Amazing work Jan! Thanks so much for this video - it was so helpful! 🙏 It definitely makes me realise how inadequate my PS skills are. I have a few images with clipped wings that I'd really love to salvage, but I think I'll need to take your master class to be able to execute this 😅 Many thanks again for a great video.
It’s amazing what people can do with photoshop. I can’t do any of that stuff but I don’t need to, I’m a Nikon shooter so all my shots are perfect straight out of camera 📷
I feel very strongly that people can do what ever they want with their own images! I always flip my images so the bird faces right, and I'll edit out sticks or fences powerlines etc. Not with Photoshop but an AI eraser. Love this image great work
@@jan_wegenerYou added a wingtip from a different flight position, which means it’s no longer an accurate representation of that bird in flight. As long as you present it as something like an artistic impression or a manipulated image, then OK, but if you were to try and sell it to a wildlife magazine/book or enter a competition, then it would not be ethical to pretend it’s a straight shot - you would need to tell them and let them decide if it’s acceptable for their usage. If your photography is intended to record the natural world, then you’re engaged in a form of photojournalism, and similar ethical standards should apply. The same goes for removing elements of the environment/flipping images etc. Sadly, the internet is now full of fake nature images, because reality is a bit too grubby/untidy/inconvenient. It’s presenting a false view of the natural world. I also think there is a big difference between sorting out image problems - halos, noise, exposure etc., and “improving” a subject by removing imperfections or brightening up its colours, for example, beyond what it would look like in nature. It’s a fuzzy line, because some fake effects are well known and the viewers adjust for them - wide-angle distortions, to some extent, for example, but others - particularly with modern software - are undetectable.
I think it's ok to do stuff like this, as long as the photographer makes clear that it's a composite image if the photo is used for anything else than private use. ^^
I think that's nonsense. If you took this image for a client who was creating a bird encyclopaedia or general bird book, why would it matter? They want an image of an eagle and get an image of an eagle. Who cares how it was captured or created? It accurately represents a bird in flight.
@@cooloox True, I totally get your point. I just value transparency, I guess ^^ If the maker of the book approves of the image, it's absolutely fine to use it. To me it's similar to stating that an image was eg taken of a captive bird vs a wild bird. Just nice of the photographer to make things clear for a customer :) So yeah, my statement wasn't that good. I'd maybe change it to "fine if the customer approves if used in a professional context". Thanks for the thought!
For me an image is an representation of a moment. If an edit makes a photo nicer to show that moment it is fine. But it is all personal, just do what you feel comfortable with. Photography and beeing in nature should make you happy. That is what matters. For commercial work it can be a little bit different, there it is al about beeing open on edits performed.
Hey Jan! Great video! Could you please tell me what brush settings you used to adjust the sky and the wings? Because my brush just does a sort of black line. Thanks!
Another thought Jan. Can you get away without copying the new wing section to a separate new image? Why not just select the replacement wing tightly using the Magic Wand etc as usual, and then paste directly into the target image? Seems quicker to me and it appeared to work when I tried it just now.
Loved this video Jan and I have no problem with 'fixing' a broken wing. I am also very interested in what was probably your last step when you mention Nik Pro Contrast, can you please give us a quick rundown on that step, when, why and how to use it? Thanks again mate, Bruce Terrill.
nice work jan 👍 even if it’s not my „style“ of photography/editing, it was quite interesting to watch. PS is such a powerful tool, if you know how to manage it, like you do
Really interesting use of digital possibilities. Personally I don‘t see myself using it, but if other people feel like it I‘m totally fine with it. As long es you are honest about it, I see no problem. But if one would try to sell such a „manipulation“ as taken as-is I think it‘s pretty unfair to everyone. But nice video nonetheless, I really enjoy to watch other people showing what could be done!
I'm very impressed and more than a little intimidated by your expertise. In your opinion are all clipped images considered throw-aways or do you have any examples where clipping was acceptable or even necessary to improve an image?
Another great video. Thanks Jan. I'd like to suggest an easier way with some of the editing around sizing the canvas and creating more sky. Following the patch tool technique you demonstrate at 5:14 to create a totally empty sky, I would then use this as the BASE image for the remaining work. I'd open the bird image again, select the bird and copy it as a new layer on to the blue sky image. Then I'd use the Free Transform tool to position it and size it as needed before going on with the rest of your recommended edits to paste in the wing part. I just think it is much simpler and quicker.
You are probably now on the death lists of several fundamentalist bird photographer organizations ;O) I have had funny discussions with those people, who sometimes punish themselves with very rigid codes. I totally join your club of repairmen as long as the essential part of the photo and the expression dominates.
As an amateur and beginner wildlife and nature photography (but with a long way to go to get anywhere near as good images as you) I found your post excellent. I can’t wait to try it. However, I’m worried about using the technique in competition. The rules in my local photography club state: “Processing of the captured image, by cropping, exposure adjustment, colour correction, noise minimisation, dodging/burning, HDR, focus stacking and sharpening, is allowed. Cloning of image defects and minor distractions, including overlapping elements, are permitted when these do not distort the truth of the photographic statement.” Does the phrase “cloning overlapping elements are permitted” allow me to use this technique without breaking the rules or is a clipped wing a major distraction? What do you guys think? Best wishes, Allan
Excellent video, Jan! Even at 1.25x speed (pressed for time today as we are doing a voiceover for our own YT video to be released today - hopefully - lol). I primarily shoot video and don’t focus on birds, but I think your PS methods carry over nicely to wildlife in general. I was a serious wildlife stills shooter before my wife shared her video addiction with me, and I’ve used PS, but only for a few very specific tasks. Always wanted to learn more - I continue to do stills - so I checked out your master class. To me, it seems like a great value if it’s half as good as your instructional/tutorial YT videos. So I signed up. Looking forward to taking the class . . . .slowly and at a measured pace. Cheers!
Hi Jan, thanks a lot for sharing tricks like this ! Good to be aware of this approach, and it is actually the first time I see a compelling reason to get Adobe Photoshop (and then follow your masterclass) because this is certainly not possible in my current processing software. But given that I have a huge backlog of images to process, I should first improve on my culling methods. And allow myself to delete also the "so so" images ;-) I also suggested FastStone some productivity features (in comparison view) and if they don't, I'm considering to program something myself ..
Hi Jan. Another useful tutorial. BTW, inspired by your videos, I did buy both presets and masterclass. Liked both and think they are worth the money spent. However, I was disappointed that Masterclass does not cover use of presets as one of the tools. I also could not find some info on "how best to use presets" elsewhere. Yes I can poke around all the presets and decide what I like. But I thought some advice from you on how you use them or how to get most out of it would have been useful. I provided this comment through your website but did not get any response writing here as there may be others who could benefit from the same as well. BR
Thanks. We made a few Episodes of the Bird Photography Show with them. There's no magic trick. We just go through the list of our favourite ones to pick one we like the best on a given image. Which one is best depends on the image you're using it with. I usually like Vibrant more contrast for most images
Another very useful video Jan; many thanks. I have no qualms about this sort of thing! I tried following your instructions for an image with one clipped primary feather - so less challenging than yours! However to start with I had difficulty with rotating and resizing the missing feather - until I realised that the tiny check box "Show Transform Tools" needed to be ticked, Then all was fine! Seems to me that others might not realise that either, hence this post.
Great video as usual Jan. Now it's time to stop delating this kind of photos hehehe. Amazing photoshop work!!!!! Greetings form Bjoern, a Norwegian in Brazil.
Interesting .. Indeed . Though would it be something I'd also do .. I really don't think so .. Hypothetical ... If you were Judging a Competition .. would a doctored image get your vote ???
I personally don't like competitions, because I don't like to be constrained by arbitrary rules, so I don't participate. I don't think there's any competition who would allow this images to be used. Me personally I wouldn't really have a big issue with it, if it's disclosed and done well.
I dunno... Whenever one tries trickeries like this, it almost always looks fake. I really have no moral qualms, but if it doesn't look natural, I don't like it. This is fairly good, and probably better than I could do it. But not good enough by my personal taste.
For me this about where I draw the line in photoshopping wildlife images. Not a big fan of creating or manipulating things that weren't captured, if we are photographing nature. It's virtually like autotune for singers, the execution wasn't as good as what's being portrayed. If you're happy to do it, I just hope people are openly honest about how they've changed the image. We need to leave some of the art in the art of wildlife photography. When technology takes over too much, everything starts to get boring.
@@JaminTaylor yes it is, I have photoshop but mainly use it for slicing images ect. I once used it to try to remove a distracting object. I think it's fine if people want to be creative for a more perfect image if it really bugs you, but don't hide your secrets and take false credit. People put in years of perfecting technique to get it right
Really glad you posted this, the trend of posting images that are clearly mistakes but in a heavy crop and just seeing the face and torso of the bird is out of control. Would much rather see people fix the wing tips than see that horrid trend continue. This master class sounds really good.
Good job on fixing that clipped wing. If I liked the picture I wouldn't care if the whole thing was photoshopped in. And it wouldn't bother me a bit to know it, I don't care how the final result was arrived at. Some folks, I call them "purists", demand to know if it was "enhanced" in any way and demand "full disclosure". To be honest, those "purists" aren't going to be satisficed with anything... Do they lay awake at night fretting about car companies not giving "full disclosure" about how each and every raw material, step by step, is transformed into a car? Or any other product or work of art??? I guarantee you that if you presented this image to a large group of these "purists" they would all rave about how beautiful it is and give you accolades for capturing such a beautiful image... until you told them how it was fixed. Then, those same folks who loved it moments before would turn on you and rip you to shreds and trash talk your picture and run you down every time they could. The way I see it is that the photograph taken is the raw material and the photographer is the artist that uses that raw material to make it what he want's it to be. And if folks do not like it, well it's just to bad. Thank you for this technique and how to use it!
Your description of "purists" is extremely shallow and you seem to be setting up simpleton straw men to easily knock them down. Sure, there are some snooty, arrogant critics but liking a photo before knowing it was manipulated and then disliking it after learning it was, is completely legitimate. Knowledge that a photo was captured naturally and authentically can be a very key component of what actually contributes to the beauty and appreciation of the image. Some people don't care but some do. Yes, there are crops and toning and noise reduction which are also manipulations but it's quite a different story to add on to partially missing limbs or some other alteration even more substantial. Maybe add a fish to the talons of an osprey because one fell off a second before the photographer could release the shutter? It's potentially endless. If a viewer chooses to accept that, fine. But there are others who don't.
@@JoeHTX Ah, so here we go. I respond with calm, civil points that challenge your rant, and there's no comeback other than I'm triggered? What a laugh. But speaking of triggered, look at your own original point, with the frequent "quote" marks and the triplicate question marks. Talk about triggered...you sound like a child having a tantrum. Good day to you, sir.
Yes, he knows that he moved quickly through it and mentions that at the end. He encourages us to watch his masterclass where he moves slowly through the teaching.
I don't think there's a good way to blurr the BG other than in camera. You can soften the background in many different ways, but blurring has never really looked right to me afterwards. I show one method how I would do it in my masterclass .
For me, a missed shot is motivation to go out and try again.
Unless it was a once in a lifetime shot , I would probably just crop it to focus on the head , eyes and beak.
Amazing work Jan! Thanks so much for this video - it was so helpful! 🙏 It definitely makes me realise how inadequate my PS skills are. I have a few images with clipped wings that I'd really love to salvage, but I think I'll need to take your master class to be able to execute this 😅 Many thanks again for a great video.
Glad you enjoyed it! The class will definitely help with a better understanding of photoshop
It’s amazing what people can do with photoshop. I can’t do any of that stuff but I don’t need to, I’m a Nikon shooter so all my shots are perfect straight out of camera 📷
hehe!
😁😁
I feel very strongly that people can do what ever they want with their own images! I always flip my images so the bird faces right, and I'll edit out sticks or fences powerlines etc. Not with Photoshop but an AI eraser. Love this image great work
I definitely agree with that!
@@jan_wegenerYou added a wingtip from a different flight position, which means it’s no longer an accurate representation of that bird in flight. As long as you present it as something like an artistic impression or a manipulated image, then OK, but if you were to try and sell it to a wildlife magazine/book or enter a competition, then it would not be ethical to pretend it’s a straight shot - you would need to tell them and let them decide if it’s acceptable for their usage. If your photography is intended to record the natural world, then you’re engaged in a form of photojournalism, and similar ethical standards should apply. The same goes for removing elements of the environment/flipping images etc. Sadly, the internet is now full of fake nature images, because reality is a bit too grubby/untidy/inconvenient. It’s presenting a false view of the natural world. I also think there is a big difference between sorting out image problems - halos, noise, exposure etc., and “improving” a subject by removing imperfections or brightening up its colours, for example, beyond what it would look like in nature. It’s a fuzzy line, because some fake effects are well known and the viewers adjust for them - wide-angle distortions, to some extent, for example, but others - particularly with modern software - are undetectable.
Awesome
I think it's ok to do stuff like this, as long as the photographer makes clear that it's a composite image if the photo is used for anything else than private use. ^^
I think that's nonsense. If you took this image for a client who was creating a bird encyclopaedia or general bird book, why would it matter? They want an image of an eagle and get an image of an eagle. Who cares how it was captured or created? It accurately represents a bird in flight.
@@cooloox True, I totally get your point. I just value transparency, I guess ^^ If the maker of the book approves of the image, it's absolutely fine to use it. To me it's similar to stating that an image was eg taken of a captive bird vs a wild bird. Just nice of the photographer to make things clear for a customer :)
So yeah, my statement wasn't that good. I'd maybe change it to "fine if the customer approves if used in a professional context". Thanks for the thought!
For me an image is an representation of a moment. If an edit makes a photo nicer to show that moment it is fine. But it is all personal, just do what you feel comfortable with. Photography and beeing in nature should make you happy. That is what matters. For commercial work it can be a little bit different, there it is al about beeing open on edits performed.
Hey Jan! Great video! Could you please tell me what brush settings you used to adjust the sky and the wings? Because my brush just does a sort of black line. Thanks!
low opacity and 0% hardness and it need to be set to all layers and normal mode
Thanks. This is very helpful and I'm going to use it whenever necessary.
Glad it was helpful!
Another thought Jan. Can you get away without copying the new wing section to a separate new image? Why not just select the replacement wing tightly using the Magic Wand etc as usual, and then paste directly into the target image? Seems quicker to me and it appeared to work when I tried it just now.
There's a few ways to do this.
Loved this video Jan and I have no problem with 'fixing' a broken wing. I am also very interested in what was probably your last step when you mention Nik Pro Contrast, can you please give us a quick rundown on that step, when, why and how to use it? Thanks again mate, Bruce Terrill.
Ditto on the Nik Pro Contrast.
Great video!!
It's just a plug in for Photoshop - Nik Collection - And in there Color Efex Pro and the Pro Contrast. I usually use around 8%
Jan, Thanks for another excellent post. Do you use an Apple or PC for your edits?
Mainly PC
nice work jan 👍 even if it’s not my „style“ of photography/editing, it was quite interesting to watch. PS is such a powerful tool, if you know how to manage it, like you do
Really interesting use of digital possibilities. Personally I don‘t see myself using it, but if other people feel like it I‘m totally fine with it. As long es you are honest about it, I see no problem. But if one would try to sell such a „manipulation“ as taken as-is I think it‘s pretty unfair to everyone. But nice video nonetheless, I really enjoy to watch other people showing what could be done!
Yes, just wanted to show what's possible sometimes
very helpful and well presented - thank you!
Fantastic video Jan!
Glad you enjoyed it
I'm very impressed and more than a little intimidated by your expertise. In your opinion are all clipped images considered throw-aways or do you have any examples where clipping was acceptable or even necessary to improve an image?
Just clipped always doesn't look quite right, I'd usually crop in more then
Jan, you photoshop skills make me realise how much i need to learn!!!!!! unreal mate! :) thanks again!
It's a fascinating world
Another great video. Thanks Jan. I'd like to suggest an easier way with some of the editing around sizing the canvas and creating more sky. Following the patch tool technique you demonstrate at 5:14 to create a totally empty sky, I would then use this as the BASE image for the remaining work. I'd open the bird image again, select the bird and copy it as a new layer on to the blue sky image. Then I'd use the Free Transform tool to position it and size it as needed before going on with the rest of your recommended edits to paste in the wing part. I just think it is much simpler and quicker.
Yes, many ways to do things in PS
Thanks! Do you cover masking in PS in your master class?
Yes
You are probably now on the death lists of several fundamentalist bird photographer organizations ;O) I have had funny discussions with those people, who sometimes punish themselves with very rigid codes. I totally join your club of repairmen as long as the essential part of the photo and the expression dominates.
Hehe, can’t please everyone
As an amateur and beginner wildlife and nature photography (but with a long way to go to get anywhere near as good images as you) I found your post excellent. I can’t wait to try it.
However, I’m worried about using the technique in competition. The rules in my local photography club state:
“Processing of the captured image, by cropping, exposure adjustment, colour correction, noise minimisation, dodging/burning, HDR, focus stacking and sharpening, is allowed. Cloning of image defects and minor distractions, including overlapping elements, are permitted when these do not distort the truth of the photographic statement.”
Does the phrase “cloning overlapping elements are permitted” allow me to use this technique without breaking the rules or is a clipped wing a major distraction?
What do you guys think?
Best wishes,
Allan
Allan, no competitions that I know of allow this type of editing. But for anything else, you are getting the best possible image
Allan, no competitions that I know of allow this type of editing. But for anything else, you are getting the best possible image
Excellent video, Jan! Even at 1.25x speed (pressed for time today as we are doing a voiceover for our own YT video to be released today - hopefully - lol). I primarily shoot video and don’t focus on birds, but I think your PS methods carry over nicely to wildlife in general. I was a serious wildlife stills shooter before my wife shared her video addiction with me, and I’ve used PS, but only for a few very specific tasks. Always wanted to learn more - I continue to do stills - so I checked out your master class. To me, it seems like a great value if it’s half as good as your instructional/tutorial YT videos. So I signed up. Looking forward to taking the class . . . .slowly and at a measured pace. Cheers!
Hi Jan, thanks a lot for sharing tricks like this ! Good to be aware of this approach, and it is actually the first time I see a compelling reason to get Adobe Photoshop (and then follow your masterclass) because this is certainly not possible in my current processing software.
But given that I have a huge backlog of images to process, I should first improve on my culling methods. And allow myself to delete also the "so so" images ;-) I also suggested FastStone some productivity features (in comparison view) and if they don't, I'm considering to program something myself ..
Yes, that's why I like PS, since it can do anything, essentially
Visual auto-tune. Great vid as always.
Hi Jan. Another useful tutorial. BTW, inspired by your videos, I did buy both presets and masterclass. Liked both and think they are worth the money spent. However, I was disappointed that Masterclass does not cover use of presets as one of the tools. I also could not find some info on "how best to use presets" elsewhere. Yes I can poke around all the presets and decide what I like. But I thought some advice from you on how you use them or how to get most out of it would have been useful. I provided this comment through your website but did not get any response writing here as there may be others who could benefit from the same as well. BR
Thanks. We made a few Episodes of the Bird Photography Show with them.
There's no magic trick. We just go through the list of our favourite ones to pick one we like the best on a given image.
Which one is best depends on the image you're using it with. I usually like Vibrant more contrast for most images
Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V - easy! 😉
Sehr gut erklärt und super gemacht. Für mich ist es aber zu viel bearbeitet und ich würde es nicht machen.
brilliant
Insane mate.... 10 mins😂 excellent work!
Thanks 😁
Thanks....
No problem if it’s the same bird and the same situation. But I guess I’m gonna have some problems to master this...
Another very useful video Jan; many thanks. I have no qualms about this sort of thing! I tried following your instructions for an image with one clipped primary feather - so less challenging than yours! However to start with I had difficulty with rotating and resizing the missing feather - until I realised that the tiny check box "Show Transform Tools" needed to be ticked, Then all was fine! Seems to me that others might not realise that either, hence this post.
Ha! always the little things!
@@jan_wegener Indeed! And once ticked it stays that way!
Great video as usual Jan. Now it's time to stop delating this kind of photos hehehe. Amazing photoshop work!!!!! Greetings form Bjoern, a Norwegian in Brazil.
Thank you!
EASY editing fix!?!?
Interesting .. Indeed . Though would it be something I'd also do .. I really don't think so ..
Hypothetical ... If you were Judging a Competition .. would a doctored image get your vote ???
I personally don't like competitions, because I don't like to be constrained by arbitrary rules, so I don't participate. I don't think there's any competition who would allow this images to be used.
Me personally I wouldn't really have a big issue with it, if it's disclosed and done well.
I dunno... Whenever one tries trickeries like this, it almost always looks fake. I really have no moral qualms, but if it doesn't look natural, I don't like it.
This is fairly good, and probably better than I could do it. But not good enough by my personal taste.
For me this about where I draw the line in photoshopping wildlife images. Not a big fan of creating or manipulating things that weren't captured, if we are photographing nature. It's virtually like autotune for singers, the execution wasn't as good as what's being portrayed. If you're happy to do it, I just hope people are openly honest about how they've changed the image. We need to leave some of the art in the art of wildlife photography. When technology takes over too much, everything starts to get boring.
Photoshop is just another tool in the photographers tool bag.
@@JaminTaylor yes it is, I have photoshop but mainly use it for slicing images ect. I once used it to try to remove a distracting object. I think it's fine if people want to be creative for a more perfect image if it really bugs you, but don't hide your secrets and take false credit. People put in years of perfecting technique to get it right
Clipped a Wing? No Problem! It's okay to cut into the subject. It does not ruin the photo.
Whatever, the tutorial is great .
Really glad you posted this, the trend of posting images that are clearly mistakes but in a heavy crop and just seeing the face and torso of the bird is out of control. Would much rather see people fix the wing tips than see that horrid trend continue. This master class sounds really good.
Yes, cropping is not always the solution :D
10 minutes???? It would take me 10 minutes just to find out how to open a layer!
might need to spend some more time in PS :D
Good job on fixing that clipped wing. If I liked the picture I wouldn't care if the whole thing was photoshopped in. And it wouldn't bother me a bit to know it, I don't care how the final result was arrived at. Some folks, I call them "purists", demand to know if it was "enhanced" in any way and demand "full disclosure". To be honest, those "purists" aren't going to be satisficed with anything... Do they lay awake at night fretting about car companies not giving "full disclosure" about how each and every raw material, step by step, is transformed into a car? Or any other product or work of art??? I guarantee you that if you presented this image to a large group of these "purists" they would all rave about how beautiful it is and give you accolades for capturing such a beautiful image... until you told them how it was fixed. Then, those same folks who loved it moments before would turn on you and rip you to shreds and trash talk your picture and run you down every time they could.
The way I see it is that the photograph taken is the raw material and the photographer is the artist that uses that raw material to make it what he want's it to be. And if folks do not like it, well it's just to bad. Thank you for this technique and how to use it!
Your description of "purists" is extremely shallow and you seem to be setting up simpleton straw men to easily knock them down. Sure, there are some snooty, arrogant critics but liking a photo before knowing it was manipulated and then disliking it after learning it was, is completely legitimate.
Knowledge that a photo was captured naturally and authentically can be a very key component of what actually contributes to the beauty and appreciation of the image. Some people don't care but some do.
Yes, there are crops and toning and noise reduction which are also manipulations but it's quite a different story to add on to partially missing limbs or some other alteration even more substantial. Maybe add a fish to the talons of an osprey because one fell off a second before the photographer could release the shutter? It's potentially endless. If a viewer chooses to accept that, fine. But there are others who don't.
@@anthonyc1883 Oh my, aren't you a touchy, triggered little thing. LOL
@@anthonyc1883 bro got the straw man, slippery slope, and ad hominem💀 collecting logical fallacies like pokemon😭
@@JoeHTX Ah, so here we go. I respond with calm, civil points that challenge your rant, and there's no comeback other than I'm triggered? What a laugh. But speaking of triggered, look at your own original point, with the frequent "quote" marks and the triplicate question marks. Talk about triggered...you sound like a child having a tantrum. Good day to you, sir.
Definitely not for beginners , way too fast
Yes, he knows that he moved quickly through it and mentions that at the end. He encourages us to watch his masterclass where he moves slowly through the teaching.
@@JohnTucker and also enjoys the hefty price tag associated with it.
There's always a fine balance. If I do it slow and it takes 2 hours, most people will turn off :)
I guess I'm not the only one who wants to learn how to properly do a background blur🥲
I don't think there's a good way to blurr the BG other than in camera. You can soften the background in many different ways, but blurring has never really looked right to me afterwards.
I show one method how I would do it in my masterclass .