To clone or not to clone...

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).

dupcak

dupcak

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Quick story about this shot:

I decided to visit Great Meadows NWR in Massachusetts after seeing photos posted by @gpsman. I got there on a cold, gray and blustery morning. I captured a few red-winged blackbirds and then came across the one pictured below. After it flew off I noticed another photographer walking towards me and we started to chat. He then pulled out his phone to show me a picture of some wood ducks he had taken at the refuge and I immediately recognized them as the same photos that convinced me to make the trek to that location. So in a funny coincidence I met @gpsman without any previous planning. Definitely an added bonus to the day.

Anyway - I wasn't planning on capturing the takeoff so my shutter speed was much too slow, but it kinda works. I know there is motion blur, but my real question is would you clone out the cattails? If so, which ones - all of the extraneous ones? Just under the tip of the tail? Just under the left wing? The ones in the lower left? I know it's a matter of personal preference but me, myself and I have been arguing amongst ourselves and I'm not sure who's winning.

All other critique is sincerely appreciated (and requested).

- Rob
_RD41254-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I dont like the cattails that touches the subject. I would personally either blur them a lot more, or remove it altogether. The other cattails are pretty nice - there could have been more. Background colour is very dull, and more non-distracting cattails would perhaps have made it less so.
Why not try it and then see what YOU like best.
 
Member's gallery
Consider a low opacity clone from the blank background onto the cattail touching the wing. I believe this might optically push it back a bit and add some more tonal separation from the foreground.
 
Member's gallery
dupcak said:
Quick story about this shot:

I decided to visit Great Meadows NWR in Massachusetts after seeing photos posted by @gpsman. I got there on a cold, gray and blustery morning. I captured a few red-winged blackbirds and then came across the one pictured below. After it flew off I noticed another photographer walking towards me and we started to chat. He then pulled out his phone to show me a picture of some wood ducks he had taken at the refuge and I immediately recognized them as the same photos that convinced me to make the trek to that location. So in a funny coincidence I met @gpsman without any previous planning. Definitely an added bonus to the day.

Anyway - I wasn't planning on capturing the takeoff so my shutter speed was much too slow, but it kinda works. I know there is motion blur, but my real question is would you clone out the cattails? If so, which ones - all of the extraneous ones? Just under the tip of the tail? Just under the left wing? The ones in the lower left? I know it's a matter of personal preference but me, myself and I have been arguing amongst ourselves and I'm not sure who's winning.

All other critique is sincerely appreciated (and requested).

- Rob
Click to expand...
I really like the outstretched wings on the bird. I think the image is the right idea.

The blacks on the bird are a bit too dark - underexposed or too much contrast somewhere in the edit.

Almost the first place I looked was the cattail crossing the tail of the bird. I'd remove the portion that intersects the bird's tail down through the foot. As mentioned, it's generally a bad idea to have any intersections with your subject, and in this case, against the clean sky it stands out more than against a large amount of cattails. I think the ones in the background are fine although I might remove or lighten the top of the one touching the lower wing.
 
Member's gallery
BAL Land said:
I would leave it, but will point out that the image is pretty underexposed.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I just built a brand new computer and figured the calibration should be close.... definitely not. That's at least 1 stop underexposed - yikes. Looking at it on my semi-calibrated laptop it's completely obvious.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
I dont like the cattails that touches the subject. I would personally either blur them a lot more, or remove it altogether. The other cattails are pretty nice - there could have been more. Background colour is very dull, and more non-distracting cattails would perhaps have made it less so.
Why not try it and then see what YOU like best.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion - I did a little bit of playing with it and kept having arguments with myself about what I did like. This definitely isn't a huge favorite of mine, but it was a good sample for me to play with and get a better understanding of what should/shouldn't be included in a photo.
 
Member's gallery
PMcMillan said:
Consider a low opacity clone from the blank background onto the cattail touching the wing. I believe this might optically push it back a bit and add some more tonal separation from the foreground.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea - I hadn't thought about that approach before. I'll have to give it a try. Exactly why I posted it - so I can get feedback and new ideas - many thanks!
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I really like the outstretched wings on the bird. I think the image is the right idea.

The blacks on the bird are a bit too dark - underexposed or too much contrast somewhere in the edit.

Almost the first place I looked was the cattail crossing the tail of the bird. I'd remove the portion that intersects the bird's tail down through the foot. As mentioned, it's generally a bad idea to have any intersections with your subject, and in this case, against the clean sky it stands out more than against a large amount of cattails. I think the ones in the background are fine although I might remove or lighten the top of the one touching the lower wing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback! Definitely underexposed and I did bump up the contrast. Just built a new computer and I was hoping that the calibration would be close enough - WRONG! Looking at it on my semi-calibrated laptop I can see it's woefully underexposed.

I was thinking about removing the the "main" cattail (the one that the bird launched itself from) and didn't want to remove it since it obviously just took off from that one. However looking at it again I could easily remove the portion above the bird without removing the perch it just left from.
 
I'd remove all of the prominent one about 1/4 in from the right. It being pretty in focus and in the foreground doesn't add to the image. The others give a sense of place and motion.
 
Member's gallery
Everyone has different tastes when it comes to photos. The key is what do you think should be done and would you be happy with the result? At the end, that is all that really matters. If it were my photo, I absolutely would not clone out any of the cattails although most o them would be easy to remove. To me, the environment where these creatures live is as important to the story my photos tell (or attempt to tell) as the portrait of the creature itself. If I had never seen a redwing blackbird before or lived somewhere in the world where these beauties do not live, I would instantly know they like to be around shallow water areas. Given the state of the cattails, I would be curious if they live there year around, only in the winter, or if this photo was taken in early spring when they were marking of territory before the cattails turned green. The presence of the cattails tells a story and draws me into the scene. I can imagine myself standing there watching this creature.

Just my $.02 worth. In the end, it really depends on what story YOU want to tell with your photographs and what message you want the viewer to leave with.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
The cattails are fine.

I agree with some of the other commenters that the you can improve the bird image by reducing the blackness (probably a consequence of shooting on a cloudy day?) and retrieve more feather detail.
 
Member's gallery
dupcak said:
Thanks for the feedback! Definitely underexposed and I did bump up the contrast. Just built a new computer and I was hoping that the calibration would be close enough - WRONG! Looking at it on my semi-calibrated laptop I can see it's woefully underexposed.

I was thinking about removing the the "main" cattail (the one that the bird launched itself from) and didn't want to remove it since it obviously just took off from that one. However looking at it again I could easily remove the portion above the bird without removing the perch it just left from.
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning calibration of the new monitor. But the comments are related to exposure. The image may have been under-exposed at the time of capture. When looking at the raw un-edited image, does the histogram reflect that the image is under-exposed? Is sky (brights) weighted to the center or further left ? If so, you can increase the exposure in LR, Bridge, or whatever raw processing s/w you are using.

Regarding the cat tails...... this looks like a take off shot to me. Thus the cattail gives context to the image. It's not ideal that it intersects with the tail, but to me it would look odd to remove it since the black bird in not totally in flight. So no, I would not remove it.
 
EricBowles said:
We've been talking about cloning out the cattails, but you might also consider cloning in additional cattails. It could add to the sense of place and balance of the image as well as give you some room if you wanted to remove part of another one.
Click to expand...

Agree with that one, would enhance the sense of place.

I'll just add if using photoshop. for the source pixels (Window/Clone source) you can enlarge, rotate, etc. the source pixels so they don't look exactly the same. Another approach would be to put the image with the cattails in a separate layer above the main and CTRL-T to rotate, enlarge, etc. the whole layer then mask for the parts to be revealed.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Everyone has different tastes when it comes to photos. The key is what do you think should be done and would you be happy with the result? At the end, that is all that really matters. If it were my photo, I absolutely would not clone out any of the cattails although most o them would be easy to remove. To me, the environment where these creatures live is as important to the story my photos tell (or attempt to tell) as the portrait of the creature itself. If I had never seen a redwing blackbird before or lived somewhere in the world where these beauties do not live, I would instantly know they like to be around shallow water areas. Given the state of the cattails, I would be curious if they live there year around, only in the winter, or if this photo was taken in early spring when they were marking of territory before the cattails turned green. The presence of the cattails tells a story and draws me into the scene. I can imagine myself standing there watching this creature.

Just my $.02 worth. In the end, it really depends on what story YOU want to tell with your photographs and what message you want the viewer to leave with.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input - I guess I was unsure what story I wanted to tell, I kept coming up with different answers each time I started editing.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
You keep mentioning calibration of the new monitor. But the comments are related to exposure. The image may have been under-exposed at the time of capture. When looking at the raw un-edited image, does the histogram reflect that the image is under-exposed? Is sky (brights) weighted to the center or further left ? If so, you can increase the exposure in LR, Bridge, or whatever raw processing s/w you are using.

Regarding the cat tails...... this looks like a take off shot to me. Thus the cattail gives context to the image. It's not ideal that it intersects with the tail, but to me it would look odd to remove it since the black bird in not totally in flight. So no, I would not remove it.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that the initial error is underexposure in camera. I usually underexpose by 1/2 to 1 full stop since a) my eyes can't tell when I'm clipping highlights and b) the histogram in the EVF isn't large enough to tell if I'm clipping small areas when shooting. So I typically try to underexpose and then rely on ISO invariance to bring things back in post production. Hence why I need to make sure the brightness of my monitor is approximately correct. Since my monitor has been correct for so long I ignored the histogram in LR and did everything by sight which was my downfall this time.

Thanks for the thoughts on the cattails - It definitely was a takeoff photo so keeping the "main" cattail seems natural - the others seem to be up to personal interpretation.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
We've been talking about cloning out the cattails, but you might also consider cloning in additional cattails. It could add to the sense of place and balance of the image as well as give you some room if you wanted to remove part of another one.
Click to expand...

I like that idea! Could partially solve the boring gray background as well as add more to the story.

bleirer said:
Agree with that one, would enhance the sense of place.

I'll just add if using photoshop. for the source pixels (Window/Clone source) you can enlarge, rotate, etc. the source pixels so they don't look exactly the same. Another approach would be to put the image with the cattails in a separate layer above the main and CTRL-T to rotate, enlarge, etc. the whole layer then mask for the parts to be revealed.
Click to expand...
Another great tip - so glad I asked for help.
 
Member's gallery
dupcak said:
I completely agree that the initial error is underexposure in camera. I usually underexpose by 1/2 to 1 full stop since a) my eyes can't tell when I'm clipping highlights and b) the histogram in the EVF isn't large enough to tell if I'm clipping small areas when shooting. So I typically try to underexpose and then rely on ISO invariance to bring things back in post production. Hence why I need to make sure the brightness of my monitor is approximately correct. Since my monitor has been correct for so long I ignored the histogram in LR and did everything by sight which was my downfall this time.

Thanks for the thoughts on the cattails - It definitely was a takeoff photo so keeping the "main" cattail seems natural - the others seem to be up to personal interpretation.
Click to expand...
FWIW - many photographers feel that the Nikon cameras slightly under exposes images. THEY set their cameras to + .7 metering adjustment using b6 on the Z9. By intentionally under exposing, you may actually be compounding the exposure. I suggest you try using the histogram without intentionally dialing in under exposure. Then only lower the exposure when the right side of the histogram is definitely climbing up the right edge. Give it a try. You can always adjust using the exposure compensation button.

IMHO opinion, the "other" cat tails also give context and are not visually strong enough to detract from the image. I think they add to the image. But it is YOUR image and your decision.

I'm not a fan of the square crop here. Did you try a 2x3 crop ratio, giving a bit more room on the left?
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
FWIW - many photographers feel that the Nikon cameras slightly under exposes images. THEY set their cameras to + .7 metering adjustment using b6 on the Z9. By intentionally under exposing, you may actually be compounding the exposure. I suggest you try using the histogram without intentionally dialing in under exposure. Then only lower the exposure when the right side of the histogram is definitely climbing up the right edge. Give it a try. You can always adjust using the exposure compensation button.

IMHO opinion, the "other" cat tails also give context and are not visually strong enough to detract from the image. I think they add to the image. But it is YOUR image and your decision.

I'm not a fan of the square crop here. Did you try a 2x3 crop ratio, giving a bit more room on the left?
Click to expand...
I guess I should say that I don't intentionally underexpose with a strict exposure compensation, I just dial in what looks like it is slightly underexposed. In this case I dialed in +0.3 and since the majority of the scene is a bright grey that meant that I was still a full stop underexposed. Either way, I need to get better at looking at the histogram in the EVF.

This is a 4x5 crop and I did try a 2x3 crop. I went with the 4x5 since there was so much dead space on the left that is was boring. However if I take the suggestion of @EricBowles and add in some extra OOF cattails/reeds then a 2x3 could work out nicely.
 
Member's gallery
dupcak said:
Thanks for the input - I guess I was unsure what story I wanted to tell, I kept coming up with different answers each time I started editing.
Click to expand...
Dupcak,
This is part of the fun in wildlife and nature photography. Each photo has a different story to tell and trying to determine what that story is keeps me coming back to this genre of photography.
Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top