|
|
Post by MJB on Apr 17, 2024 8:38:05 GMT
I saw this on Facebook with the photographer claiming there was no Photoshop involved. I'm calling bullshit on that and have explained why to the person in question. What are your thoughts?  |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 17, 2024 9:11:56 GMT
I saw this on Facebook with the photographer claiming there was no Photoshop involved. I'm calling bullshit on that and have explained why to the person in question. What are your thoughts? View AttachmentIt does look a bit odd. Maybe some seriously powerful fill-in flash light was used together with under exposure for ambient ? You'd still need some special circumstance for the background to be as dark as that but the Heron is strongly back-lit so maybe there is a high, dense tree line behind giving deep shadow. Must have been a very big flashgun although habituated herons will let you get quite close. Edit: more I look at it, artificially lit, maybe two flashguns, one either side and -4 or more stops on ambient plus another gun straight-on for fill in. Easier with a stuffed heron. Effective though! |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Apr 17, 2024 9:35:32 GMT
What was it folk used to use to get reflections to match the exposure of the objects being reflected....2 stop graduated filter?
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Apr 17, 2024 10:27:11 GMT
No one have a problem with the water the reflection on is OOF, but the bird's reflection is tack sharp?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 17, 2024 10:52:04 GMT
No one have a problem with the water the reflection on is OOF, but the bird's reflection is tack sharp? Not really. If the water is still, and the angle of view right, the reflection can look more "real" than the thing reflected. I'll look again on a monitor. I'm browsing on an ipad at the moment. I wasn't looking for contradictions in dof. I had guessed you were wondering if this was an AI creation in the first case or, alternatively, someone had used AI masking to process the subject and everything else separately. The auto-masking in Lightroom has become very sophisticated. Now I can run the latest version "select sky" will make a fair job of selecting the sky showing between the bare branches of trees. A while ago it wouldn't even try. |
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Apr 17, 2024 11:09:12 GMT
The reflection looks far too perfect. I believe it is just the original bird flipped over. If you separate the photo in half, flip the bottom one and look at the 2 overlayed, they are as good as identical. I don't reckon it would be like that on a true reflection from that water. No bokeh spots on top of the bird either, which I imagine would be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 17, 2024 11:50:08 GMT
The reflection looks far too perfect. I believe it is just the original bird flipped over. If you separate the photo in half, flip the bottom one and look at the 2 overlayed, they are as good as identical. I don't reckon it would be like that on a true reflection from that water. No bokeh spots on top of the bird either, which I imagine would be there. Cleverly done though - I just looked at it on a computer in ACR - in photoshop they'd have had to select the bird - copy it to another layer (I think that is how it works) flip it and blend it with the original while masking out whatever "real" reflection was there. A lot of complex work for someone to deny, though I suppose it depends on how the question was put. I haven't any "real" reflections in my own pictures to compare with. I've got a vague feeling that, provided you are focussed on the original, a mirrored reflection will look sharp irrespective of the distance between the camera and the mirror - but that might only apply to mirrors normal to a horizontal direction of view. I'll try to remember to test this if I happen across a suitable subject this year. I agree the heron as shot doesn't look natural. I don't often get down low to take pictures. I can't figure out if the heron reflection should be elongated or truncated or just right. For far-away buildings the relative size of subject and reflection can change a lot with viewing angle. The viewpoint is low I think as the reflection in the water seems to show three bands of different brightness: trees, sky and cloud, and the trees are very foreshortened. I'm curious as to what a set-up with fill-in flash would look like though I'm not going out to buy a new flash-gun to test. My 20 year old one isn't all that powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Apr 17, 2024 12:14:04 GMT
Did the person say no Photoshop, or no processing or manipulation?
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 17, 2024 12:18:57 GMT
Well, other editing suites are available of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 17, 2024 12:19:29 GMT
Did the person say no Photoshop, or no processing or manipulation? Beat me to it. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Apr 17, 2024 12:39:54 GMT
Well, other editing suites are available of course. There are smartarses out there... |
|
|
|
Post by dreampolice on Apr 17, 2024 14:48:37 GMT
Well, other editing suites are available of course. There are smartarses out there... And zou is all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Apr 17, 2024 15:41:15 GMT
I'm going to say that at the very least, something has been done to it. I copied the image into photoshop and noticed that some of the bokeh was reflected in exactly the same (but opposite) part of hte below image, which, if it had occurred behind the heron as it seemed to, woudln't not be happening. Additionally if you add a levels adjustment layer and drag the midtones slider to lighten the whole thing, the top half of hte image is vastly more pixelated than the bottom, which to my mind suggests that it has at the very least been artificially darkened at hte top, and quite crudely too.  not-my-shot by Kath Polley, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 17, 2024 17:47:13 GMT
There are smartarses out there... And zou is all of them. Muhahahaha! |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Apr 17, 2024 18:31:24 GMT
|
|
