Guardians

[Astramael]

For my second thread I'm posting up an image I've wanted to love for a long time.



200mm, 1/180th sec, f/5.6, ISO640
Olympus OM-D E-M5, Lumix G Vario 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6

When I took this photo I remember thinking it was such a perfect scene. Only to be disappointed when I got it home and found that it lacked punch. Despite some significant time in the editing bay I couldn't make it sing. I like the semi-gothic look it has. The cormorants are reminiscent of stone gargoyles. The path of lit water in the middle is naturally vignetted somewhat. It feels like they are guardians of something, there's almost a story here.

Flaws I can identify: Despite an aggressive depth of field blur, it wasn't enough. The water is still busy and damages the birds' silhouettes. The shade of yellow on the water is not attractive. It doesn't help that they have green eyes which blend in a lot.

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this one?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Julian,

I do, but perhaps they may be a bit too much (either in concept or application).

Fundamentally, to be guardians of the river, it doesn't help that the branch crosses the entire viewpoint.
By some challenging digital artistry, I wondered if it might be possible to clone 'break' the branches in the middle area, then build up the right hand side so it looks believable as being able to support the weight of the cormorant. i.e. make it look like they are perched on separate branches emanating from each side of the scene. I'll say now that such would be tricky to achieve, probably beyond my skills.

I think I'd take out the two odd branch intrusions along bottom edge towards right of arch.

With regard to the water colour, although I have never succeeded, I have seen people successfully change the colour of image features quite easily. (whenever I try, I end up doing each blob individually, which is not viable with this many blobs!)

On a separate layer, can the birds be aggressively dodged and burned, plus Local Contrast Enhanced, to reveal more texture in their plumage? (while leaving the river unaffected)

Cheers, Dave

[IzzieK]

Dave, I think PHLearn.com have some good tutorials on changing colour via the Hue and Saturation sliders in Photoshop. I haven't tried that tutorial yet there.

Julian, I do not know what software you use for editing but if you do have Photoshop, look for Mastering the Clone Tool video tutorial. It will help with what Dave suggested for you to achieve here in this image.

[Shadowman]

To me they are symbolic of danger more than guardians, but then guardians are sometimes required to use force in order to protect. I like the composition, agree about removing some of the extra branches. I'm seeing more blue flecks in the water which doesn't hurt the visuals.

[ionian]

I think you are being quite harsh on yourself with this one - the composition is good and you have clearly done a lot of clean-up work in post to bring out the subject.

As Izzie says, have a look at PHLearn videos on youtube (assuming you use photoshop) for changing the colour of that water. You could go for a complementary or contrasting tone - I think a burnt orange, like sunset on the water, would work well but I'd want to have a good fiddle about to try out various options. PHLearn videos are absolutely superb and have really improved my photoshop skills - I can't recommend them highly enough.

I'd want to clean up some of the cloning work, as I assume the larger blue flecks are artifacts left over from removing branches. It may also be worth looking at the white balance of the branches, which are very blue - not an issue for me, but making them a more neutral tone may help the overall image.

To make the water less busy, look at using the lens blur feature in Photoshop, masking the in-focus areas. You may need to feather the mask a little or it will look like the birds are stuck on - don't over do it but you can definitely smooth out some of that busyness. It may also be worth pulling down the levels of the water with a curves adjustment - in the middle or biased towards the highlights - but you may need to go back and look at the master levels once you have done it.

I am in no way an expert so take the above with a pinch of salt, but these are the things I would try myself. Sometimes you can spend so long trying to make something out of the concept you have in your head that you fall out of love with the picture. If you feel this happening, put it away for a week and come back later. It is already a good picture IMO.

[Astramael]

Thanks for all the great suggestions, folks.

Below is an output of the original RAW, no edits applied. Just to give some idea of what existed in the picture as shot and what is floating around the edges of the crop.



I am not sure if I want to dig in heavily in Photoshop. I certainly have the tools and the knowledge. This is a fairly easy masking job too because the contrast between birds and background is very high. Perhaps I will take a swing at a major edit and re-composite. I do really like the core of this photo.

Keep the suggestions coming!

[Mike Buckley]

This really does have terrific potential in my mind. If the image was mine, I would use the composition in the orginal, clone to eliminate the two twigs sticking up from the bottom, probably desaturate the water just a little bit and otherwise do the normal adjustments of the tone curve to brighten the subjects a tad and to enhance their mid-tone contrast. I might add a little Local Contrast Enhancement on the birds but only if it was then needed.

There is a strong blue cast on the wood and birds. If that's to be expected, that's fine. If not, I would change their color cast.

[ionian]

It's interesting - I was sure you'd removed branches at first glance, just from the blue flecks around the image. They must be a combination of foreground objects and reflections I guess.

The thing you can't change - sensor size of your camera and lowest minimum aperture of your lens - are the only way to smooth out that background fully in camera at that focal length. You use m43, it has plenty of benefits, but this is one of it's limitations as I am sure you are aware. I see you shot at 200mm, I guess you potentially could have stepped back and used 300mm, but that a) doesn't help you now and b) may not have been practical from an environment or sharpness perspective.

I find myself in a situation such as yours quite often, liking an image but not loving it, and looking for inspiration - so I'm keen to follow this thread closely to help my own photography.

[Astramael]

I spent quite a long while trying to reason about this image. First I masked all the individual components, and made it so I was able to manipulate the image atomically. Then I started trying things. Everything in this thread and more.



Today out of nowhere it struck me that color was completely irrelevant to this image. Grays and blacks that contained blue only by virtue of their white balance. A desaturated yellowish sickly shade on the water. Meaningless. So I started playing with black and white.

It was important to have the elements separate because each thing needed its own B&W conversion mixture and curve adjustment. Spot exposure, blurs, and additional shading overlays. Although I believe the image looks natural, I doubt there is a pixel in there which has not been tinkered with heavily.

Edit: To add some statistics... 2.5GB of PSD files, 8 adjustment layers, 5 primary mask layers, 15 secondary mask patches, 10 gradient overlays. Edited as 16-Bit ProPhoto. Not that big for a Photoshop project, but very big for a quixotic quest.

What do you all think of this result?

[Dave Humphries]

Yup, that works well Julian.

You're correct, the colour wasn't necessary, as you say, actually detrimental to obtaining the best from this scene.

The only query I have now relates to the eye of the Left Hand Cormorant, why is it bright? (unlike the more natural looking example on the right)

Is it specific to that bird, or perhaps a reflection of any flash used in capture? (I'm just intrigued)

Thanks, Dave

[Astramael]

Dave,

Well spotted! The eye on the left hand cormorant had a specular highlight from something. No flash fired so I'm not really sure what, see below.



The eyes are so bright because I boosted them up in processing. I was never satisfied with how dull they were in the image. Unfortunately that also made the eye unclear. I have tweaked the image in the above post to remedy that.

[Mike Buckley]

I also like the monochrome version. My only issue with it is that the bright water immediately takes my eye past the birds. You might want to consider reducing the brightness and the contrast in that area. I tried it and liked it for the reason I mentioned. I was also happy with an additional benefit that the nice detail in the birds pops out even more.

[Astramael]

Funny you should mention this, Mike. There is actually a white gradient across the middle which I added to brighten it up and dark gradients along both sides. I liked the center focus this image had. I will play further with that balance and see if I can define the birds a bit better. I agree with you that it is very attention-hungry and I would like the birds to command more presence in the shot. That's one of the reasons I brightened up the eyes so much, gives a fixation point for the viewer.

I think it will always be a struggle to get the birds to have strong appearance here because they are black. The bright part of the frame is always the part which grabs attention first. I was thinking of adding some highlighting to the edges of the birds to pull them to the fore a bit more. We shall see...

Thanks for all the commentary, folks.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Julian,

I think, at the 'risk' of not having a true white in the shot, not only does the central brighter water need a very slight pull down on exposure, but the gradient darkening of the edges needs significant easing off (especially top corners) - the bird's tones are too similar to the water on their outside edges, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps a small dimming down of the brightness at the top centre of frame too?
Maybe ditch the gradients and just go with a traditional vignette?

I like the 'balanced' eyes now.

Cheers, Dave