Did I go too far?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

D

Doomrider74

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I was mooching through some photographs from last November and found this one. I like the eagle, but the lighting was a bit harsh so I started playing around with it for a bit of fun. I actually quite like the result, but I'm not sure if it's veering into digital "art" or not, which I generally tryto avoid.

What do you folk think?

https://flic.kr/p/2pudmKT
Nothing is added to, or taken away from, the photo, except cropping for composition.
 
Member's gallery
I think we, on this forum and nature photographers in general, get a little too hung up on this topic. It is an outstanding photograph. If you like it that is really all that matters.

Outside of other photographers, nobody will know or care if there was post processing done or not.

In fact, sometimes photos that I think are rather bland and routine are the ones folks like the most and ones I'm really proud of barely get more than a couple "likes" or a "nice shot" in comments.

At the end of the day enjoy your photos as other people enjoy your photos.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I think we, on this forum and nature photographers in general, get a little too hung up on this topic. It is an outstanding photograph. If you like it that is really all that matters.

Outside of other photographers, nobody will know or care if there was post processing done or not.

In fact, sometimes photos that I think are rather bland and routine are the ones folks like the most and ones I'm really proud of barely get more than a couple "likes" or a "nice shot" in comments.

At the end of the day enjoy your photos as other people enjoy your photos.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate where you're coming from. As a fairly new entry to the world of wildlife photography, I'm still trying to hone in on what I like and it's boundaries, and sometimes throwing it open to others helps me get out of my head, if that makes sense.

I really appreciate your input.
 
To me the detail-less black goes too far, making it almost a negative space swap where the black becomes the figure and the bird the ground. I think detail-less black is good in small amounts in the deepest shadows.
 
Member's gallery
Doomrider74 said:
I was mooching through some photographs from last November and found this one. I like the eagle, but the lighting was a bit harsh so I started playing around with it for a bit of fun. I actually quite like the result, but I'm not sure if it's veering into digital "art" or not, which I generally tryto avoid.

What do you folk think?
Click to expand...
I'm mixed on the result. The head and shoulders detail - and sunlit parts of the wings are great. But the shadow areas on the bird are a bit too dark for my taste. The problem areas are under the left wing, under the right wing, the bird's chest on it's right side, and the underside of the feet.

I'm not sure of the technique that was used for the edits. I wonder if there was any context in the environment that would have been useful in the image rather than pushing it to near black. I also can't tell whether I'm seeing a radial filter or natural falloff - and it feels like a radial filter. What's left looks a lot like a bird against a black background. So my objective would be to make the bird brighter in the shadows, and either have an environmental context or a black background.

I do routinely drop the exposure of backgrounds by 1-2 stops to help the subject to pop. I decrease contrast, reduce exposure, and sometimes reduce saturation to make a background that is more neutral and subdued.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I'm mixed on the result. The head and shoulders detail - and sunlit parts of the wings are great. But the shadow areas on the bird are a bit too dark for my taste. The problem areas are under the left wing, under the right wing, the bird's chest on it's right side, and the underside of the feet.

I'm not sure of the technique that was used for the edits. I wonder if there was any context in the environment that would have been useful in the image rather than pushing it to near black. I also can't tell whether I'm seeing a radial filter or natural falloff - and it feels like a radial filter. What's left looks a lot like a bird against a black background. So my objective would be to make the bird brighter in the shadows, and either have an environmental context or a black background.

I do routinely drop the exposure of backgrounds by 1-2 stops to help the subject to pop. I decrease contrast, reduce exposure, and sometimes reduce saturation to make a background that is more neutral and subdued.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input, Eric. No radial masks were used, only a subject mask that I duplicated and inverted.

The details are there, so I can play with it some more to bring back some of darker shadows on the eagle.
 
Member's gallery
I agree that only photographers might be given pause regarding the post-processing. To me, it appears as though it is flash photography since the background is so much darker. It immediately struck me as a Photoshop background mask that has been darkened too much. IMHO as to the background, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I would bring the background back up some. But the bird is in focus. But this is my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and armpits, etc.
 
Member's gallery
The_Wild_Chesapeake said:
I agree that only photographers might be given pause regarding the post-processing. To me, it appears as though it is flash photography since the background is so much darker. It immediately struck me as a Photoshop background mask that has been darkened too much. IMHO as to the background, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I would bring the background back up some. But the bird is in focus. But this is my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and armpits, etc.
Click to expand...
I've already done a few other versions where I've scaled back the background level adjustment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top