What technical feedback would you like if any?
I found a really neat looking rood wad on a volunteer workday last week and I added it to my pond set-up yesterday. Unfortunately, the long skinny tendril that became the perch in this image was angling away from me and was rather bright (I’ll post a jpeg of the original). I tried burning it to minimize the impact, but I’m still none to happy with the results.
Anyone have any suggestions? or should I just give it up as a lost cause?
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Any pertinent technical details:
7D II, Sigma 150-600 C @ 600 mm, f/8, 1/4000, iso 1600 (the sun came out), -1 EV. In addition to the perch, I cropped a touch off the bottom and added the same to the top and did some work to minimize some brighter out of focus stems that were rather distracting.
Here’s what the original looked like.
Dennis, I like most of the processing, especially the perch and the BG. The YRWs we get over here are a shade darker than this. What I have seen on the web, for what it’s worth, looks closer to your original. The detail on the bird is sharp a plenty!
The reduction in brightness of the stem definitely helped. I think you can reduce it some more and see if that makes the stem less prominent. It is surprising how much the brightness can be reduced before the image becomes unnatural.
I also think the original (second) image showed the details on the warbler a little better - not sure if this an illusion or whether your processing affected the warbler too.
Dennis, I think this is okay. The perch is not that noticeable especially in the posted image compared to the original. Another thing you can do in this case to make it less noticeable would be to clone some of the texture from (with this image) the area of the wood underneath the beak and belly to the upper part. I don’t know where the boundary is between simple cloning and what some might consider photo art.
