As much as I try to avoid cloning elements out of my images it does tempt me occasionally. And in some cases doing so may not even be desirable.
1/3200, f/7.1, ISO 640, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in
This is the female Belted Kingfisher that I photographed a couple of months ago near the Jordan River. Here she was scanning a pond below her for opportunities with fish. It’s not a terribly interesting image behaviorally but it’s a close-up of a kingfisher and they’re so darned skittish that I value each and every quality photograph I get of the species. I appreciate the simplicity of the image, the well-defined plumage patterns on the topside of the bird and the good look at that ragged double crest.
But this version of the image doesn’t accurately reflect what I saw through my viewfinder.
In the unretouched photo there was a small branch in the upper left corner that kept pulling my eye away from the bird so in the previous version of the image I cloned it out. Regular readers know that this type of cloning is something that I try very hard to avoid but this is the type of image that can sorely tempt me. If there’d been more of those branches but we still had a relatively clean look at the bird I wouldn’t have even considered cloning. But as I was processing the image that single, out of focus distraction kept gnawing at me.
But I know me. Sometimes I become fixated on minutia more than I should so I’d appreciate some feedback from viewers to help keep me grounded. Is that branch a distraction for you? Or not? Or perhaps it’s neutral, having no positive or negative effect. It may be that the clean background without the branch is too “sterile” for some tastes. I’m quite curious about how others might feel about that branch.
It isn’t my intention to start a discussion/debate about the desirability and ethics of cloning images in nature photography. Many have strong opinions about it and none of us are likely to change our minds. What I’m wondering is this: Am I stressing over doing something I don’t like to do when in this case it isn’t necessary or even desirable?
Ron
Bit late, but you can toss me in with the pro “stick in” camp. It’s a great photo with it cloned out, but with it in I feel it adds a little extra detail about the birds environment. The kingfisher is sharp and the stick is far enough away that it doesn’t interfere with with it.
I couldn’t be more pleased by all of the helpful feedback to this post. Thank you, all!
I prefer, very slightly, the version with the little branch in the upper left corner…just like the composition slightly better. Also like the fact that is NOT as sharp as the rest, as that ever so
slight “blur” pushes it back little. This is real nit picking since they are both terrific images.
I clone out visual clutter always!
I too like the branch in the corner and unless it covers part of the subject, I’d leave it in. I like to see everything that was actually there and nothing extra in the image could take away from how nice and clear that Kingfisher is. They are a very special bird with a very unique position in the bird world…keep them coming!
Pros and cons to both but it is a beautiful image either way and no need to stress!
I would probably let the branch stay just where it is. After all, bird photographers aren’t in a studio with controlled light and background. I like to see as much of the environment as possible, as long as the bird is sharp. However, I would take an image of a kingfisher any way I could get it!! 🙂
Thank you for all this input so far, everyone! I appreciate it so very much.
Partly due to thinking about your comments I believe I’ve arrived at my own conclusion about the image. At this point I prefer that the branch be left in the image. However, I do wish that it was sharp.
Well, from reading all the comments, it’s obviously a matter of personal choice. Not everyone is always going to like the same thing, thank goodness, or it would be a pretty boring world. I like them both.
From a photographers point of view, eliminating the distraction works best. However, most bird lovers wouldn’t care. It is a wonderful image.
Curiously, I found the little branch drew my eye more firmly to the bird – like a well-thought-out frame, rather than a distraction. The top image is, for me, too stark, and I found myself looking for something more. The second image gave me great satisfaction! I have nothing against cloning, depending on what you need the image for. At the California Raptor Center, we often need images of our birds, and the volunteers take good, crisp pictures (today’s cell phone cameras are astonishingly good) – but pay no attention at all to the background. I find myself cloning out red blobs, building edges, wires, and all sorts of things. Of course these are not in any way intended as a portrait of an instant. Just a decent portrait of an Ambassador bird that we can use on the website.
Hey Sallie! And you’re right. My ONE exception to the idea of cloning is removing poles sprouting out of heads and stuff like that. I always try to be aware of what’s in the background when taking photos (although I’m NOT a photographer in ANY stretch of anybody’s imagination).
I hope to visit your center one day. I’ve always heard such good things about it!
+ branch
For whatever it’s worth, I prefer the second photo. Life (and nature) is oftentimes messy. We humans really like to tidy things up and control the world, but it keeps squirting out and having its own way 🙂 The other issue is I’m old, resistant to change and I really hate it that we can manipulate the reality out of photos. With this technology, we can no longer trust the truth of a photo and I truly mourn that reality. Just me.
And I just love kingfishers–a lot. They’re really cool birds among all the other really cool birds!
I like it better without the branch. I too would have cloned it out. Tight pic…crispy!
These are excellent images of a Belted Kingfisher!
Yes, I believe (just my take) you are stressing too much.
I happen to like the second image by comparison because to me it is more real. Yes, the first image is nice, accurate and would make a good model for a carving. However, the second image is showing that the bird is in fact perched on a real branch, not one that is just there. The extra twig in the upper left gives reality to the picture in my mind. But, I don’t like to manipulate pictures other then light and sharpness or maybe a tad of contrast. But, you already know how I feel.
In fact we all will do what we will do.
Can you believe that it is snowing here as I type this – ridiculous weather! We have almost 44-50 Goldfinches at the feeders!
I agree with Dick
The branch, for me, was a huge distraction. Despite it (and even more so without it) the photo is gorgeous, tack-clear from tail to beak. As far as it being OK to do what you did – after reading about Ansel Adams and his darkroom expertise, I feel he would have been a Photoshop expert were he alive today. The balance between true-to-nature and a beautiful photograph is not always obvious.
Ditto on the fantastic pic. Personally I would have been delighted to have that branch in the pic. As others say it frames the empty area in the pic mimics the form of the bird. My only after the shot would have been that I had shifted my frame a a tad to the left so more of the branch was visbile and the Kingfisher’s eye was closer to that magic intersection of the tipr right third.
I find, in a strange way, that branch frames the bird… Kind of how an eyebrow frames an eye. It works well with the other branch in its geometry.
I love the kingfisher no matter what! One of my favourite birds you’ve captured beautifully as always.
Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone. I’ve already had my say so for now I’m just sitting back and learning from all of you…
What a gorgeous bird! I have my own thoughts on cloning and images, but much of that has been ingrained in me from working at a newspaper forever where truth is paramount in both editorial stories and images. On personal images I have occasionally removed things that I didn’t like in my photo, just like you. To your point, the piece of branch in tour original capture didn’t bother me at all and I wouldn’t have given it a second thought until you mentioned it. I think you may have been fixated on something that really didn’t take away from a great shot.
I think you did the right thing by cloning the branch away. It is a distraction and does nothing for the photo. They are beautiful birds who deserve centre stage.
Distraction ?? Yes, but it doesn’t matter with a still photo. You can be distracted, but then you always go back to the main subject (assuming it’s well portrayed as this one is). The distraction doesn’t in any way keep you from appreciating the main subject.
I like the branch for compositional reasons–it’s a diagonal which echoes the posture of the bird ; it adds an element of enclosure and simultaneously , dynamism……..
As an artist/painter, I prefer the uncloned image. The composition is more engaging, and for me the wiggly pattern of the branch adds interest to the photo – and balance, as it replicates the bumps and bulges of the perch branch. The first seems almost too stark and unnatural – in my humble opinion. But what an amazing capture of the bird!!!
I prefer the second image. To me the branch leads my eye towards the bird. Like Sharon and Bobbi said “it frames the bird” and “gives depth to the composition”.
Beautiful photo, Ron. I’m with you all the say in valuing a quality photo of what is otherwise not very interesting behaviorally. I like both photos and can’t make up my mind which I prefer so that makes me neutral in this case.
Super shot Ron! I think removing the branch is an improvement.
Charlotte
Its a no brainer, klone it out. It’s distracting and a easy fix.
I think that cloning the stick it out isn’t necessary in this case–it’s a good composition with the upper branch.
At first glance, I thought “yeah, the upper branch is a distraction.” Then I walked away to refill my coffee and came back to it. When looking at the unretouched image a second time I found it just as pleasing as the top one…maybe more so because the upper branch frames the bird in an almost triangular space of sky. As I looked at it. I found my attention moving around through the image and not out of it. Thus, my conclusion…it’s a good composition and no need to stress about cloning. (BTW, I love it)
I like the branch in the corner–it forms an oval that frames the kingfisher and gives depth to the composition. If I were painting this I would even enhance the branch point toward the kingfisher as it brings the eye back to the bird—-but keeping if definitely in the background.
Either photo is great – it is the main character (the bird) that draws my eye. If you like to keep it simple then the cloned shot is better. If you are looking for the natural feel then the second is better. Either way – no big deal…
Cloning it out is much cleaner particularly since the branch in the corner is blurred some. If it were clear it might add rather than detract. Hard decisions! 🙂 Beautiful photo and I’m with you when it comes to cherishing any photo’s of them. 🙂