Micro 4/3 Are you a bird shooter? Take a look at Photoshop's latest.

lokatz

Rookie
Location
Berlin, Germany
Name
Lothar
I use several photo editors and own quite a few more (PS, LR, DxO PL, ON1, Affinity, Luminar 4, Luminar Neo, ...). I am not a fan of Adobe's subscription model and think their noise reduction/sharpening algorithms still suck when compared to the likes of Topaz, DxO or ON1.

Yet, I am absolutely blown away by Photoshop's new 'Remove' tool, for now available only in a Beta release. In bird photography, and not only there, this comes VERY handy.

Below is a before-and-after example. Neither makes for a great shot, but the difference is stunning nonetheless. I could have gone on, removing even more of the twigs. I used only this tool, no cloning or anything else. If you pixel peep, you will find issues - the 'Remove' tool is by no means perfect. The overall level of change is impressive though. IMO, this is a very useful tool.

2023-03-14 55 Common Chiffchaff.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2023-03-14 55 Common Chiffchaff 2.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
impressive indeed. But as a bird shooter i never remove anything - besides cropping, which is a sort of removal tool - at least not for publish. I would never post those in public.
This is an discussion (disagreement; call it anything you like) that could go on forever. On the other m43 forum we just went thru a discussion of sky removal/substitution, which is basically the same discussion. How much is too much, etc. For example, how about removing just that foreground leafy blob at the bottom of the image? (Obviously that could be cropped, but just as an example.) Would removing just that be unexceptable? I think it would be OK, but, as I said, this discussion could go on indefinitely. :unsure: Edit: yeah, that leg should probably be reattached...
 
impressive indeed. But as a bird shooter i never remove anything - besides cropping, which is a sort of removal tool - at least not for publish. I would never post those in public.
The example I shared served only to illustrate how powerful the tool is. I would not ever go that far.

Yet, most of my bird shooting happens in areas where it is hard to get a clean, isolated shot. Personally, I don't like bait and I don't like twigs on tripods that create an artificial landing spot. Because of this, I guess I am more tolerant than you are of removing a disturbing element if it ruins an otherwise great shot of a beautiful bird.
 
I'm seeing more and More AI - in my processing software for stills (PS & On1), Resolve Studio for Video, and Studio One 6 for DAW. Depending on what I am producing I won't or will use it. What the boundaries are for such use will be determined by users and viewers. It going to happen so fast that in just a couple of years the answers will be apparent. Non-documentary imaging will know no boundaries (except legal) and perhaps a moniker of "documentary image" will come to be the short hand for "I did it in camera".....
 
Last edited:
There is always the old shop adages to apply, "File to fit, paint to match" and "Hammer to fit, paint to match". Not much difference on the surface, but some rather large ones when pondered on. "File to fit, etcetera" has always been a thing in photography, just have a gander in the Magnum Contact Sheets book or look into the works of Ansel Adams.

Personally, I draw the line before sky replacement, and sniggered on the first videoes I saw about the PS Beta AI, adding car wrecks and spaceships and all sort of stuff into the pictures. Peter Forsgård put up a video yesterday, doing some more subtle stuff with it, the AI bit triggered my interest. As it stands pr now, I somewhat see it like a refinement of tools that has been available for decades, but with the user threshold in regards of skill more or less gone.

Then there are the Samsung S23 moon shot controversy from earlier this year to consider, as well as the Peter Lik scandal from some years ago, the latter without AI.
 
impressive indeed. But as a bird shooter i never remove anything - besides cropping, which is a sort of removal tool - at least not for publish. I would never post those in public.
I totally agree that it's best to keep intact the context in which the image was shot. It's all part on the story of the bird. However, to take a pedantic philosophical stand about it, is over the top. Surely if there were some distracting OOF and unidentifiable blob in the background, one would remove it if one could. It can't be part of the story of the bird.
 
I totally agree that it's best to keep intact the context in which the image was shot. It's all part on the story of the bird. However, to take a pedantic philosophical stand about it, is over the top. Surely if there were some distracting OOF and unidentifiable blob in the background, one would remove it if one could.
I'm one of those who will not alter an image, except in extraordinary circumstances (maybe one in a thousand, or less). I will straighten an image (rarely), or crop it if unavoidable at capture (extremely rarely). Otherwise, almost every photo I post is an OoC JPEG, with a small USM to make up for turning off in-camera sharpening.
It can't be part of the story of the bird.
Why not?

I will do a lot more to images for print, but never change the substance of what I've captured. For example, my cameras will capture a far wider gamut than aRGB, but the JPEGs are limited to that space. I edit RAW files in a 16 bit ProPhotoRGB colour space.

It is a choice for the individual, but mine is pretty purist ...
 
I have posted this image on the other forum in threads on this topic. Yes, I felt I had to remove the blob; otherwise, the image is essentially ruined, I think (I cannot convince myself that it tells any "story" other than how stray crap can ruin a bird image). Maybe an extreme example (maybe not?) :)
bluebird-before-fix_sm.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
bluebird-after-fix_sm.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Indeed it is a very powerful and helpful tool, depending on the level of need and personal (lack of) objection.
I am a documentary mindset photographer and I prefer to record the moment to the best of its representation of reality sprinkled with my own perspective of reality (everyone's reality is different and unique to theirs). I prefer to include the environment in my images as part of the story unless it's an exclusive story of the bird/subject only, but I am finding myself in contant conflict with competition judges on that disagreement and I'm learning to ignore such statements.
Whatever the nature of the foreground, background and environment I try to keep it as it is if I can not get in closer, I live to photograph not die for a photograph (fences, diches, cliffs, roads, buildings, angry bulls, ill mannered pitbulls, etc :p ).

I would remove objects if I am printing for myself in my own home or if I try to apply for a camera club competition WITHIN reasonable limit for those pesky perfectionist camera club judges though I will never win anything more then "Nicely seen, not good enough though".

If you want to truly be worried, reality is going to be extremely different very soon, I was reading this just a few hours ago:
Do the Pixel 8's Magic Editor and Best Take make you uncomfortable?

Times are changing when it comes to the true nature of what a photograph is and can be and most (non photographers) people will not care for the truth. And photographers will left on the side of the road if they want to stay true to the craft unfortunately.
 
Back
Top