A Few from Today

[Chrisclick]

Caught these this afternoon. Another bad day for surf shots, not so bad for birds. I decided to call the second shot "No Chains For Me!" Still no clouds to add interest.....












CC always welcome.

[Rebel]

I really like that first one, sharp bird and nice background.

[deetheturk]

Nice set Chris, #3 is my pick!

[Shadowman]

No clouds needed, nice series.

[bnnrcn]

I like them all Chris I would try reducing the highlights in the FG of #1 as the FG distracts a bit.

[Geoff F]

Nice set Chris, #3 is my pick!

Yes, a classic shot with the highlights bright but not over exposed.

[Chrisclick]

Many thanks, Matt, David, John, Geoff, and Binnur. I appreciate your comments.

Thank you, Binnur, for picking that up. After looking at it a few more times, I agree. I'll drop the highlights in #1.

[NorthernFocus]

Love the eagle with sea as BG. Well done.

[FootLoose]

+1 I prefer the first shot, too.

(Clear blue skies are a pita, aren't they)

[IzzieK]

I"ll go against the grain here because I like the pose of #2 very much...all of them are good but I like #2 better...

[Chrisclick]

Thank you Dan, Greg, and Izzie.

Greg, you're right about the skies. As I tend to go out shooting each day, odds are, I'll get some clouds in a shot soon!

Yes, Izzie, I like that one too. He was just coming in to land, although, I like to imagine that he was frightened at the sight of the chain, and changed his mind about landing there.

[IzzieK]

Yes, Izzie, I like that one too. He was just coming in to land, although, I like to imagine that he was frightened at the sight of the chain, and changed his mind about landing there.

Did you hear her say "Whoops!"

[jcuknz]

I like #2 as well for it saying something than rather just a bird pix ...a blue sky like a green background enables 'magic wand' to do its stuff easier and better for adding a stock shot cloud ... but you need to match the lighting direction etc.
I for all that do not have a stock shot file but found this and flipped it horizontally to at least match the lighting direction.



I should have as I was at a talk by George Chance [ the son] who told and showed us examples of how his father George Chance Snr did have a collection of sky negatives to put in place of the burnt out skies [ pure black] with the orthocromatic plates he used back in those early days. [Think ortho is correct blue sensitive only ]
Not sure which is easier ... fume room in those days or digital today

edit I selected the blue sky, deleted it, and inverted the selection to have just the bird. But of course you probably need to have an editor with layers to do this ????

[jcuknz]

Having layers doesn't mean an expensive programme as there is Paint dot Net, a free download, with which I did this version ...



The programme is a bit 'clunky' compared to PSP which I normally use and I was fumbling as I did this effort but I got there

[Chrisclick]

Hi John. Yes, been down that road. I used to add clouds in PS, and still have a collection of cloudy sky shots in my image resource folder. I did it a lot when my photography plateaued just a couple of years ago. Since then, I have really been trying hard to 'get it right in-camera'. Of course, that is easier said, than done! I still need some PP on nearly every shot I take, though try to limit it to simple exposure correction and, sometimes, the removal of unwanted elements.

I have grown patient. I now know that even if I can't get the shot that I want of a particular bird AND some nice clouds in the BG, I won't waste my time in PP putting the clouds in as I used to - there will be other opportunities, and the shot will always look better if the clouds were really there.

For me, I suppose it comes down to a couple of simple questions; do I want to be a better photographer or, a better photo manipulator? Where do I want to spend most of my time; out taking photos or, at the computer fixing them?

At the moment, I am focussing on the former, although I do appreciate the benefits of the latter.

I also appreciate you taking the time to add the clouds and, your comments. In your edit, it is easy to see one of the problems associated with adding clouds: When photographing clouds, you would tend to focus on the clouds and end up with a relatively sharp result. When photographing a bird with clouds in the BG, the bird will be sharp, the clouds will be defocussed and very soft because your aperture would normally be set for the bird (I usually shoot at between f/6.3 and f/8).

Thanks again, John.

Here is an older shot taken with my old 600D, where I added the clouds. The shot was taken at f/6.3, and as you can see, the clouds are incongruous in this context - they are not soft enough to have been taken in the same shot as the bird.

Not having looked at this shot for a while, it now looks ridiculous - to me.

[Chrisclick]

Having layers doesn't mean an expensive programme as there is Paint dot Net, a free download, with which I did this version ...

Hello again, John. Thanks for the tip, although I have been using PS for just over 4 years and currently have PS CC 2015. I am more than familiar with layers and layer masking - as I said, trying to get it right in camera now.

Although I have only been a member of CIC for a short while, I have been shooting birds and processing in PS for a good while longer.

Thanks again.

[Chrisclick]

Just did this quickly, though would rather find the clouds 'for real'. As you can see, gaussian blur is not the same as real lens blur.

[IzzieK]

These are all good edits, Chris but to achieve your blur-er clouds than the birds, you should have run the clouds first via Gaussian Blur to suit what you need in the composite, THEN put the bird in, don't you think? Your choice actually ... I like that bird in Message #15. That would have been a good example and since you have already done that one, you could have selectively select the bird then apply blurring...

[Chrisclick]

you should have run the clouds first via Gaussian Blur to suit what you need in the composite, THEN put the bird in, don't you think?

Yep, that's precisely how the image in #17 was achieved, Izzie. The object here was not to do this in post. I was just showing how adding clouds in PS is no big deal, and how Gaussian Blur leaves a lot to be desired compared with real lens blur.

The truth is, that the image in #15 is a very poor example of how to do it - i.e. not blurring the clouds enough. This was some time ago and I admired it for a while - so did others. However, it is wrong.

The image in #17 was done today (quite quickly) to show that even if you do use Gaussian Blur and, get it kind of right, Gaussian Blur is no replacement for genuine lens blur.

That's why, I've been waiting for a bird shot against clouds recently, so it can be captured in camera.

Even though I (or anyone), can add clouds in post, it's always better to capture the real thing - don't you think?

So, Izzie, which image were you referring to when you suggested that it should be done er...precisely the way it was done?

[IzzieK]

The edits of John as he illustrated for his illustration...or any birds for that matter that needed a cloud. I have not done that so I was just suggesting. I have done background clouds in a video for airplanes but not for birds...editing is a pain btw so it is better to get it right on camera...Jack (flashjack) was the one who taught me that...