SueS Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Macon, MO |
SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-1 12:24 pm
[No Edit] What do you think?Composite or not? |
|
badd Premium Member join:2001-10-04 De Queen, AR
1 recommendation |
badd
Premium Member
2013-Feb-1 1:34 pm
Composite |
|
1 recommendation |
to SueS
It's a composite, but to my eye, it's a very good one. I really like the bird's standing out so well from the blurred background. |
|
badd Premium Member join:2001-10-04 De Queen, AR
2 recommendations |
badd to SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-1 3:54 pm
to SueS
said by jaykaykay:It's a composite, but to my eye, it's a very good one. I really like the bird's standing out so well from the blurred background. Yes but the water directly below the bird is blured to much. |
|
Hawk Premium Member join:2003-08-25 |
Hawk to SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-1 4:09 pm
to SueS
said by SueS:Composite or not? Not. Just a really good shot |
|
vaxvmsferroequine fan Premium Member join:2005-03-01 Polar Park
1 recommendation |
to SueS
Composite. The shadows and light on the bird look wrong. |
|
GeekGirl1 Premium Member join:2007-01-28 Morrisville, PA 1 edit
2 recommendations |
to SueS
Composite, but very good. In addition to the lighting and shadows, the sharpness is far greater on the bird than on the water at the same relatative distance from the lens. (What badd said.) Also, he's far too low over the water to be in "cruise mode." |
|
Exit
join:2001-04-10 Canada
1 recommendation |
to SueS
not |
|
SueS Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Macon, MO |
SueS to Hawk
Premium Member
2013-Feb-2 10:02 pm
to Hawk
said by Hawk:said by SueS:Composite or not? Not. Just a really good shot Thank you! |
|
SueS
1 recommendation |
SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-2 10:08 pm
Posting a copy of the original. This photo could have been cropped a few different ways, this is the one I chose. I did normal work flow and cloned out the buoy, because it was competing for attention.
Interesting comments. The photo is not a composite. I was not intentionally trying to fool anyone, I was just curious, because I could see how folks might think it was a composite. The image is about a 50% crop of the original. The bird was any where from a ½ to full football field away and the background was a long way behind the bird. I was in the process of shooting something else and caught the bird from the side flying by and swung around in time to catch him. The camera picked him up quickly because he was out in good light and in the open with nothing else to fool the camera.
Thanks for looking and commenting. |
|
badd Premium Member join:2001-10-04 De Queen, AR
1 recommendation |
badd to SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 6:39 am
to SueS
Looking at the original explains why the focus was all wrong in your original post which is what made me think it was a composite. |
|
GeekGirl1 Premium Member join:2007-01-28 Morrisville, PA
1 recommendation |
to SueS
As badd says, the focus perspective is different than when looking at the original. The removal of the buoy explains the somewhat blurry focus in that spot, which contributed to what I saw. I also see that the bird's cruising altitude is higher than it appeared to be. |
|
|
SueS Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Macon, MO |
SueS
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 2:18 pm
You know when you download photos to your computer, and the first pass you get rid of the photos that don't make the cut. Well this one was a "maybe" I will come back and take another look. After I played with it I kind of liked it, so it was a nice surprise. I prefer bird photos with some background other than plain blue sky's or only water, anything to add some interest. |
|
1 recommendation |
Sue, it's not always easy to do composites so they look 100% right. Actually, oft times, more than not, they aren't. But working with them and playing around with them is a heck of a lot of fun. Unless you have to have the perfect look, I would just continue to work with them, and enjoy the whole thing. Sometimes, by doing so, you can actually make a silk purse from a sow's ear! |
|