I have read all of the above and there are really great comments. Nevertheless, it seems to me, and I could be entirely wrong and probably am, that you are at a 90 degree angle to the bird or in other words it was right in front of you. This makes for a tough shot because we seldom see things at this angle and if you were at a slight angle to the bird everything would not be in such great focus the the bird would not seem to be superimposed into the scene because of angles created by perspective. In other words the bird would seem in a more natural perspective in relation to the setting. When we see portraits shot straight on we get the same impression witness those shots of audrey hepburn and MM and it takes a great photographer to pull one off.
I think this is a very interesting shot and a good one too.
What is with the inappropriate Google ads inserted on the photography site? Get them off, Damnit! (or dammit, if you prefer)
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).
Why does this look so phony?
I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.
I don't see what you see, but I would saturate the color a little and strongly increase the blacks in Adobe Camera Raw.
I always push the blacks and clarity, and add some color.
My thoughts: Since the sky takes up a large portion of the background, throwing is more out of focus wont do anything; rather, 1. select and darken the sky. 2. I've added an #81a filter to the excellent bird. This adds another level of "contrast" against the darkened sky, thereby making a more 3D look. Try it, you may like it! My 2 cents worth!
Many have said to decrease the DOF. But little do they know that your lens was wide open. You can't get any (less) DOF than it has now. To be truthful, your sky isn't natural looking because of your exposure. Go outside on any bright day and note that the sky is never that dark blue. The best thing to do is overexpose slightly until your sky appears the correct color of blue or a more natural shade of blue. You can do this in post as well. You might try setting your camera settings to Natural when shooting subjects that have blue sky behind them. When it's overcast, you will have a problem with the sky turning white and this looks even worse in my opinion. Play with your camera setting especially the camera profile and exposure settings.
I don't know if you've ever heard of this or not, but there is a phrase used called shooting to the right. This means over exposing so that the histogram has the peak of most of the midtones and highlight in the histogram more right than center. This will give you a more natural shade of sky. This is the only reason that your shot looks a little fake - it's the sky.
Psergel wrote:
. . . Why does this look so phony?
Psergel - The shot doesn't look at all phony; in fact, it's a really good picture. If there is anything odd about it, it could be the scale of the bird in context with its background. Between the grass in the foreground, the bird in the middle, and the leaves in the background, and not knowing how far each element is from the other, it is hard to judge the size of the bird (if one does know its size already, by knowing the bird). Thus you could believe that the bird was taken from one photo and plopped into another and the image-plopper got the scale wrong. Just picture the bird as being smaller and see what you think.
-George-
As I looked at it for the first time, my immediate first thought was... the bird is so much in your face. Perhaps a little wider view (or less cropping, if there was any) might change it.
I'm not saying it would.... but just a thought... or worth a try.
Barry
As others have said- nothing wrong with the image, though I'd have used a larger aperture. It looks phoney because it's very unusual to see a stationary heron from this angle, with a sky background. Human senses are very complex, and a great deal of unconscious interpretation happens before we become aware of an image.
Bokeh is definitely the answer. Can never have too much bokeh.
--Bob
WayneT wrote:
Possibly if you had opened up you aperture slightly to fade out the background (increase the bokeh) it would have given you a little better depth.
Huh? I don't see any ads.
--Bob
1Feathercrest wrote:
What is with the inappropriate Google ads inserted on the photography site? Get them off, Damnit! (or dammit, if you prefer)
One has to accept that certain scenes in nature, when close or correctly exposed will present the kind of appearance that you have here. Feel fortunate that you did everything correctly.
--Bob
Psergel wrote:
Other than exporting this to jpeg...it is SOC with only the LR default sharpening (25) and a small adjustment in exposure (-.45).
Why does this look so phony?
I played with it quite a bit (lower highlights, contrast up and down, clarity etc etc) and it still looks kind of like a fake Heron agains a fake background. It's not.
rmalarz wrote:
Bokeh is definitely the answer. Can never have too much bokeh.
--Bob
Bokeh doen't come as too much or too little. It's
not a quantity.
Yeah, I know that. That's why there's a smiley. I do like to joke around in this site from time to time.
--Bob
Apaflo wrote:
Bokeh doen't come as too much or too little. It's not a quantity.
Carlo
Loc: Maryland, NW.Chesapeake Bay
I like the Image rather Alot...!!!!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.