Pure puffery

[purplehaze]

I don't know if this grackle was displaying, or just taking a stretch, but he made for an entertaining subject.

[billtils]

It's a pity that the depth of field didn't manage to blur the twigs immediately behiind the bird but that doesn't take away from the positive qualities of the image: great expression on the face, super sharp, the eye stands out nicely - very nice altogether.

[mugge]

I love the expression. I don't mind the background at all, in fact I think it enhances the colour of the bird.
Cheers Ole

[xpatUSA]

It's a pity that the depth of field didn't manage to blur the twigs immediately behiind the bird but that doesn't take away from the positive qualities of the image: great expression on the face, super sharp, the eye stands out nicely - very nice altogether.

With the stark contrast between the bird and surroundings it should be possible in the GIMP or Photoshop to auto-select the bird, then invert the selection and edit the background to one's heart's content ...

[lesno1]

great capture i like it

[billtils]

... the bird, then invert the selection and edit the background to one's heart's content ...

Possible approach, but not one for wildlife purists ...

[selig1656]

Lovely capture and the intensity of the bird's colors

[purplehaze]

Thanks, all. I'm not skilled enough yet to deal with the twigs immediately behind the bird, but I was bothered enough by the harshness of the bokeh to soften the background generally.

[billtils]

Thanks, all. I'm not skilled enough yet to deal with the twigs immediately behind the bird,

Janis, there is another way of looking at this, namely that although it's not impossible to "clean up" the image, in doing so you will lose some of the story telling impact. The modest edit you have made leaves us with a very acceptable image of an attractive bird that you spotted and photographed n in its natural environment.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA ... the bird, then invert the selection and edit the background to one's heart's content ...

Possible approach, but not one for wildlife purists ...

Not being a wildlife purist, Bill, I don't know their valid approaches.

Please clarify ...

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Bill. I am not averse to altering images to conform to what I “saw” or “think” I saw, or even to conform to some flight of fantasy that might only occur to me in the digital darkroom. If ever we could think that the camera reflected reality, which I think is highly debatable to begin with, that time is long past. Insofar as the camera does not see exactly the way the eye does, and two people hardly apprehend reality the same way, I am quite comfortable with manipulation, in principle.

[billtils]

Not being a wildlife purist, Bill, I don't know their valid approaches.

Please clarify ...

Happy to oblige Ted. "Purists" share an approach that restricts PP manipulations, and this extract from the FIAP definition sums it up quite well:

"No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted. Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning. Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed."

Whether someone adheres to the definition is a matter of personal choice - I don't see anything wrong with someone cleaning up an image to bring out the best in the target animal. I've gone that way many times but my personal preference is more and more to getting it right before i press the shutter button, not afterwards.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Not being a wildlife purist, Bill, I don't know their valid approaches.

Please clarify ...

Happy to oblige Ted. "Purists" share an approach that restricts PP manipulations, and this extract from the FIAP definition sums it up quite well:

"No techniques that add, relocate, replace, or remove pictorial elements except by cropping are permitted. Techniques that enhance the presentation of the photograph without changing the nature story or the pictorial content, or without altering the content of the original scene, are permitted including HDR, focus stacking and dodging/burning. Techniques that remove elements added by the camera, such as dust spots, digital noise, and film scratches, are allowed."

Thanks for taking the time, Bill.

The wiki link is bad (has http// twice) but I got there in the end and thence to their site - but was defeated by some quite cranky navigation so I'm glad you posted the above transcription!

Whether someone adheres to the definition is a matter of personal choice - I don't see anything wrong with someone cleaning up an image to bring out the best in the target animal. I've gone that way many times but my personal preference is more and more to getting it right before i press the shutter button, not afterwards.

Agreed. I remember posting a picture of a calf somewhere and receiving suggestions to clone out the barbed wire behind which the animal was lying. I replied "this is Texas, dammit" ...

[xpatUSA]

... If ever we could think that the camera reflected reality, which I think is highly debatable to begin with, that time is long past. ...

Sorry but I must disagree ...

... for example, if I bought a Leica M and found that each pixel did not represent reality, to wit the light reflected onto it from the scene, I'd trash the camera.

[purplehaze]

Sorry but I must disagree ...

... for example, if I bought a Leica M and found that each pixel did not represent reality, to wit the light reflected onto it from the scene, I'd trash the camera.

Point taken, Ted. But where I am coming from has to do with the nature of seeing and the nature of photography and how they are each constrained to interpretation.

See, for example, from a judicial standpoint:

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resourc...oevidence.html

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/seeing.html

[xpatUSA]

Point taken, Ted. But where I am coming from has to do with the nature of seeing and the nature of photography and how they are each constrained to interpretation.

See, for example, from a judicial standpoint:

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resourc...oevidence.html

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/seeing.html

Understood, Janis, and plenty of food for thought in those links!

I was struck by quote "Currently, perfect image fidelity is unachievable. It is possible to produce varying degrees of fidelity depending on the sophistication of the photographer and the nature of the scene."

While perfect image fidelity is indeed unachievable, we fortunately have the Real World of "just noticeable difference" which introduces the concept of "acceptable fidelity" (my phrase) and could indeed be a criterion for court-room imagery. See for example:

https://www.radiantvisionsystems.com...g-jnd-displays
.

[purplehaze]

we fortunately have the Real World of "just noticeable difference" which introduces the concept of "acceptable fidelity" (my phrase) and could indeed be a criterion for court-room imagery. See for example:

https://www.radiantvisionsystems.com...g-jnd-displays
.

Fascinating stuff, Ted; thanks for drawing my attention to it. I confess I have a certain bias towards what lies outside the norm, but it is the things we share that enable us to function.

[Wavelength]

A beautiful bird and a wonderful shot; it is always difficult to select a bird because of its non-sharp boundary. So here i think i will select that branch immediately behind (that appears to penetrate into the body) and diffuse that alone, keeping the bird as such; just my thought