single photos My first photoshop...

Interesting shot with the bird. Like the angle and the lighting.

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

The shot design, without the bird, has been well seen. I like the way the lines work to move us around and redirect us through the image. The overall balance and tones are also nice and draw us down to the bird. But the bird is the issue I have with this image.

I have a couple of "wonders" about this bird. The first one, and maybe the organic one, is IF this bird was really there, could a different shot have been made. Here, we get the back of the bird and an awkward dark line coming right out of the middle of its head. It almost feels like it has been skewered with how this lines up with the feet. This sort of plants us right there, looking at the backside of the bird. Having a bird in this setting is a bit odd and might draw a contrast to the rest of the image, but I wonder if a better placement wasn't available by waiting.

On the other hand, having a couple of other images that appear to have been doctored--things added--from this same(similar) scene begs the question as to whether this bird has been added in post. If so, then it truly makes me wonder about why it was placed as it was--for all the same reasons as above. (The space seems too prisitne for all of these birds (including the other shot) to actually have been here)(the shadow of the bird and the rays of light coming in also don't actually match, which should be corrected as well--not even sure the rays of light make sense--will have to think more about that)

Nice overall design without the bird--the payoff?--but I think it ended up being a bit awkward as to its placement.

(I don't really care if it was added or not in the absolute, I just find the placement a bit of an issue)

I have absolutely nothing against adding or subtracting things to original captures. But I think it does make a difference. If I know this bird was there I will feel very differently (not judgmentally, but aesthetically and narratively) than if I know it was added. If I think a confluence of circumstances led two people on a street to shout at each other and passersby to watch in amazement and someone captures that with a camera, I will feel differently than if I know or learn it was all staged. If I learn that two lovers have been "shopped" together, yes, I will respond differently than if I believe they were truly in the same place at the same time. I think one of photography's strengths can be its ties to things that have actually occurred (not always and not in all cases). I do plenty of staging myself. I let context, subject, and situation be my guide. Again, I don't make judgments about these choices, but they do alter my way of experiencing the photo.

BTW, I agree with John's assessment of and reaction to the photo.

I don't know, or care, if this was a "real" scene. It's clearly a photo illustration of some kind but what it is illustrating is not clear. The elements don't combine to say anything except "hey I just put a water fowl, facing away from the viewer no less, into an architectural space lit by windows".
I can't say compositionally the picture is lacking and, if photo shopped, it was done with great competence. However, nothing significant is communicated to me. No metaphors or thought provoking meanings are revealed or hinted . The strange contrast of a water fowl in this type of environment is not strong enough on it's own to carry the picture. It is a technically perfect image of a fuzzy idea. As such it fails to engage me and hold my interest.

So, I´m quite surprised to see this pic here (it was posted long time ago).
As time has passed I feel I can critique this one as it should not be mine, but first let´s add some background information.
This is the result of my first practice with photoshop. There are two different pics here. The first is the stairs hole of my former high school taken with a wide angle ( a sigma 10-20), the second is that bird, taken outdoors with a 55-200VR. I was practising masks, so I decide to combine both images, adding the light stream and the shadow of the eggrett.
My first reaction is that I feel quite ashemed about the result. I would't post this one today. There are quite visible mistakes and technical faults (lack of sharpness, overexposition on the bird.....). I have been tempted to delete this one of my gallery, but as I said, it was my first practise and a part of my photo-history, so it stayed. Only thing good I can say about it, is that I somehow like the overall composition-
I would like this one was not chosen, but as it is, I hope it can serve as a good critiquing excercise!

This is perhaps the most ridiculous and incongruous image that I have ever seen.

I love it.

The lighting is diffuse but the shadow is sharp. It was obviously Photoshopped.

I don't care. I still love it.

--Lannie

It's an eye-catching image that clearly has been composed and processed very carefully. I feel certain the creator ended up with exactly the image he set out to make. But as Louis said, it's not clear what, if anything, the image is intended to communicate. For all its technical merits, it seems in the end to be merely a pleasant, fashionably enigmatic design exercise rather than meaningful art.

I really like this image. I think that it does tell a story, that of the presence of something in our "space" where perhaps it wouldn't normally be or maybe where it doesn't belong. The architecture is also very appealing and the light coming through the windows is great!

Sometimes we make photoshopped photos simply because we can. We add elements together simply because we can. We mix incongruous parts simply because we can. When that's done, there is no "reason" to the photo other than an exercise in using digital tools to gain expertise at using the tools. Yet because the outcome of this experimentation is so out of the ordinary, so different from "regular" life, it will often receive rave reviews. This is Jose's directionless experimentation at using photoshop tools. It's now a POW. This is quite different from a digital artist who conceives an idea in his/her mind to express a concept or a feeling and then sets about to create an image that expresses or symbolizes that concept or feeling. More power to Jose for wanting to get better at using digital tools so that he could then use the tools to create something with meaning. Luckily, though, he decided to let his photoshop experiment stay in his portfolio. Rather than look for meaning, we should probably ignore the incongruity and instead restrict comments to his photoshop techniques, because that's all that Jose intended for this image. It's his first experiment, so what can we say to help him with his techniques of combining two different photos? It doesn't matter that the bird and the lighted room are an odd match. It doesn't matter that the bird is facing away from the viewer. This is just about the mechanics of blending. That said, I realize that any viewer is free to look for meaning in an image that was created with no meaning intended.

This image would make a nice addition to an article on what not to do when compositing images together. The direction and placement of the bird, the hard light / soft light combination, the black shadow in an otherwise muted scene.....
I am so glad that Jose joined the discussion early and stated clearly that this image is exactly what it appears to be, an early experiment in the use of selection tools.The ensuing comments this week are likely to be even funnier than the ones which preceded that declaration. I bet Jose wishes he left this one in his " my first photoshop " folder.
This potw should be taken as a cautionary tale. Those nasty elves may just be rummaging around in your portfolio looking for some old experiment gone astray so that they can post it here. On the upside I can hope for Jose that the attention this choice garners directs people to the remainder of his portfolio which contains a number of good photos.
I agree with Landrum to some degree, provided that I understand the appeal for Lannie, the photo does have an Ed Wood 'Plan Nine from Outer Space' sort of charm.

I like the composition, as well as the angles & curves.
If the bird was added to the photo I would have placed it so a vertical line wasn't gowing out of it's head. I also think the lower right corner is distracting & needs to be cropped out

Levelling the floor would get rid of the bit in the bottom right corner... two birds ... one stone.

Gordon, leveling the floor would have cocked the whole scene here--shot at obtuse angle--cloning or cropping up would be solutions to that artifact. But there are also some odd artifacts up at the dark angle close to the windows as well--maybe natural reflections and possibly post artifacts, maybe both.

I don't think there is a good solution, but all the talk about this being essentially a test shot does raise the old issue of if it is in your portfolio, it will represent your work like it or not. I do think it is fortunate that Jose saw this immediately and not at the end of the week after his crucifixion. In some ways, I think the person's photo being chosen for a POW should get a heads up. Maybe weeks in advance that it is being considered if nothing else. Then they can balk at it or give a background to the image that would be pertinent to the discussions here. In this case, knowing it is just an exercise/first attempt, I don't know that there is much left to talk about--maybe this should be another 2 POW week.......

Nice work. I would add a little yellow in shadows of bird. Just my personal opinion.

John, the administrators have said they intend to start asking before choosing a POW. It was talked about maybe six months ago. Don't know if it's still a consideration. I hope it is.

PS. The floor could easily be leveled without affecting the rest of the photograph.

I want to amend my previous comments. I had no idea this was a Photoshop test image since my comments were made before Jose chimed in. I thought it was a finished photo illustration. As others have mentioned, there are a few spots where more attention to the light and shadows could have been adjusted better to create a better sense of realism, but on whole, it's a well done composite and good Photoshop exercise.

As Fred mentioned the floor can be adjusted without skewing the rest of the image... several approaches in PS could be used to do so.

Maybe the floor's angle is worth discussing--does it really need to be straightened? (since the discussion started because of that little wedge in the lower right, I assume we are talking about this dark space in the foreground)

When I look at the rest of the floor area, I actually see that it appears uneven, with slopes both ways--probably natural(?). Tweaking the floor in PS, other than with a clone of the front edge, will change the image although I don't know that we would necessarily detect it, but it might draw attention to the other areas here. In fact, I am not sure that there wasn't already some artificial "straightening" applied to this image--a little twist clockwise appears to have been applied in camera or in post as it is--that far wall, on the right side, is too straight at the floor, as is the close one, for the angle of this shot (unless a view camera was used).

But we run into these foreground angles a lot when we shoot off angle or, for that matter, on a hillside. In this case, I think that the mass of the dark area allows it to read without issue whereas a sliver might have been more problematic(like that lower right corner intrusion)--at least for me. As it is, I find it easy to read and understand as "normal" for a shot done at an obtuse angle--something that is sometimes better to do than try to get a straight-on shot straight and not get it straight--in other words, this angle is organic to my way of thinking.

If you follow the rays coming from the light source, it seems to me that the bird's shadow is not falling correctly.

If the section of wall edge at the bottom of the frame were equal distance to the frame edge at the left and right side of the frame this would imo give a sense of level from which the ensuing angles could depart without the feeling that the image is crooked to the frame. Whether or not the image is truly level to the original scene does not matter to me. What does matter to me is that it feels like the floor is running down hill. I think the bird compounds that feeling. if this was a straight architectural study the slope might be less problematic.

The angle of the foreground wall may well be organic to a way of thinking. The question for me is whether it's organic to a way of seeing, or to the way the photograph looks. I don't think it is. It just feels plain clumsy to me as does the sliver in the lower right that Gordon pointed out. Photographers well know what causes certain visual phenomenon. They even know how dangerous it is to get some shots of lions. Photographs don't care a whole lot about those things. They care about looks.