I hadn’t originally planned to post this, but I thought I would in light of @Keith_Bauer 's recent article on including more of the environment. As you can see I did considerable pruning as this was going to be basically an ID shot of the Red-shouldered Hawk for my personal files (probably my best look at this species). The background is certainly busy, but I think I might like that one better and it sure is a lot less work!
What technical feedback would you like if any? Any
What artistic feedback would you like if any? The “pruned” version had some canvas added on the left, which is why the tree looks a bit different.
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
Canon 7DII; Sigma 150-600mm at 232 mm; 1/1000 at f6.3; ISO 200
Taken in the parking lot of the visitor’s center at the Sacramento NWR in February. A very cooperative Hawk.
@Allen_Brooks. Thanks for sharing the before and after versions of this image. I thought it was interesting that you noted this was
It is a nice ID shot of the hawk, and the original is a better ID shot of the bird. For those looking for one in the wild the original is authentic of the circumstances most of us find them. The one on the right feels pristine and odd as it is a VERY rare circumstance to find one that clear of the environment they live in. While the cropping of both is nearly the same (noting the slight change that you mentioned in your description), this is a really nice example to add to the thoughts I shared in my recent article. Thanks for the mention, and thanks again for sharing this example. Really good stuff.
What a fine look at this Red-shouldered Hawk, Allen. I like that you shared the comparison of cropping all the distractions out and leaving them in. It may be more of an ID shot, but I do like the one with the limbs in, although I know you put quite a bit in the cloning, and a fine job at that. Like others mentioned, it looks more natural of what we are used to seeing.
The pruning job certainly makes it less busy and it probably requires a fair amount of time to clean that up. Perhaps we need Topaz AI Cloning? Both images are effective with respect to color, quality of the light, and clarity. Even with the busyness of the left image it’s pretty easy to focus on the bird. I actually prefer the post pruning job because it looks more realistic. Maybe eliminating 50% of the twigs rather than all of them would be a happy medium.
I don’t mind the busy background of the first one, Allen, but I really like the post processing you did on the hawk and perch for the ID version.I think this all comes down to what you want to do with the image. I have no problem with cleaning up the background for an ID type shot or for lots of other purposes where the background doesn’t matter. However, if you’re looking at using it for an article about the refuge where you shot it, or where to look for this kind of bird, then I would say you’d want the background left in and probably a wider shot with more habitat.
Nice shot. It is well exposed, nice and sharp with a nice DoF. You got nice and close and the bird out in the open. Well done.
If it was mine, and it is not, I would be very happy with the photo on the left and file it away for a nice ID shot of the hawk. As far as posting is concerned I think you could post either. They are both good just different.
