With our present state of technology, this picture of a snowy owl with a sharp background is impossible. The fact that a telephoto lens had to be used to capture the bird so large in the frame means that the background would have been out of focus to some degree. However, this photo shows what we would see with our eyes because we never see out of focus backgrounds. That’s only a function of camera lenses. Therefore, I used Photoshop to put the two images together. Many photographers will think this picture looks unnatural simply because we are not used to complete depth of field with telephoto images in which the subject is close to the camera. But again, this is how our eye/brain combination sees it. So, which is the correct visual image? How a camera captures it or how humans see it? Interesting question.
To make the composite, I used the pen tool to precisely select the owl, copied that selection to the clipboard with Edit > copy, and then used Edit > paste to place the owl in front of the background. This was, in fact, the background behind the bird, but as I said, it wasn’t possible to keep both subject and background in focus with the 100-400mm telephoto I was using.
5 Comments
Dec 9, 2016, 9:46:08 AM
Jim - Hi Bob, I made the snowy owl appear close to the camera because they do, in fact, fly very close at times and I wanted that visual impact. We bait the owls with mice, and sometimes they come in to within 15 or 20 feet. The sharpness of the background isn't a factor here. I wanted to reproduce as close as possible what we see with our eyes in the snowy owl workshop.
Dec 9, 2016, 9:17:05 AM
Frederic Hore - I like how you push the boundaries Jim. When I first saw your photo this morning, my immediate reaction was that it was a composite, and it turned out I was right. However my reasoning was not because the background was sharp, but because the owl depicted, looked unnaturally bright compared to the background and the snow below it. The size perspective seemed a bit off too.
As to having the foreground subject sharp, in this case the owl, and the background nearly as sharp, it's certainly possible with a medium range lens like a 24-70 2.8 @ 70mm when photographed stopped down on a large sensor DSLR like the Nikon D810, then cropped and enlarged to achieve a result, similar to what you have here. Owls here in Quebec, can sometimes fly in pretty close in farmers fields, when a mole or mouse is scurrying beneath the snow, just underfoot. I have a couple of photos like that, one ironically with an owl!
Cheers from Montréal.
Dec 9, 2016, 8:23:24 AM
Jim - Frederic, Thank you for your comments. A white owl in direct sunlight is definitely going to be bright, and I could have made the background a bit lighter to match but I specifically wanted to have the owl stand out. Artistic license. That's why I made it large in the frame, too. As I mentioned to Bob, the owls do come incredibly close. Without being there, it's hard to imagine these stunning owls do, in fact, fly so close to photographers.
Regarding a medium range lense, a small f/stop, and cropping, yes, it's possible to do as you said. But I hate cropping my images -- I only do so if absolutely necessary. I've paid for every megapixel . . . and I don't like throwing away what I've paid for!
Dec 9, 2016, 6:49:08 AM
Bob Turner - Beautiful! I agree, it is not common to see this combination of sharpness in the same image. It appears to me that the Snowy Owl is too big relative to the background. Is that perception due to the sharpe background? In my opinion I like a blurred background showing soft trees is more appealing.
Dec 9, 2016, 6:46:10 AM
Jim - Hi Bob, I made the snowy owl appear close to the camera because they do, in fact, fly very close at times and I wanted that visual impact. We bait the owls with mice, and sometimes they come in to within 15 or 20 feet. The sharpness of the background isn't a factor here. I wanted to reproduce as close as possible what we see with our eyes in the snowy owl workshop.