Processing avian images

[Philip Perold]

I'm primarily a landscape photographer. Landscapes typically have large dynamic ranges, which deems it necessary to typically apply a bit more processing magic compared to other genres (or that's what I think at least, I could be very wrong here). I went to the Kruger National Park recently and dabbled in avian and wildlife photography (totally new to me).

I enjoyed the challenge of capturing of these shots immensely. But when I finally got to the computer, I scratched my head a bit. Typically landscapes have massive depth of field, with no bokeh, so I have never previously processed super out of focus backgrounds. As I understand a smooth background is preferred, so blurring is always an option to make the background prettier. To what degree is it acceptable? Or is it frowned upon in principle?

I also instinctively double raw processed images and used blending techniques to save highlights? Is that something that is typically done?

Maybe I am asking stupid questions, I am just curious about how photographers in this genre approach post processing.

Here is an example of a resized raw file (no processing):


The background looked ugly to me, and there are blown highlights on the bird. Using blending techniques I saved the highlights and I also blurred the background quite hectically. After web sharpening, this is the result:


My guess is that the background is too busy anyway, but regardless, is this too much?

[SimonDP]

How much editing you do is a personal issue, so go ahead, its your photo. Also, ask 10 photogrpahers this question and you'll get 10 different answers. Personally in your original the bg does not look to busy to me, its sufficiently blurred to not be intrusive. Saving the highlights is fine with me, I do same with recovery and shadow/highlight control in LR and PS. Generally editing such as curves, levels, saturation, contrast, shadow/highlight control, cropping are OK with most, some frown on additional blurring, cloning, etc. Others will go to any length to show off pretty edited picture. Me, I stay as close to the original idea as possible, with basic editing and tuning only.

[Cassie]

Hi Philip,
I think your question is one that any photographer have to ask himself every now and then, at least I do quite often. For interest sake I include this link to an article from the web page of the Photographic Society of South Africa and as you'll see there is no clearcut answer.
http://www.pssa.co.za/index.php?opti...Ae-photography
Personally I have a problem with one of the guidelines whereby sharpening by any method or program is not seen as manipulation whereas blurring of any degree or means is prohibited, if sharpening is considered a correction of a camera/lens fault, isn't the person able to afford an expensive lens producing a flattering bokeh given an advantage over somebody who can't afford it?
In the end I suppose the ultimate goal for all of us is still to produce as near as perfect image out of camera as possible but we have to accept that post processing is an integral part of digital photography.
Blurring the BG like you did does not alter reality IMO so I can't find any fault with that.

[swainsons]

Hey Philip,

I dont think the same principles apply to wildlife/ Avian as to landscapes.... I know I really battle with landscapes. The reality is that not all pics are going to have perfectly smoothed background bokeh's. You just cant control it.... I think Avian is probably the toughest of all photography disciplines as birds dont sit and pose, they rather fly away......

As for pp, I agree with Simon, its your pic, go mad.

Good luck...

[Morkel Erasmus]

welcome to our world Philip!!
your image looks nicely processed, though I don't mind the 1st image background, some nice light bokeh patches there.

it's all up to you - I used to process a lot like cloning out twigs and adding blur to the background, but now I try and keep it "natural" as I saw it. I do find many landscape processing techniques work well if you have a lot of environment in the shot (more applicable to wildlife though).

[Mark Dumbleton]

Wow Philip, I need lessons!!! Looks great to me!

[TheronFamily]

Typically landscapes have massive depth of field, with no bokeh, so I have never previously processed super out of focus backgrounds. As I understand a smooth background is preferred, so blurring is always an option to make the background prettier. To what degree is it acceptable? Or is it frowned upon in principle?

Hi Phillip
The keyword here is typically.
Typically, portraiture (albeit it human or wildlife) presents better with subject isolation by way of depth of field control.
That is not to say that ALL must be so.
When the background can add to the image, by all means, include it.

This is also true for your landscape genre. You do not always need huge DOF, sometimes subject isolation works as well.
Your artistic intent being the guideline here.

FWIW, if your PP attempt here is what you were after, then you have succeeded admirably

[Paul Collaros]

I agree with Mark and Leon. Look at the unprocessed image and then the processed one....I think it's brilliant. The image stands out, super sharp and is a pleasure to view. Your skills in editing from landscape obviously make a huge difference. It might be different to avian photography, but there will also be plenty of overlap. Why not post the image in the Avian gallery...I bet you get positive feedback