Altered Images !

[xmilehigh]

Hi,

A couple of shots taken recently that had some really distracting clutter in the background and no matter how the image was cropped it was still there

After a bit of tweaking I decided that an artificial background was really my only option (due to limited PhotoShop knowledge) might be fun to create
The Wood White image background was largely black to start with so I set to work and removed the clutter and ended up with #1. The Painted Lady #2 really took some fiddling. I have ended up liking some aspects of the images but also with plenty of reservations about them. I'm curious to know others opinions about these images, any comments good or bad welcomed.

#1 Wood White


#2 Back lit Painted Lady


Cheers

[Vince Massimo]

Jerry,

Can we see the original images as well ? I think it would be helpful to see the nature of the changes.

Cheers,

Vince

[Zonda]

Personally, i think these are a little too clean. It doesn't really look natural. I have tried this, see the GVW's in my gallery. Zonda

[Gruditch]

I looked at the images, before I read the text, and I thought, two top quality images. I suspect that if you hadn't of said anything, then no one would of noticed.

I personally don't mind a little bit of digital gardening, cloning out a the distracting edge of a leaf etc. But changing the whole background, is more as Pete would say, Graphic design, rather than photo editing.

Gruditch

[eccles]

An interesting topic.
Although there is a slight not-quite-right feel to it, the painted lady shot works quite well for me. I don't like the wood white very much but this has little to do with the digital 'gardening' but more to do with the use of flash in the first place.

[Denise]

Very interesting.
With careful manoeuvring, the same type of photo can be taken with no editing at all!

Denise

[Gruditch]

It's wrong, but I like the PL image too.

Denise, hope you don't mind me saying, but If you had manoeuvred a little to the left, and backed off a bit, the right wing of the Frit would of came into focus, and the lower, more attractive part of the Plantain, would of added to the overall image.

Gruditch

[Zonda]

LOL, but Denise is right. You can save yourself a bit of work keeping an eye on the background. Once mastered this is a very useful discipline. However we are but human, and in the heat of the moment and faced with a rare one (which is any one in my case) one could forget it. It's best to get any shot off first, then after taking several for the record, go for the position shift.

[Denise]

Denise, hope you don't mind me saying, but If you had manoeuvred a little to the left, and backed off a bit, the right wing of the Frit would of came into focus, and the lower, more attractive part of the Plantain, would of added to the overall image.
Gruditch

Don't mind at all Gary. In hind sight, and looking hard, you are right. I haven't edited this pic at all, so it should improve with a bit of basic tweaking. I'm still rubbish with photoshop so I have to get the best image I can to start with. I envy Xmilehigh's ability.

Denise

[Dave McCormick]

Well looking at the wood white, if I never read the text I would say that was unaltered, just taken with a flash that gives the black background and no alteration with it, but the Painted lady, the background and the area around the bottom of the flower stem looks to me like its been "painted" on and tbe flower and butterfly pasted on the background. Bit too altered for me. Nice attempt though.

[Zonda]

Well looking at the wood white, if I never read the text I would say that was unaltered, just taken with a flash that gives the black background

Personally, i would never take a white butterfly with flash. Flash and anything white don't go well together. All detail is usually lost. A reflector is better, but difficult with butterflies. Also, whites will pick up adjacent colours on their wings easily. I have several shots of large whites with blue wings.

[Zonda]

My advice on this question would be to only take out the distractions, it looks more natural if you leave something. By the way, i take it that the one underneath with its legs in the air is the female?

[xmilehigh]

Interesting comments really can't argue with any of them. Actually agree with most of them, i.e it's better to get the shot your after 1st time, i.e lighting, position of subject in frame, uncluttered background (If that is the shot your after), exposure, depth of field, positioning yourself without doing your self a mischief or incurring severe body damage etc etc.

However having taken hundreds of pics & spent many hours in the field it is only on rare occasions that some or all of these criteria come together, so a little digital gardening (like that phrase) with those particular images was undertaken. If guess if the the end result is pleasing to the recipient then great.

Here are the original images, just re-sized for the web, No other alterations made than the Adobe Camera Raw defaults.

[Zonda]

Ok .... The first one needs a severe crop, or deleting(preferably), and the second one needs a grass taken out. No probs, if the quality is good. Sorry, but ruthlessness is the only way. I only retain one in ten images. The first is too small in the frame you'll get her again,,,fret not.

[Gruditch]

I'm still rubbish with photoshop

Just for you, I'll be doing a practical Photo editing season, at the 2010 Workshop.

The first one needs a severe crop, or deleting(preferably),

I think Jerry's blown up shot, holds up great with a hard crop. A full frame DSLR, I think.

ruthlessness is the only way

No disrespect, but if your being so ruthless, why did you spend so much time, removing the plant in the GVW shot, when the butterflies head is missing.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Ok .... The first one needs a severe crop, or deleting(preferably)

A severe crop is what Jerry did. And Gary is right - it would perhaps need deleting if he hadn't used the equipment that he did, namely a high MP full frame camera and OEM macro lens. Such a combo can take an awful lot of cropping and still come up with a nice image.

BTW, the male is the lower of your two GV whites. Males make the coupling attempt and have to adapt to the female's more usual stance. Besides, you can see the double spots of the female through the wings.

With Denise's rather nice effort, to get the light just right with a backlit subject, sometimes you can't get perfect alignment for tip to tip sharpness.

Mike.

[Denise]

I'm still rubbish with photoshop

Just for you, I'll be doing a practical Photo editing season, at the 2010 Workshop.

Gruditch

Oh excellent. I'll make sure I get a front seat.

With Denise's rather nice effort, to get the light just right with a backlit subject, sometimes you can't get perfect alignment for tip to tip sharpness.
Mike.

Thank you Mike, praise indeed coming from you.

Denise

[Zonda]

No disrespect, but if your being so ruthless, why did you spend so much time, removing the plant in the GVW shot, when the butterflies head is missing.

It's a Charles the First White, and it was the only mating pair i caught on camera. I'm really not that ruthless.

[Gruditch]

Talking of bonking dead things, I know this is a rubbish pic, but I saw this Large White dicing with death yesterday.

Gruditch

[Zonda]

It's a 'damsel in distress' scenario. He's trying to save her life.