Sandhill Crane Modifications

Some of you probably saw Keith Bauer's modification to add room at the bottom of the Sandhill Crane image I posted a few days ago. Steve Balke had a distinctly different idea and asked for my permission to try it. His approach was to eliminate the reflection completely and add more water. Since the original post is getting rather old and most people won't see it, I thought I'd repost it here with my favorite of the three modifications that Steve sent me.

The first image is the original and Steve's will be the second image.

I'd be interested in how others might approach the same challenge.

And here is Steve's remake.

I think I'd like to see something about halfway between the two images - crop out about half of the added water.

Me too Dennis.

Just a further comment to what Dennis mentioned: It seemed to me that deleting the reflection could work if the viewer was convinced that no reflection would be expected. Calm water left the possibility open. Darkening the water as much as reasonable was not enough to conceal an image. The third approach I tried, showing rough water, is the image that Dennis posted. I like it because it does not require us to show any other view of the bird. Its very similar to just adding new canvas. The roughness of the water and the amount showing is yet another judgment call.

I would crop to where you couldn't see the obvious cloning—about 2/3ds of the added water.

Looks like I'd better say something before comments just focus on my cloning rather than how to solve the space problem. This image is meant to be a demonstration of an idea rather than a final image. I'm sure that we can improve on the cloning job with more work and patience. There are two questions that I think are important here:
Question 1: (i) would you like to try to create a more complete reflection or (ii) would you like to delete the existing reflection?
Question 2: Regarding (ii): do you think rough water is a reasonable way to discourage the viewer from expecting a reflection? or maybe you have some other ideas?
I realize that the amount of water showing beneath the crane is important too. However, that aspect is one we are accustomed to dealing with. The reflection question presents a less common situation. It's new to me. Perhaps some of you have hit it before though. How did you answer it?

I like the concept that Steve produced here. It looks natural (as noted in Steve's post, sure there are some obvious cloning issues, but that wasn't the point here. It was about the concept). Looks like something I've seen a 1000 times at the Bosque. My post to the thread in the Avian forum was also about the concept of adding canvas with a reflection. Could have taken the concept further and added the complete reflection if desired. Steve, nice work. Dennis great image to play with and begin to see the possibilities when things don't work out as we would like them to.

Steve,

In regards to the question 1. Personally I would try to make a more complete reflection, adding rough water in my mind doesn't seem to discourage me from expecting a reflection. When I viewed the modified image, my first thought was something seemed odd, and it wasn't so much the cloning, but that something was missing. Looking at it I believe I need to see the reflection even with rough water.


for More on why I think this, see some of the photos posted to the Avian forum, such as
Gary Reeds - Swanathon
and

Bill Leggett's - Reddish Egret

Both of those images have some sort of reflection which to me is to be expected. If the reflection or shadow was missing, this start to look a little odd.

Great additional responses: right on the money. My understanding is that we see a reflection because the light reflects from the bird to the surface of the water and then to our eyes. That means it depends on the lighting as well as the water surface. For most cases I find it difficult to judge whether or not to expect a reflection. When we look for examples we need to ask ourselves how close both lighting and water surface are to the situation here. Judging from the wingtip reflection present in the original, I think that the whole bird reflection would have been quite dark. In rough water I bet it would be barely visible. However, I’m not sure. Many of you may decide that the case of “no distinguishable reflection” is so rare that you would want to try to show some type of reflection.

Anyway, in addition to the reflection examples shown by Joel, here are some more to consider. In addition to the question of similarity of lighting and rough water surface, I suggest that you ask yourself if you would find the absence of reflection (or trace of a reflection) strange in these images if it was not present:

Dan Skahan: Pelican

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=141798&CGISESSID=da77304bd8a41f232331d34e7a463d36&u=5601

Bob McQuade: Whooper crabbing

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=141551&CGISESSID=da77304bd8a41f232331d34e7a463d36&u=6195

Monica Siri: Grebe

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=141008&CGISESSID=da77304bd8a41f232331d34e7a463d36&u=7182

Istvan Molnar: Hello everybody!

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=140944&CGISESSID=da77304bd8a41f232331d34e7a463d36&u=7419

I think a reflection is needed - but you could maybe get away with it if you didn't add so much water. I'd rather see some water added to the back of this photo though, as it's frustrating to my eyes to have it be so tight

- Luke