Photoshop Question
Feb 25, 2019 22:22:32 #
Was the bird inserted (I think it was) and if so, what went wrong? Method of improvement?
Feb 25, 2019 22:30:55 #
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.
Feb 25, 2019 23:50:24 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 06:06:01 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 07:25:43 #
Feb 26, 2019 07:42:15 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 09:26:31 #
Looks to me like motion blur, but there's just a little bit of a halo on the top edge.
Feb 26, 2019 09:48:08 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 11:50:27 #
Doesn't look like motion blur to me, more like camera shake on the bird shot.
Feb 26, 2019 12:23:55 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 13:01:12 #
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
Feb 26, 2019 13:19:23 #
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...
Feb 26, 2019 13:46:47 #
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.
Feb 26, 2019 19:31:11 #
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
Feb 26, 2019 23:32:44 #
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.