Blending two Images

Agree with Dennis, there is no shadow for the top bird.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19064556
.
thanks for posting the original images - that is quite helpful when it comes to giving you suggestions.

I would suggest using the top image (the one with the male) as the base image, and then bringing the female into that.

Why?

Because then you won't have that nasty looking out-of-focus tan object that is along the right side of the tree trunk. Something like that can ruin what would otherwise be a nice image.


.

Thank you Tom, I'll try that. The thing in the background is a bird house on a cedar post with predator guard. Thanks again!
Harry

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19064554
.
I guess that just goes to show the OP how important shadows are when blending two images.

.

Actually, shadows aren't all that important. Here is an expert in digital image forensics explaining why:

https://youtu.be/xNf_C​-1MCXQ?t=1668

harryv wrote in post #19064555
Thanks everyone, all comments and observations help as PS has quite the learning curve. Here's both shots straight out of the camera with a small amount of crop.

Hosted photo: posted by harryv in
./showthread.php?p=190​64555&i=i78051776
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by harryv in
./showthread.php?p=190​64555&i=i231418076
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

I would not have guessed that the top twig was in both images. See both sources shows me that the blend was done rather well as you opened the thread asking where it's blended. It was not obvious clearly. If you would not have said it was blended, I wouldn't have assumed so.

harryv wrote in post #19064560
.
Thank you Tom, I'll try that. The thing in the background is a bird house on a cedar post with predator guard. Thanks again!
Harry
.

.
It seems to me that the cedar post and house would be fairly easy to remove in the top image, and more difficult to remove in the bottom image, because there is so much of the post along the edge of the tree in the bottom image. In the top image, they don't look to intersect with anything that is in focus, so it seems like it would be an easier removal because you wouldn't have to worry so much about the painstaking process of feathering in the edges of the tree with the out-of-focus background.


.

Peano wrote in post #19064580
Actually, shadows aren't all that important. Here is an expert in digital image forensics explaining why:

https://youtu.be/xNf_C​-1MCXQ?t=1668

.
But the context of this image posted here is to see if photographers can see any signs to determine if it is a blended image or not. . That is the context of this discussion. . The video clip you used explains why people in general don't notice such things ..... but the general viewer has nothing to do with the context of this thread. . I fail to see how your YouTube video is relevant.

The forensic expert speaking in the video you linked us to says that our brains typically don't do the cognitive exercise of scrutinizing the physics of an image, such as determining where the light source was from in relation to the shadows. . But here, we ARE doing the cognitive exercise ........ in fact, the OP asked us to scrutinize the image, which is precisely the opposite context of what your forensic expert is discussing.

The OP never asked us anything about whether most people would notice the blended images - he asked us if we, very particular photographers, could notice the blend. . Big huge difference that you don't seem to recognize in your reply to my post.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19064665
.
But the context of this image posted here is to see if photographers can see any signs to determine if it is a blended image or not. . That is the context of this discussion. . The video clip you used explains why people in general don't notice such things ..... but the general viewer has nothing to do with the context of this thread. . I fail to see how your YouTube video is relevant.

The forensic expert speaking in the video you linked us to says that our brains typically don't do the cognitive exercise of scrutinizing the physics of an image, such as determining where the light source was from in relation to the shadows. . But here, we ARE doing the cognitive exercise ........ in fact, the OP asked us to scrutinize the image, which is precisely the opposite context of what your forensic expert is discussing.

The OP never asked us anything about whether most people would notice the blended images - he asked us if we, very particular photographers, could notice the blend. . Big huge difference that you don't seem to recognize in your reply to my post.

.

I was responding to your comment: "I guess that just goes to show the OP how important shadows are when blending two images." They're important in the context of pixel-peepers doing the 'cognitive exercise.' Outside that context, they're not very important. The original image would pass muster with most viewers, because most viewers aren't doing the 'cognitive exercise.'

Using the various tools in PS CC I produced this interpretation.

Its a little untidy around the flipped bird where it is holding onto the twig and would require more fiddling to fix it.

Cheers

Dennis

I appreciate everyone taking time to comment and show me the edits you've done, it really helps in more way than I express. Not that I want to fool people, it's more about being creative. I've watched this pair of Bluebirds ever since they selected our nesting box to build in. They would use both limbs to watch for bugs and and keep an eye on their nest. I often wished they would both land there at the same time. They had a brood of 5 hatchlings, I was able to photograph 4 out of five make their first flight, in fact it all happened in a span 2 1/2 hours. I have friend who's favorite bird is a blue bird, I was thinking about creating a book for her. Thank you all again!

Harry

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19064475

gjl711 wrote in post #19064463
.
The shadows between the two do not match and the shadow for the top bird seems to start from no where. It's not connected to the tree as the bottom branch is.
.

.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, JJ.

There is no shadow from the top bird; that is the problem.

.

I’m not sure I understand why that’s a problem. It appears to me that the top branch is pointing away from the camera, so the shadows of that branch and bird fall on the far side of the trunk, since the sun appears to be close to 90 degrees from the angle of the photo.

john crossley wrote in post #19064670
The hardest part was aligning the two images.

Two tricks to make the aligning easier. Lower the opacity of the layer you're moving to where you can see the other layer. Another way is to change the mode from Normal to Difference. The common areas will turn black.

Due to the angle and "zoom" differences for both images, I made some changes.
Incorporating the shadow for the bottom bird, and also removing the TAN object would require a fair amount of time.

5 minutes, acceptable results. Would be better with the originals.

D Thompson wrote in post #19064805
Two tricks to make the aligning easier. Lower the opacity of the layer you're moving to where you can see the other layer. Another way is to change the mode from Normal to Difference. The common areas will turn black.

Thanks, lowering the opacity worked really well, much easier.

Harry

harryv wrote in post #19064778
I appreciate everyone taking time to comment and show me the edits you've done, it really helps in more way than I express. Not that I want to fool people, it's more about being creative.

That's the spirit! Here is a different interpretation (just for fun).

Peano wrote in post #19065010
That's the spirit! Here is a different interpretation (just for fun).

Hosted photo: posted by Peano in
./showthread.php?p=190​65010&i=i188949911
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

.
I love what you did with this, Peano. . No nasty distractions in the background!

And I also like that there isn't a lot of useless "extra space" around the birds; space that doesn't really do anything for the image. . Having the birds fill more of the frame is definitely the way to go, especially when the surroundings aren't doing a whole lot for the image. . Negative space around the subject should always be there for a good reason based on artistic and compositional preferences, not just because the photographer couldn't get close enough. . Negative space around the subject needs to be making it a better image, not a weaker one.

I do wonder, however, why you chose to have the birds facing away from one another instead of having them face each other. . Don't you think it would be a more appealing image if the pair of birds were looking toward each other? . Of course, it would be a little "tight" if they were to be facing each other the way it is now, with them so close together. . But the branch they are perched on could be made a bit longer, so that they could be a bit further apart, which would relieve any unnecessary tension created by being too close to one another.


.