - for what ever that

means...

 

P.S. I can enjoy to some extent a nice foreground like this in front of a black

background. What I can't enjoy at all is the same picture with obvious

photoshopping at the edges of the bird and such. At least, Marina's picture is

clean and really pretty - at least seen at this size on a monitor -, don't you

think...?

Regarding your question:

 

"For those of us less informed (i.e. me), could someone please explain how

you get the black background? I've done it using flash and a higher sync, but

not in post-processing."

 

In post-processing, there's really nothing easier than making a background

black. You can for exemple click on the colors at the bottom of your PS tool

bar, select pure black, then simply go to the tool called "brush" - paintbrush ? -

and paint the background black that way, like you would do using a real

brush. Or you can use the little "hand" you see in PShop's tool box.

 

In both cases, you can intensify the darkness you're adding, by increasing

pressure or opacity of your brush (see top of picture area in PS). Hope it's

clear enough...

 

And this is how you may now start to change your worst background into an

extremely beautiful Elvis-black background, for better and for worst.

 

WARNING: Be careful not to become lazy with your choices of backgrounds

the next time you shoot: PS can make lazy people even more lazy...:-)

"PS can make lazy people even more lazy...:-)"

 

and yet you seem to see no harm in images that don't shoot high. If everyone recognizes their rightful scale on the hierarchy of all images, then I say "no harm done".

 

But you and I both know that this isn't the case. To give this a 7/7 is to claim that it is as good as any other similar image including those caught in the wild with a background that enhances it by adding a sense of place. In fact many are giving it 7/7s BECAUSE it isn't real and may well be falling into the trap of being a party to just the sort of PS laziness that you mention.

 

I'm not convinced about the postcards or posters of nature subjects on black background. Any links to show me?

Marc,

 

Thanks for the reply. I understand the use of the paint tools, but the edges of the bird and water drops in the POW are so clean, I thought there might be another technique involved. Is it just a matter of painting at the pixel level and being very careful? If so, I certainly commend Marina for a job very well done.

 

As for the discussion about the background, perhaps it's the photographic equivalent of a cliche', but in this case, I think it makes for a stunning picture. To me however, what really makes the shot is the lighting on the beak and the silhouetted fish inside. That's a unique perspective. Would definitely be interesting to see the original though.

 

Bill

This is one of those photos where (for me) the 'intent' is good but the end result is marginal. I'm under the impression that this is a captive bird swallowing a supplied fish and the background has been totally P_Shop'd. It's not particularly sharp and the water drops look somewhat unnatural, perhaps victims of the alteration process. So, the spirit of intent is great... technical result, just ok. As always, sorry for the blunt appraisal. Best, -Greg-

I dunno, guys and gals. White birds present a very interesting result near sunrise and sunset especially, but not necessarily, when a little flash is introduced. In order to not blow out the detail in the white feathers, depending on the haze, more than a full stop of compensation can be necessary.

 

With that compensation, your dark-colored background - often seawater - goes black. The photo I'm posting with this is an illustration of such; there's no manipulation. . .it's just late in the evening, and I was getting "blinkies" on the LCD with a shutter speed any slower than what this image required. Maybe it's an Elvis on velvet, but it's also precisely what the camera recorded.

 

This image, though, suggests an above, slightly-back light, with very low ambient; and I'm unaware from experience what result that would produce - black background or not.

 

Just food for thought. We really need the photographer to chime in, here!

Not knowing what the background was on this one, I am hesitant to say that it would have been better with the natural background that was present. Even so, in general I would prefer to see the natural rather than the photoshopped background.

 

None of this is to take away from the picture as a whole. The first person to use the black background was no doubt congratulated for doing so. It has become a bit of a cliche, but in some cases I still think that it is the best choice for a variety of reasons.

 

Enhorabuena y felicidades, Marina. Es muy buena.

 

--Lannie

I'm here, but my English no.... I'm trying a response. Just a moment please.

Meanwhile, I share you a shoot no manipulated. Again is cross-light.

And it was taken in the same place: at the zoo.

This one:

The background of this image is a dark water like different this one: http: // www.photo.net/photodb/photo? Photo_id=3592255

There is no technique involved.

Simply I adjusted levels to get dark the water. I did not work pixel to pixel. The background is not clear, not brilliant. Always I try to place the object photographed on a dark bottom: trees, shades, etc..

 

It seems that I do not manage to connect the image.

 

I hope you understand my english isn't very good.

 

I would like to explain more, but it's difficult for me, talk about Ps work or how I take my photographs. Anyway thanks for your commentaries.

Chris, the background in your image is quite dark, but it isn't black.

 

Black point varies from 2 to 4. The red channel range is 2-7, the green channel is 2-4. Blue is 0.

 

That's different from zeros straight across.

Thanks, Marina.

 

Looking at the photo you pointed to (which is the same one where Marc had noted the watery background), I'm guessing that the adjustments made took out very little other than some generally flat blackish water. I think Chris is right in terms of the background already having blacked out.

 

So the manipulation of darkening the background really has no effect on the overall quality of the photograph for me; it doesn't seem like a significant artistic choice in light of all the strengths of this photograph. The only question might be whether there was a way to take a somewhat different photograph lighting the background more fully, and whether that would have been preferable. Ironically, that would advocate a more "artificial" approach to get the more natural look that several people want here.

Thanks, Marina.

 

Looking at the photo you pointed to (which is the same one where Marc had noted the watery background), I'm guessing that the adjustments made took out very little other than some generally flat blackish water. I think Chris is right in terms of the background already having blacked out.

 

So the manipulation of darkening the background really has no effect on the overall quality of the photograph for me; it doesn't seem like a significant artistic choice in light of all the strengths of this photograph. The only question might be whether there was a way to take a somewhat different photograph lighting the background more fully, and whether that would have been preferable. Ironically, that would advocate a more "artificial" approach to get the more natural look that several people want here.

Marina, your English is fine - we appreciate your taking the time to translate and participate, we know it takes extra effort and appreciate it.

 

Carl, yepper...not all the way black on mine. Marina above has answered the mystery - started dark, zeroed to black... which also explains why all the edges are still crisp, and the water droplets natural-looking. . . a lot less PS than many suspected?

 

You see a lot of swan photos like this. I'm sure it's the coloring that allows it more readily - a bird closer to a mid-tone wouldn't let the background fade so readily.

Thanks Sam, Christopher.

 

I took the picture at 400mm, I think that if I had approached more and extended the focal distance, the bottom had not isolated so much of the subject, and therefore it would remain clearer.

Hi Marina, When I look at pow.jpg I see a stork (twice). Do you have an original shot of the pelican we are looking at? I will view it again on my home monitor... want to be fair. Thanks much, -Greg-

A question -- is what you are saying that the background in Chris' photo is richer than the background in Marina's, and that Marina should have left hers dark but not black? I will confess that I can't see the difference in background, but it may just be the portable computer I'm on at work, and certainly I could see near black as more interesting to the eyes than flat black. Or is it the lack of "place" you are missing, so you want enough detail in the background to make out the water?

Chris, Your photo example is of a front lit bird while this pelican looks significantly more backlit. And the photographers are chiming in. ;) Hopefully we can see the original in totality. -Greg-

Sam, Chris' upload actually has a sense of place, given that you can see that it's perched on something. The lighting, especially the color, is typical of the kind of white bird shot that Chris describes. The background tones are subtle, and maybe it does take a good monitor to detect it.

 

The frame is also a factor.

It sounds like it is the sense of place you are missing. I think we can get some sense of place here from the droplets of water and the feeding, but a background would add more. But is there also some benefit from the simplicity?

By the way, I agree on the frame. Much better without it.

It isn't so much the sense of place that I'm missing as the artificiality of it. Simplicity is another issue, and unlike many, I prefer something complex and thought provoking to a simple quick read.

 

Horses for courses.

When you make a phto, it is taken at a tme, and you "see" the picture, when you work on it, just croping or even more, you get the final results you like, and posible will like others. Marina, the picture it?s great the way it is, in other kind of photo you could make a comen on the time of exposure or he compsotion, the exces of Ps, but in the kind of picture you are great just for time it was taked, any other adjustment it's not necesary an artistic interest, but just to be like it for others.(Cuando tomas una foto, aprovechas el momento, la "ves", despues trbajas en ella, usando crop o algo, hasta tener el resultado que a ti tegusta y quiza a lguien mas. Marima, la foto es excelente como es, en otro tipo de foto comentas sobre la exposición o la compsicion, o el ecceso de PS, pero en este caso la fotos es buena solo por elñ hecho de tomarla en el tiempo, cualquier otro ajustenio necesariamente es para acerlo artistico, quiza solo para que le guste a alguien mas como a ti.