Was the bird inserted (I think it was) and if so, what went wrong? Method of improvement?
No Photoshop expert but I think the bird was inserted and the problem appears to be a poor job of cleaning up the background around the bird.
It looks like I would expect a bird in flight to look at that angle shot at 1/160 sec. No obvious signs of photoshop insertion. Just motion blur.
Lighting looks pretty good, but that's easy to match if inserted and if it didn't match from the get go. Have to agree with Rick as far as motion blur, what I would expect at 1/160th. Personally, I would have taken it out if it was there originally. Or moved it a bit more left if inserted.
Rick36203 wrote:
It looks like I would expect a bird in flight to look at that angle shot at 1/160 sec. No obvious signs of photoshop insertion. Just motion blur.
I agree it might be some sort of blur and what caught my eye was the grey area around the bird. If that is part of the blur, it should not be in front of the bird - where the bird has not yet been.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
Looks to me like motion blur, but there's just a little bit of a halo on the top edge.
John N
Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK
Doesn't look like motion blur to me, more like camera shake on the bird shot.
John N wrote:
Doesn't look like motion blur to me, more like camera shake on the bird shot.
I agree, and you don't see it anywhere else indicating, to me at least, that the bird was inserted. The blur could have occurred either before or during insertion.
I love this image with the soft light and graphics of the pier Howard. I don't think it needs the bird in the sky, it competes too much with the weather vane in my estimation. Thanks for posting. Bev
Rick36203 wrote:
It looks like I would expect a bird in flight to look at that angle shot at 1/160 sec. No obvious signs of photoshop insertion. Just motion blur.
Yep, could be motion blur or, more likely, camera shake - and 1/160 will often do that to a moving object...
tommystrat wrote:
Yep, could be motion blur or, more likely, camera shake - and 1/160 will often do that to a moving object...
Looking at the + of the Download ...
Wouldn't motion blur be the same color (or Close) as the bird itself? It's the grey outline that looks out of place.
Looks like it was inserted and taken from a gray sky. Motion blur would not be in front of the bird. I think the gray around, and all around, was a bad cutout
Rick36203 wrote:
It looks like I would expect a bird in flight to look at that angle shot at 1/160 sec. No obvious signs of photoshop insertion. Just motion blur.
That's my opinion also after taking just a quick look at the download and enlarging it.
Why would someone add to a pic something with gross motion blur? They might as well have put the bird in flying upside down.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.