Thoughts on this Black Throated Blue Warbler

[Todd R]

I did my best to capture and edit this photo to represent how I perceived it in it's environment. It was a very sunny afternoon and there were deep shadows in the forest making the distinction between shadow and light very harsh. Below are the 'original' and edited versions of this photo. I would appreciate your feedback, as I'm not sure if I'm happy with my results.

Original:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Processed:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Thanks for your advice.

 

[ssheipel]

I like it; am a fan of 'environmental' compositions. Here very much like we're getting a sneak peak through the foliage at this gorgeous bird.

 

[brachypelma44]

The out of focus foliage between the camera and the bird kills it for me. If this was my image, I would have deleted it during the culling process. Part of my job is eliminating distracting elements, and that's a huge one that no amount of post-processing can fix.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I like it. Not all birds like to sit out in the open and yell "photograph me" ! If they are a dense woods bird, there will almost always be something in the way. I would rather get the shot than throw it away. Hopefully, someday you will get the "perfect" shot. I prefer the original.

 

[DripDryMcFleye]

I actually like the first, wider shot. It is showing enough feather detail and a bit more environment. It might be worth a try to crop one somewhere in between the two you have posted.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I'd say you handled the conditions pretty well. This is what I call a "documentary" shot. It's not going to win any awards but you came away with a reasonable image. The differences in comments above demonstrate how differently we all perceive photography. IMO I'd crop the second version down to a 4x5 format and call it good.

 

[KirstyM]

That green leaf seemed like quite a challenge, so I hope you don't mind that I've had a play in lightroom? I desaturated the belly area, but tinted my brush with a creamy colour picked from the underside of the bird - I've copied my brush settings below in case you're interested... I also desaturated and darkened the greens, brightened the blues, and knocked back the highlights overall. It would work much better on the full resolution image of course.

Ps - apologies... just realised this ISN'T in the post processing forum so my playing with it might be really bad form.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Todd R]

Thank you all for your responses! I do like your edit KirstyM - superb job! And I think that helped clarify in my mind why I was on the fence on this one. I think the image would work with either no foliage in front of the bird or obvious foliage in front of the bird. Instead, my image is somewhere in between. I've been trying to include more environment in my photos and overall I feel lucky to get a shot of a quickly moving bird in dense undergrowth even if it isn't a stellar photo.

Thank you all again!

 

[EricBowles]

There are different types of images. This is essentially a documentary image - proof of an interesting bird. With documentary images editing has limits and may be prohibited, but in general cleaning up out of focus leaves is not a problem. Editorial images might fall into this category, but for editorial work, a more artistic presentation is preferred if available.

I don't think it can be a good artistic image. Even with a crop and the blurred leaves removed, the posture of the bird is awkward. Said another way, if you had unlimited opportunities to photograph this bird, is this the ideal pose and composition you were seeking or that you pre-visualized? I know an ideal pose may not be possible in a single outing with limited time and a moving subject, but that's the standard. The other question to ask yourself is whether this image is "wall worthy" - that is, printed and displayed.

The photo itself is a good effort at a tough subject. It captures the bird in its environment, it's sharp, and it's reasonably lit. It could easily be the best photo of a tough bird to capture.

 

[dwillar]

Those are both stellar photos. Both have your subject in razor sharp focus. That says volumes about your abilities with your camera! I expect there will be some secretly jealous people looking at these images. Congratulations!

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I keep thinking that I have seen that image somewhere else....

 

[Basil]

Good effort at difficult Subject. , I think both efforts are good and Kirsty edit works well. I agree with the previous comments, particularly Eric's, it is a good shot and a great learning experience.

 

[Nimi]

There are different types of images. This is essentially a documentary image - proof of an interesting bird. With documentary images editing has limits and may be prohibited, but in general cleaning up out of focus leaves is not a problem. Editorial images might fall into this category, but for editorial work, a more artistic presentation is preferred if available.

I don't think it can be a good artistic image. Even with a crop and the blurred leaves removed, the posture of the bird is awkward. Said another way, if you had unlimited opportunities to photograph this bird, is this the ideal pose and composition you were seeking or that you pre-visualized? I know an ideal pose may not be possible in a single outing with limited time and a moving subject, but that's the standard. The other question to ask yourself is whether this image is "wall worthy" - that is, printed and displayed.

The photo itself is a good effort at a tough subject. It captures the bird in its environment, it's sharp, and it's reasonably lit. It could easily be the best photo of a tough bird to capture.

I learned something. Thank you.