King Parrot

[BobGilbody]

This morning I got this image:

king female 09 02 2023 -4469 by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

I spent some time adjusting the image in LR and Photoshop:

king female PP5 09 02 2023 -4469-DeNoiseAI-standard by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

Would it be acceptable as a print?

king female PP6 09 02 2023 -4469-DeNoiseAI-standard by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

[Geoff F]

That bird is fractionally tight at the top and bottom although this would still be acceptable and your edit works OK.

[BobGilbody]

Thanks for the reply Geoff. I once used masks but never had much idea what was going on; just spent a lot of time following instructions off the net. I did find the canvas size button and got this image.

king female PP7 09 02 2023 -4469-DeNoiseAI-standard by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

[pschlute]

Well it looks fine to me.

Careful with the adjustments....the perch being cut off at both ends looks odd

[BobGilbody]

Thanks for the reply Peter.

king female PP6 10 02 2023 -4469-DeNoiseAI-standard by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

[Geoff F]

That edit looks good to me.

[billtils]

Me too

[Manfred M]

I tend to not like images like this one because the background and subject do not look "believable", based on how light behaves.

There are only two circumstances where we can see such a significant tonal range difference between the subject and the background and both are artificial light shots. I can create a shot that looks like this in a large studio, where there is significant space for light to drop off (which can be assisted by a black background) or outdoors at night.

We normally see some of the background and light drop off is generally much more gentle and subtle. I find that the crushed blacks (as shown by blue in this Adobe Camera Raw screenshot) just don't look quite believable. More subtlety tends to make for a more believable shot.

[BobGilbody]

Hello Manfred,
Thanks for the comments. A few points:

I was not expecting the viewer to 'believe' that all the lights had gone out except for the light hitting the parrot and its perch.
Things are not coloured, the light is reflected.
Anyway this is making my brain hurt.

All the best Bob

[Manfred M]

Hello Manfred,
Thanks for the comments. A few points:

I was not expecting the viewer to 'believe' that all the lights had gone out except for the light hitting the parrot and its perch.
Things are not coloured, the light is reflected.
Anyway this is making my brain hurt.

All the best Bob

Believability is a key aspect of a strong image. Feature film makers have a long history of making movies that are believable but not realistic. The sci-fi movies, for instance, quite believable, yet we know that they cannot possibly be realistic. They often do this with lighting, fooling the viewer. This is where I am coming from.

A brilliantly lit bird against a black background doesn’t make visual sense. If you feather the light or darkness to show a more realistic drop off, the illusion works a lot better.

[BobGilbody]

Interesting Manfred.
I believe people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe. If a person tells me they believe there are fairies at the bottom a the garden, no problem. If the same person tells me not to mow the lawn because it will upset the fairies I'll tell them 'stuff the fairies'.
The image is not the bird.
"Believability is a key aspect of a strong image."
"The sci-fi movies, for instance, quite believable, yet we know that they cannot possibly be realistic."
"A brilliantly lit bird against a black background doesn’t make visual sense."
"If you feather the light or darkness to show a more realistic drop off, the illusion works a lot better."

No problems.