www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Lee mentioned he liked the mossy background on my woodland Peacock.
The original: (if I were to present this at a camera club they would mention the distracting (light) linear features (dried brambles) and question why I hadn't done a little "digital gardening" to "improve the overall image" - as they did when I presented something similar a year or so ago)
so, a little judicious Photoshopping later: or.. or...removing brambles on left as well... Any thoughts
N

Hi Nick,

I've seen hundreds of pictures assessed my own camera club, but not once yet has a judge suggested cloning out content. I know in general that the club, and the judges that visit, have an open mind to editing, montages for example do very well in competitions. The only thing which I think is frowned upon, and rightly so, is adding content, IE taking a deer from one of your pics, and sticking it in a different landscape.

The guys assessing an image ain't usually butterfly experts, and are not really interested in seeing a butterfly in its natural environment, if that environment doesn't make for a pleasing picture, they just want to see a good image.

For me the twigs in your original image are very distracting, and the image is far better with them removed. If I were a judge I wouldn't take points away for not digitally removing the twigs, but I certainly would for the twigs being there in the first place.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:Hi Nick,
I've seen hundreds of pictures assessed my my own camera club, but not once yet has a judge suggested cloning out content......
Regards Gruditch

You obviously didn't have the level of critique applied by our many of our judges!
On the one hand they would criticise, rightly, distracting features in the image and suggest Photoshop as a solution, whilst on the other suggesting someones "too perfect" shot of 5 gannets stacked in the frame as a Photoshop job! It seems you can't win sometimes!
(I spoke to the guy who took it later and he said it was a genuine shot!).....
N

As someone who dabbles with the clone tool from time to time I say "Chapeau!" (the French term, which is litterally "Hat!", so can be translated as "Hats off!" - although it doesn't state whether the hat is on or off! )

Just a couple of points from me, now being an expert -

You seem to have added something which looks like a piece of black twine, which wasn't in the first image and your Peacock (Paon du jour) seems to have shrunk! You obviously ended up with a less-cropped image after your prudicious Photoshop pruning!

It would probably have been easier and quicker just to ask the butterfly, politely, to perch somewhere more aesthetic! Which your judges, obviously, would have done!

One wonders if we weren't better off in the good old days of film! Only joking - I love the freedom that digital photography brings.

Using Photoshop is an art in itself and you seem to have cracked it! Well done.

Ahhh! The black twine-thing was there! It is down to the framing! Told you I was an expert!

Most people specialise in one or two areas of photography, I doubt anyone could claim to be an expert in all fields. A few weeks ago we had a judge with 40 years judging experience, who at his own admission, knew sod all about wildlife, or macro photography. As a result an image of a Small Tortoiseshell, that would be at best in the UK Butterflies monthly comps, be an also ran, ended up getting a perfect ten from this guy. Yet he slaughtered some perfectly good landscapes, not mine I hasten to add.


I didn't see the black twine thing, but now you've mentioned it Elaine, I can't take my eyes off it, really distracting.

Regards Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:

I didn't see the black twine thing, but now you've mentioned it Elaine, I can't take my eyes off it, really distracting.

I think it may be a soggy feather.


Vince

Vince Massimo wrote:

Gruditch wrote:
I didn't see the black twine thing, but now you've mentioned it Elaine, I can't take my eyes off it, really distracting.

I think it may be a soggy feather.
Vince

Got it in one!
You don't like it.....
Now you see it.....

BTW - I think Gary hit the nail on the head with his "experts" often having no experience of wildlife or macro photography, yet finding themselves in a position of judging it! And again how subjective photography is.

It looks like a horse tail to me from what is clearly a rather small horse....

While the twigs in the first image are a bit distracting and had I not seen the first the second seems a better photo without them.

My own personal view though is that I prefer natural looking backgrounds, things/views out of the norm and especially views (one of Matthew Oates' PE ab iole images with the ride in the background and some of Guy's shots that I've seen spring to mind - also some shots on the Red List that Pete posted were amazing!).

I suppose from a technical photo competition viewpoint only, the sans twigs shots are better but from capturing the butterfly in it's natural place I don't mind them. I'm never going to win a monthly competition am I....

Having said that, having been through a few and regularly voting in them I can appreciate what does make a good entry!

And I still like the moss.

Oh, and I'm yet to play with Photoshop - Elements 5 is going on my birthday list...

Cheers

Lee

Intuitively, I feel 'digital gardening' should be the exception rather than the rule. If you have a wonderful picture, worth framing or entering into a competition, that is marred by some stray stem or sweet wrapper, it makes good sense to paintbrush out the offending object. But I know I couldn't be bothered to work in this way on a normal shot. Nick's original photo in this thread is a good picture of a peacock, but the occasion didn't afford the opportunity for it to be a great shot - no slight on Nick's skills intended. The peacock is not doing anything interesting, hasn't sat anywhere interesting and isn't set against an interesting backdrop. The picture is therefore a record of a moment in time, rather than a work of art, and if it were my own picture I would leave it as a true record of that moment, rather than make it into a slightly more aesthetic alternative to reality.

I took 37 butterfly photos today. Some of them were attempts at great shots, but none succeeded - so all are basically records of my day. In years to come they will give me great joy, and no less than if I spent a lot of time cleaning them up!

Guy

The record of moments in time is what I'm going to aim for this year as;
a) it will be my first full season with a decent camera, and
b) it should fit well with the diary!

If any shots turn out to be corkers, then I might enter the comp too!

Cheers

Lee

padfield wrote:I took 37 butterfly photos today. Some of them were attempts at great shots, but none succeeded - so all are basically records of my day. In years to come they will give me great joy, and no less than if I spent a lot of time cleaning them up!

Hear, hear - or is that Here, here? I never did work that one out!

By the way Padfield, I love the avatar - but then as a total Border Collie worshipper, dog-trainer (make that owner-trainer), agility competitor ......... I may be a bit biased.

Nice to hear your comments....
I only put this up as an example of what CAN be done - and, when I go back to exhibit at the camera club, what I need to master - to improve an image.
I was NOT suggesting that this picture was WORTH doing that to, it simply provided the opportunity to illustrate my (crude) use of Photoshop to remove distracting clutter and get some feedback.
I certainly do not remove stuff for the comps, since I agree that we should be aiming to produce shots which do NOT need manipulation - and not everyone has access to Photoshop or the like anyway

I have been producing some postcards for myself and this discipline (in a 3x2 aspect ratio for A6 cards) makes you examine each image closely before you send to printing and precipitated my grasping some Photoshop basics (I am in no way "expert"; I just look over other's shoulders and pick things up as I go along!). Printing an image makes one realise how different an image can look on screen compared to the printed image - an image on screen may just not work when printed on a card in the same way...

N

Hi Nick,

How are you going about the printing? Is it a local print shop once you are happy with your image, or do you have to send them or email them away?

Thanks

Lee

Lee Hurrell wrote:Hi Nick,
How are you going about the printing? Is it a local print shop once you are happy with your image, or do you have to send them or email them away?
Thanks
Lee

At the moment I am just using Photobox - http://www.photobox.com/ - for postcards; they provide very good quality paper (420gm card) with laminated finish and good colour reproduction. The downside is that 10 postcards (a pack) cost about £6 (85p singly) plus p&p of £2.50p.
Basicly you can upload your images and then produce "creations" with a variety of things - mugs, greetings cards, mouse-mates, A3+ prints, etc, etc - as well as just cards. I have been playing with Photoshop all winter trying to produce some images worth printing - quite a challenge! (I have printed some images on T-shirts from another site - but I would not recommend them to anyone due to their underhand tactics of making you join a Premium Club without realising it until they have collected their first £10!)
Photobox is one of the best on-line print houses around; it is used by many members of my local camera club too. I'm sure other members use other sites they may recommend...?
N

We print our own greeting cards ( for UK Butterflies ), as it's the only way to make them economically viable. We've also print up to 5"x7'' at home. But if its A4 and above, then we now use Photobox. As Nick says they are very good, in fact I couldn't recommend them high enough.

Regards Gruditch

I've been looking around for somewhere to get prints made. I had some done via a local camera shop and was a bit disappointed. Colours did not seem correct but the images seemed to lack punch compared to the screen, but there wasn't a consistent pattern to it. I've not calibrated my monitor but will do in the future before getting more done. But monitor calibration counts for nought if the printer tweaks the images with some auto contrast/colour balance etc. before printing, which I believe is quite common. I'll bring the prints along to the workshop for anyone interested although the real test is holding them alongside the screen I use.

To those using Photobox, how well do the prints match up to how the image looks on screen, and to those that have a good match do you use any monitor calibration, and do you specify to Photobox not to apply auto settings on your print jobs?

I found this place

http://www.spectrumphoto.co.uk/index.php

who provide softproofing ICC profiles for users to apply to their images prior to sending them in. The ICC profiles can be loaded into Aperture so that you can see how the image will look on their paper/printer combination, which in conjunction with a calibrated monitor should, in theory get perfect matches from screen to print. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used Spectrum.

Cheers

Bill

Bill S wrote: To those using Photobox, how well do the prints match up to how the image looks on screen, and to those that have a good match do you use any monitor calibration, and do you specify to Photobox not to apply auto settings on your print jobs?
Cheers
Bill

As you say - depends on the screen - but in general a high-quality JPEG image from Photoshop (I shoot in RAW) comes out pretty close to the screen I use. I have not calibrated mine - but I have tweaked the defaults to better correspond to what I have had back from Photobox, and their processes seem to be consistent. As Gary says, a lot of people use them....

I think most images look better with the back-lighting from an LCD screen.
I find I have to be careful that I do not loose the high-lights and more subtle definition in a shot by making it too dark when transferred to paper.
I have not (yet) had the need to examine Colour Management and ICC profiles, not to mention different types and finishes of paper...
It can be a long way from shutter to print!

Photobox does a good job - I send it; they print it
N
They also give £2 (to spend with them) for each referral - perhaps UKB could do a deal with Photobox to give that to BC each time a new UKB member joined Photobox?

Photobox has been around a while, from the feedback I was getting a year or two ago, Their colours weren't always accurate. Printing technology has moved on, and as far as I can see their colours are spot on. But as Nick says take care with darker images, as they will lose light when going to print. Photobox do provide an advanced set up, which basically consists of a aperture tool to size your print, not that advanced. But as Nick put it, They do a good job, I send it; they print it.

I'll bring a couple of examples to the Workshop Bill.


Regards Gruditch