Egret Painting

C & C please.

I tried him in 'normal' colour, tried him in black & white and settled on this version.

In colour, the background and water is a slimy green colour - not very attractive.

In black & white, it looked rather bland, probably due to my non-existent editing skills.

Hi Belinda,
I am reluctant to answer and give C & C, but I am going to because you want to learn, I presume. I apologize in advance if my words sound harsh.
I have seen a lot of pictures from you in this section, and a lot of them(if not all) had some heavy editing done to them.
Why, I wonder. A lot of pictures I saw, make me wonder that. A lot of them made me wonder how they would look normal. And I always thought; Probably better
For example this entrie. In your comments you say you tried B&W and color but because you didn't like the outcome, you settle for this version.

Why don't you show us the color version and let us give C & C on that one. So you can adept and learn from that. To return to this picture?
It hurts my eyes. And I bet, the straight color version looks 10 times better, without the hocus pocus. You say the background is unattractive.
Show it to us and we can tell you how to handle that, next time you get that wonderful bird in front of your lens.
Hope you don't mind, me being myself in answering.
Martin.

Generally, heavy manipulation doesn't work. The best images are more subtle than that and probably don't need special effects being added.

My criteria would be - does the treatment enhance the image and is it in keeping with the intent of the photographer's vision.

You obviously saw something in the Egret that made you take the photograph but if it didn't work in colour or black and white then is it likely to be enhanced by painting effects?

Sorry to sound a little negative about the process but it's not really to my taste.

Do you like it?

Oh Dear!

Sorry Belinda but I have to agree with Malo, and to be really blunt I think this image is terrible. I tend to believe in the saying "you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear" or to bring it up to date digitally "GIGO" Garbage In Garbage Out.
I admit I am not the worlds best photographer (by a long shot) but I firmly believe that we should all endeavour to capture the image in camera. sadly, digital makes us think we can "sort it out later" and I think this is what you have tried to do here, youv'e tried to manipulate an image because it perhaps wasn't up to scratch in the first place and as John has said, over-manipulation usually produces far inferior images than the originals even more so if the original was dodgy to start with.
Of course I could be talking out of my whatsits and you have a superb original image that you've just messed up

I'm with Malo, show us the original pic, but I suspect its badly burned out because of the white plumage. I also i suspect you were really annoyed with yourself because it seemed a very good capture at the time.

PS: please dont take these comment to heart, I think some of your previous shots have been wothy. its just that the Egret is a majestic creature and with this shot you may as well have taken a gun to shoot it.....you killed to poor little bugger

try duotoning it. (black/blue/pink) all that grey makes it drab. a pale blue with pink might work. then maybe play with the liquify tool on the water and land for some real abstract fun.

don't give up.
I was self taught.
That means I learned everything from a guy who knew nothing!
you wouldn't believe how much can be learned from just messing around! (that's how I learned about "Child Support!"

Thank you all for your comments.

I have only been using Photoshop (PSE5) since earlier in the year, just self-taught by trying things out and seeing what happens. I guess the 'special effects' that are posible are still something of a novelty and I will settle down to 'straight' photography.

Here is the colour version. Both versions are substantially cropped from a landscape original.

Thanks for showing us the real one I really prefer this one, and to be honest: It isn't as bad as you mentioned before. OK, the blown highlights are a shame, but by checking you histogram you could prevent that from happening. Use your camera lcd screen to read and learn from what your histogram is saying. Not to chimp at the picture. Composition wise maybe it was possible to use a slightly higher viewpoint. That would have separated the bird from the background rocks and with a calculated crop you end up with a very good picture of a egret with a nice reflection.
Hope it helps, and keep them coming.
Martin.

Much much better without the manipulation

I guessed you'd have blown highlights on this, but TBH its not all that bad for someone with little experience of shooting white birds, even experts will find exposing for this type of shot a bit tricky.

Actually, I quite like the heavily edited version.

I agree with her that the intense green of the original isn't all that attractive, and I agree with George that describing it as a painting changes the criteria by which one should consider such a picture.

My feeling is that editing for artistic effect is more legitimate than editing in a way that makes it look real, but conceals fakery which is about adding to or taking away from the scene that was there.

But it's all terribly subjective, which is itself to be celebrated. Life would be very dull if no one did the artistic things we disapprove of.

Unless a half blinded fellow in The Netherlands is judging it. Then......you stand a chance.
Martin.

Agreed.

G