The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Birds have not been very cooperative and it has b een difficult to get any artistic shots. This woodpecker was surrounded by many OOF sticks and with heavy cropping and some generative fill was able to get a reasonable comp. Too much work for an average shot!
Specific Feedback
As a comp goes it is very tight. I feel that generative fill does work, but alters the comp significantly. What do you think about using this type of fill and would you be inclined to use it under certain circumstances? Positive and negative responses are appreciated. Also, I shot this at f5.6 and the head is fairly sharp. The shoulder is slightly softer–f8 may still be the best aperture to use for this shot. Thank you.
Technical Details
z9 180-400mm f4 + 1.4 TC at 560mm (1/2500 sec at f5,6, ISO 640) DeNoise, crop for comp, generative fill for stick removal upper portion of frame, rubber stamp tool for residual artifact removal…Jim
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Nice job on the woodpecker itself, Jim. I have steered away from generative fill for the most part and stuck with content aware or doing it myself, but that’s just being stubborn. I do use the “smart” cleanup tool and it often works well, though all of those tools have some problems. I don’t have any objections to generative fill. It can help salvage a shot and as long as it’s disclosed, I’m fine with it.
I do find the perch a little weird with the but of it below the bird hanging in mid-air. I’m guessing that’s the way it was, but it feels rather odd.
I like the inquisitive expression on the woodpecker, Jim. I think your cleanup work is good and effective - I did not see anything strange in the background and it makes the subject pop. The colors and lighting are very complementary and pleasant. Re your comment on the sharpness of the head, I notice the beak is sharp, the head and eye just a little less so.
Jim, you did well with this uncooperative fellow. Mostly sharp, nice pose, and interesting branch. I like the triple-fork of the upper branch - adds a lot of interest. I agree that the lower end of the branch feels very odd, but not much to do unless you want to add a little Gen fill. I have no problem with that, if it’s disclosed, to save a nice image.
A great little bird giving you a great pose. The perch is unusual but it happens and I don’t see it as something I would like to change.
I will go to great lengths to salvage a worthwhile image; cloning, content aware, and generative fill in small areas. I would not be inclined to change large areas of backgrounds or foregrounds.
The DOF you have chosen works for me. So long as eyes are sharp, I don’t mind the detail fading away…just like our eyes do.
The colours have worked so well here. The red nape is gorgeous against the greens.
Very nice look at the WP, Jim. Good pose and I like how it aligns with the perch. I rarely use generative fill, but do use the remove tool a lot, and I suppose the algorithm uses some form of generative fill on the removed areas. Whatever, I don’t see it as a problem. Photography is an artistic medium and these tools allow us to show our subject to its fullest. I agree with the others that the perch looks strange; I don’t see how it attaches to the tree and seems to be hanging in mid-air. Like Sandy said, you could use one of the techniques to extend the branch.
Nice capture, even if the environment is not perfect. That’s nature. The end of the perch is naturally broken and not eye-catching. I don’t think it needs improvement. The branching perch puts a lot of visual weight in the UL corner which is a little awkward but it is otherwise attractive. Some minor work could diminish it a bit. I would clone over the cut branch end there and consider removing the rest of the bigger branch there. Or some cropping could deal with most of that, with a little burning. Very quick and clumsy attempt here.
I don’t object to cloning, object removal, content-aware fill or the use of generative fill in small areas where it acts like intelligent cloning, as long as it is disclosed. Adding things is another issue. I think significant additions might be honestly disclosed by including an image of the unprocessed raw file.
