Would You Remove a Cigarette Butt From an Otherwise Great Image? A Great Quick Mask/Layer Masking Trick. And Lots More … « Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

Would You Remove a Cigarette Butt From an Otherwise Great Image? A Great Quick Mask/Layer Masking Trick. And Lots More ...


I had a great time doing the Understand Photography 100th podcast with Peggy Farren down in Naples, FL on Friday afternoon. We had a brief problem with the FaceBook connection in the middle of the show, but Joe Fitzpatrick got that fixed quickly and on we went. As soon as I have the YouTube link, I will post it here.

Amy is off to Iceland and Greenland for a short vacation. She left me lots of physical therapy homework.

Long Island Small Group Instruction

I will be returning to my old haunts on Long Island from 15-27 August, prime time for bird photography. If you would like to learn to get close to shorebirds — and others as with today’s image — in the mud, do consider joining me. For info on the Black Skimmer sessions and other IPTs click here and scroll down.

Shorebird Sessions

Join me at the East Pond at Jamaica Bay WR (JBWR) on the ideal tides to photograph southbound migrant juvenile shorebirds. With full frame bodies, a minimum of a 500mm lens with TCs is recommended. 400mm is OK with crop factor bodies and a 1.4X TC.

Important note: The Shorebird Mornings are dependent on suitable water levels at the East Pond. If the pond is flooded, the sessions will be conducted at Nickerson Beach where we will likely encounter some shorebirds as well as the skimmer and terns.

JBWR Shorebird Morning: Friday, AUG 24, 2018. 6:00 – 9:30am plus a working brunch: $375/session. Limit 4/Openings 3.

JBWR Shorebird Morning: Saturday, AUG 25, 2018. 6:00 – 9:30am plus a working brunch: $375/session. Limit 4/Openings 3.

Please inquire via e-mail for multiple session discounts.

To register, please call Jim or Jen with your credit card in hand: 863-692-0906. I hope that you can join me.


BIRDS AS ART is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Selling Your Used Photo Gear Through BIRDS AS ART

Selling your used (or like-new) photo gear through the BAA Blog is a great idea. We charge only a 5% commission. One of the more popular used gear for sale sites charged a minimum of 20%. Plus assorted fees! Yikes. They went out of business. And e-Bay fees are now up to 13%. The minimum item price here is $500 (or less for a $25 fee). If you are interested please scroll down here or shoot us an e-mail with the words Items for Sale Info Request cut and pasted into the Subject line :). Stuff that is priced fairly — I offer pricing advice to those who agree to the terms — usually sells in no time flat. Over the past year, we have sold many dozens of items. Do know that prices on some items like the EOS-1D Mark IV, the old Canon 100-400, the old 500mm, the EOS-7D and 7D Mark II and the original 400mm DO lens have been dropping steadily. You can always see the current listings by clicking on the Used Photo Gear tab on the orange-yellow menu bar near the top of each blog post page.

Recent Sales

IPT veteran Bill Wingfield sold a Wimberley V-2 WH-200 Gimbal Head in very good condition for a ridiculously low $299.00 and a Gitzo GT3532LS Carbon Fiber tripod in good condition for only $249.00, both in early August.
IPT veteran Bill Wingfield sold his Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM lens in excellent to near-mint condition for $1049.00 in late July 2018.
Pierre Williot sold his Canon EOS 5DS R in like-new condition for the BAA record-low-by-far price of $1999.00 (was $2399.00).
Carolyn Peterson sold a Canon GPS receiver GP-E2 for EOS camera bodies in near-mint condition for $149 in mid-July.
BAA-friend “Bug” Bob Allen sold a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Zoom lens in excellent condition for the a BAA record low price of $527.00 in mid-July.
NANPA President Don Carter sold his Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens in excellent condition for the BAA record-low-by-far price of $525 the first day it was listed. Yours truly sold his like-new Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for $699 in late June.
Ray Maynard sold his Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS lens (the original version) in near-mint condition for the BIRDS AS ART record-low price of $2349.000 and a Canon 2X III teleconverter in near-mint condition for $285.00 both in mid-July.

Unsolicited, via e-mail, from Pierre Williot

I would encourage anyone who wants to sell some of their photographic equipment to contact Art. High-end photographic equipment can be difficult to sell. Art, with is widely read daily posts, will allow you to sell your equipment fairly easily for a reasonable price and commission. Please, seriously consider the price that he suggests as it can be hard to face the reality of the actual value of well loved equipment! Art is well aware of the current market for second-hand photographic equipment.

Money Saving Reminder

If you need a hot photo item that is out of stock at B&H, would enjoy free overnight shipping, and would like a $50 discount on your first purchase, click here to order and enter the coupon code BIRDSASART at checkout. If you are looking to strike a deal on Canon or Nikon gear (including the big telephotos) or on a multiple item order, contact Steve Elkins via e-mail or on his cell at (479) 381-2592 (Eastern time) and be sure to mention your BIRDSASART coupon code and use it for your online order. Patrick Sparkman saved $350 on a recent purchase!

Hard to Find Nikon Stuff Available Now

Steve Elkins has several Nikon D850s in stock right now. In addition, he has a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR lens and an AF-S 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lens in stock! E-mail Steve about a special deal on either big Nikon lens. The 180-400, like its Canon counterpart, the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM with Internal Extender 1.4x lens — is especially great for trips to Africa, the Southern Ocean, or the Galapagos.


Several folks on the UK IPT used the Booking.Com link below for there Edinburgh hotels, got great rates, and saved a handsome $25.00 in the process. If you too would like to give Booking.Com a shot, click here and to earn a $25 reward on your first booking. Thanks to the many who have already tried and used this great service.

Gear Questions and Advice

Too many folks attending BAA IPTs and dozens of photographers whom I see in the field and on BPN, are–out of ignorance–using the wrong gear especially when it comes to tripods and more especially, tripod heads… Please know that I am always glad to answer your gear questions via e-mail. Those questions might deal with systems, camera bodies, accessories, and/or lens choices and decisions.

This image was created at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge on August 18, 2016 with the Induro GIT 304L/Mongoose M3.6-mounted Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM lens, the Canon Extender EF 1.4X III, and the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II. ISO 2000. Evaluative metering at zero: 1/1600 sec. at f/5.6 in Manual mode. AWB at 8:598am on a cloudy dark morning.

One to the right of the center AF point/AI Servo (C in Nikon)/Shutter button/Expand AF was active at the moment of exposure. The selected AF point was on the bird’s neck.

AF micro-adjustment: fine-tune: +6. See the The LensAlign/FocusTune Micro-Adjusting Tutorial e-Guide here.

Image #1: the original image capture for Black-crowned Night-Heron, juvenile scavenging American Eel

The Story

I remember this morning from nearly two years ago very well. The shore of the East Pond was littered with the carcasses of eels that had most likely died as a result of botulism. There were several young night-herons partaking. All but the one in today’s featured image took flight as we approached cautiously. I created lots of images and each time I revisited the file I deleted a few more until last night when I was left with one. Though my single keeper was a bit underexposed and the mudflat was an absolute mess, I saw the potential. I created Image #2 just before I hit the sack on Saturday night.

Image #2: This is the first optimized version of Black-crowned Night-Heron, juvenile scavenging American Eel

The First Optimized Version

It took me about 30 minutes to create the first optimized version, Image #2 above. During the RAW conversion I increased the exposure a bit, set the WHITE and BLACK points, and cooled the image down a bit with the Color Temperature slider. Once I brought the TIFF into Photoshop and executed the 3X2 crop, I started on the background clean-up. My main weapon was the Patch Tool. In addition, I used Content Aware Fill and the Spot Healing Brush. Once the bulk of the clean-up was done I used a Quick Mask refined by a Regular Layer Mask to cover the dark smudge that merged with the young bird’s bill. I used one of my favorite tricks: I painted the Quick Mask larger than what was needed to cover the smudge. I moved it into place and then added a Regular Layer Mask. Then I painted away (B, D, X) the whole Quick Mask Layer. Then I zoomed in on the area, hit X, and painted the mask back in only where needed to cover the smudge. This is a trick that I use quite often. I did use the Clone Stamp Tool just once, to eliminate the glob of mud on the bird’s upper breast (as seen above in Image #1.)

Once the clean-up was complete. I used the Quick Selection Tool to select the face and the bill and the eel. I used the Lasso Brush to add (plus brush ) and remove (minus brush) refine the selection. I placed it on its own layer and ran my NIK Color Efex Pro 30-30 recipe. After merging that layer I painted a Quick Mask of the face, applied a Contrast Mask (Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0), and then pulled the Curve up ever so slightly on that layer only. Then the image was saved and the JPEG for Image #2 was created. Everything mentioned above is covered in detail in Digital Basics II. (See below for more info on that.)

Image #3: This is the second optimized version of Black-crowned Night-Heron, juvenile scavenging American Eel

Too Green?

When I woke on Sunday morning I looked at the first optimized version and thought, “It looks like there is a GREEN cast.” So I created a duplicate layer (Command J) and hit Command U (Hue Saturation). From experience, I knew that when an image looked too GREEN that it almost always was too YELLOW. So I went to the YELLOW channel and reduced the saturation 30 points to create the second version.

Your Favorite Color Balance?

Which version do you like best, the warmer, GREENer version seen in Image #2, or the cooler, more neutral version that is Image #3? Be sure to let us know why.

The Animated GIF

The animated GIF shows the before and after background clean-up versions of the warmer version. The horrific (and unavoidable) posterization is the result of creating the GIF.

Would You Remove a Cigarette Butt From and Otherwise Great Image?

Try answering these questions:

#1: Would you remove a cigarette butt from an otherwise great image? Why or why not?

#2: Do you think that the degree of background clean-up with today’s image was excessive? Why or why not?


Do you think that the optimized versions of today’s featured images need to be rotated? If yes, in which direction, clockwise or counter-clockwise? About how much?

If yes, what fooled me?

The Lesson

Images with horrific, ugly, cluttered backgrounds can often be cleaned up nicely to create a fairly pleasing image (if that course of action fits with your personal ethics).

The BIRDS AS ART Current Workflow e-Guide (Digital Basics II).

You can order your copy from the BAA Online Store here, by sending a Paypal for $40 here, or by calling Jim or Jennifer weekdays at 863-692-0906 with your credit card in hand.

The BIRDS AS ART Current Workflow e-Guide (Digital Basics II)

Yes, everything mentioned above and tons more is covered in detail in the BIRDS AS ART Current Workflow e-Guide (Digital Basics II), an instructional PDF that is sent via e-mail. Learn more and check out the free excerpt in the blog post here. While the new e-Guide reflects my Macbook Pro/Photo Mechanic/DPP 4/Photoshop workflow, folks using a PC and/or BreezeBrowser will also benefit greatly by studying the material on DB II. Do note that you will find the RGB Curves Adjustment Color Balancing tutorial only in the new e-guide. Note: folks working on a PC and/or those who do not want to miss anything Photoshop may wish to purchase the original Digital Basics along with DB II while saving $15 by clicking here to buy the DB Bundle.

The two most recent and many of the older MP4 Photoshop Tutorial videos releases go hand and hand with the information in DB II):

  • The Wingtip Repairs MP4 Video here.
  • The MP4 Crow Cleanup Video here.

Folks who learn well by following along rather than by reading can check out the complete collection of MP 4 Photoshop Tutorial Videos by clicking here.

Though I have become more proficient converting my Nikon RAW (NEF) files in Adobe Camera Raw, I continue to optimize my Canon image in DPP 4. You can learn how and why I converted (and still convert) nearly all of my Canon digital RAW files in DPP 4 in the DPP 4 RAW Conversion Guide here. And, yes, I still have many Canon images to work on. 🙂 The RAW conversions for all three of today’s featured images was straightforward once I entered my camera/ISO specific recipes (as detailed in the DPP 4 RAW Conversion Guide). You can learn advanced Quick Masking and advanced Layer Masking techniques in APTATS I & II. You can save $15 by purchasing the pair. Folks can learn sophisticated sharpening and (NeatImage) Noise Reduction techniques in the The Professional Post Processing Guide by Arash Hazeghi and yours truly.

Help Support the Blog

Please help support my efforts here on the blog by remembering to click on the logo link above each time that you shop Amazon. That would be greatly appreciated. There is no problem using your Prime account; just click on the link and log into your Prime account. With love, artie

If In Doubt …

If in doubt about using the BAA B&H affiliate link correctly, you can always start your search by clicking here. Please note that the tracking is invisible. Web orders only. Please, however, remember to shoot me your receipt via e-mail.

Please Remember to use my Affiliate Links and to Visit the New BAA Online Store 🙂

To show your appreciation for my continuing efforts here, we ask, as always, that you get in the habit of using my B&H affiliate links on the right side of the blog for all of your photo and electronics purchases. Please check the availability of all photographic accessories in the New BIRDS AS ART Online Store, especially the Mongoose M3.6 tripod head, Wimberley lens plates, Delkin flash cards and accessories, and LensCoat stuff.

As always, we sell only what I have used, have tested, and can depend on. We will not sell you junk. We know what you need to make creating great images easy and fun. And please remember that I am always glad to answer your gear questions via e-mail.

I would of course appreciate your using our B&H affiliate links for all of your major gear, video, and electronic purchases. For the photographic stuff mentioned in the paragraph above, and for everything else in the new store, we, meaning BAA, would of course greatly appreciate your business. Here is a huge thank you to the many who have been using our links on a regular basis and those who will be visiting the New BIRDS AS ART Online Store as well.


Be sure to like and follow BAA on Facebook by clicking on the logo link upper right. Tanks a stack.


In all blog posts and Bulletins, feel free to e-mail or to leave a comment regarding any typos or errors. Just be right :).

34 comments to Would You Remove a Cigarette Butt From an Otherwise Great Image? A Great Quick Mask/Layer Masking Trick. And Lots More …

  • avatar Ryan

    Hi Arthur,

    I was recently on a boat photographing flamingos and 90% of my shots had trash in them. So much trash that I would break my neck cleaning them up.

    Over the course of time, as habitats get more trashy, I am of the opinion that photographers who clean up the trash digitally should show the original and the cleaned up version side by side.

    The reason is- such side by side displays act as a “nudge”. if we keep cleaning up the trash digitally the the real problem of trash and wildlife potentially ingesting it remains unsolved. If we keep raising the awareness of “how it can / should be” by posting images side by side, and if there’s enough awareness created by popular personalities such as yourself, there will be lesser digital cleanup to be done later 🙂

    That saving of digital cleanup effort is a reason for photographers to show the reality.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      I agree 100% Ryan. The sad truth is that while we — meaning nature photographers — can get some stuff done locally, saving the planet on a global scale is not a likely outcome … Humans as a whole are just too, too stupid.

      with love, artie

  • Hi Artie,

    Thanks for asking! I’m shooting the D500+200-500mm. It’s intended to fill a gap with the 5DMKIV+1.4+100-400mm for birds in flight.

    My images of stationary subjects such as shorebirds are consistently meeting or exceeding my expectations and rivalling my 5D MK IV. Some flight images are meeting my expectations, but many are not.

    I have some theories and I will work through this. They are two very different systems and I need to use them differently for birds in flight. As an example, I can zoom the 100-400mm lens relatively easily while tracking an approaching bird. It is far more difficult with the 200-500mm lens.

    If you want to see some of my images for context, visit the portfolio section of my website (muchstruck.com). Some of the flight images are Nikon, but most are Canon.

    I’ll keep you posted,

    Don M.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Thanks Don. The 200-500 with a D500 should be killer for flight. Are you using Group AF?

      I still have trouble zooming out with the 2-5 because it zooms opposite from Canon!!(**&&^%(*

      But I am getting there.

      Thanks for the link. I will try to visit when I have time.

      with love, artie

  • avatar Ray

    You know a lot more than me!

  • Hi Artie,

    Yes, I would remove human garbage from an image. The extent to which I work an image depends on it’s uniqueness. My preference is to minimize processing. But, if a shot is rare, I will do what I can to save it.

    It also depends on context. I prefer shorebird images that are simple and clean, and I will remove small distractions. My marsh images include quite a bit of background detail, so I am more concerned about balance.

    For Canon users, I recommend working with DPP4. I’m trying Nikon before I invest further in Canon gear and have not found a DPP4 equivalent. Ironically, the Nikon gear is exceeding my expectations for still images, but I have not been able to equal my Canon flight images.

    Best wishes,

    Don M.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Thanks Don M.

      Wow, your experience with the Nikon gear for flight is diametrically opposite of mine. What gear are you using?

      with love, artie

  • I would remove the cigeratte from the photo and pick it up after the photo was taken.

  • Good morning Guru. Yes Boss, I would prefer to stay clean.

    Thank you for asking my opinion.

  • avatar Mitch Haimov

    I seem to be in the minority, but I prefer the color balance in Image #3. I likely would have thought no rotation needed had I not read George’s comment. Fooled by the false horizon of the shoreline, which is not necessarily “level” while the band within the DOF should be.

  • avatar James Saxon

    I prefer the final “cleaned-up” version of the image. I don’t have a problem with cleaning an image’s background and don’t think it is excessive. I would have rotated the image horizontally 180 so the bird appears to be walking into the frame. Everything appears to be level for my taste.

  • avatar Kathy Kunce

    question #1 – “of course not” ( from Three Billboards…)

  • Hey Arthur,

    I prefer the warmer greener version. I think that is more what it would look like on a cloudy day.

    I would remove a cigarette butt from a great image. I don’t have any problems or concerns with removing things in post or while shooting. I photographed a local waterfall a couple weeks ago. There was a coke bottle and some other random trash floating around the water and along the rocks. I picked them up before i even started shooting to remove them from the “scene” instead of doing it in post. I realize this would be impractical for bird photography.

    The clean up does look excessive but i think that is only because we are seeing the before and after.

    I don’t think the image needs to be rotated the top horizon line looks level to my eyes.

  • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

    Well. This has gotten interesting. First I’d like to ask the folks who commented about “editorial use” what exactly they mean by “editorial use. ” Then I would ask them when was the last time that they had an image used editorially.

    I will respond to several of the comments here individually.

    with love, artie

  • avatar Jonathan Ashton

    Artie I find the first image more acceptable because I believe it to be reality, the second image by comparison is not natural to my eye. The background is squeaky clean, I ask myself is that really natural? The eye has been enhanced, it looks ok but when I look at the original what’s wrong with it, you may argue it could be enhanced to make it look better – but better than what?
    The second image looks “good” in fact there’s little to criticise, but to my eye I prefer the one that has not been sanitised.
    Now this may sound contradictory but I do agree sometimes that a certain amount of gardening/cleaning up is acceptable – how much – well how long is a piece of string I suppose it just depends, it depends on each circumstance, I cannot provide a catch all answer. For me your first image tells the story, I am concentrating on the bird and the eel, the background may not be idyllic but nature is seldom so.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Jon, In the Avian Forum on BPN we see dozens of images every week with perfect backgrounds, many or most of which are 100% natural. I am pretty sure that had you not seen the original you might not have been so quick to judge the optimized versions here as unnatural. That is why I left a few reeds …

      Image #1 has not been sanitized. Are you saying that the find Image #1 more pleasing than either #2 or #3?

      And yes your final statement is totally contradictory; once you remove one cigarette butt there is no getting off the slippery slope of image clean-up.

      For me, each image shows the bird scavenging an eel; the optimized versions are simply a lot more pleasing to my eye.

      with love, artie

  • avatar Elinor Osborn

    I agree with others that for editorial purpose, no cleanup. For artistic, yes, clean up. In the gif image, both in before and after, there are big posterized looking patches in the background. I’m glad they don’t show in the original or two optimized.
    It looks as if the sky was overcast so I’m guessing no. 2 is closer to real color rather than the blue of overcast in no. 3. Anyway I like the color better in no. 2.
    Don’t know about the rotation.
    As to cleanup I probably would have done some but a lesser amount. Hard to judge how much to do.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Hi Elinor,

      Please explain what you mean when you say “for editorial purpose.” And please let me know when was the last time that you had an image used for editorial purpose.

      As far as the posterization in the GIF, please go back and re-read 🙂

      with love, artie

      • avatar Elinor Osborn

        Right. I should have taken the time to read more carefully.
        To me, editorial means showing the scene as the camera saw it except for dust spotting, exposure, contrast. Can’t give the exact date but I had photos in Vermont Life magazine about 2 years ago. They would not take any optimized photos in the way of cleanup. So they accepted RAW almost exclusively.

        • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

          Thanks Elinor, That is an amazing story. In 17 years of digital I have never been asked by a publisher for a RAW file. The only RAWs that I submitted were for images that made the final rounds of judging in prestigious competitions where clean-up was against the rules. I am curious about a few things:

          1- what does “almost exclusively” mean?
          2- what about folks who submit out of camera JPEGs?
          3- Did you get paid?

          • avatar Elinor Osborn

            1-They much preferred RAW but would take .psd although I never had them accept any .psd. It was hard enough to get RAW accepted. Competition was fierce.
            2. No jpegs accepted
            3. yes there was payment but not a lot as it was a state produced magazine plus calendars. The state administration just stopped publication a month or so ago because it was in the red. In the past there were some fine editors but recently editors were not so good. A new one wasn’t even given a chance. The magazine used to be very popular with people who loved VT.

            Thanks. And still very weird 🙂

            with love, artie

  • avatar David Policansky

    Artie: Lots of questions today. I’ll try to answer all, not necessarily in order.

    1. Do I prefer the warmer green/yellow version or the less-saturated version? I have trouble with this kind of question, also in my own images. I was fine with optimization 1 until you presented optimization 2. I’m still not sure which I prefer, and neither am I sure which more closely approximates the scene as you photographed it.

    2. Is rotation needed, in which direction, and why? I think not. What looks to me like the water’s edge seems level. The foreground slopes from right to left, but that seems likely to be what was really happening.

    3. Would I remove a cigarette butt? Quite possibly. I have removed an offending rock or twig, so why not a cigarette butt? Obviously if the cigarette butt were part of the image’s message that would be different.

    4. Was the background cleanup excessive? No. The resulting image is pleasing and much clearer (in terms of seeing the main subject) than the original. If you’re going to do some cleanup, why not as much as you feel is needed and are willing to do? In response to Ray’s comment, only you can decide whether the effort was worth it. We can decide if we like the result–I do. But Ray’s decision–not worth the effort, toss the image–might have been a valid one for him if this were his image.

  • avatar George Cottay

    1) If the goal were a pleasing image I’d remove the butt and other distractions. If the goal were to highlight the bird’s environment the trash would remain.

    2)I like the background cleaning too but it does take the Night-Heron out of its less than pristine environment.

    3) I suspect that if you were fooled it was only momentary but think about a two degrees clockwise to approximate the focus line is an improvement.

    Thanks for yet another reminder that any decent image processing involves artistic decision.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Hi George,

      Are you saying that you sometimes create images to show off trashy-looking backgrounds?

      The night-heron is standing on a muddy beach in all three versions …

      Good on #3. What fooled me into thinking that it was level?

      You are welcome, with love, artie

      • avatar George Cottay

        Yes, for some purposes like documenting the progress of construction I do want all details from attractive to ugly.

        I do not think all three versions show the bird in the same place. The night-heron has not moved but your skill puts it in different visual environments.

        You wonder about the meaning editorial shooting. That does get a bit murky since editorials are a matter of opinion and English gets murky. Try instead “photo journalism” and this bit of instruction:

        A shooter at a responsible new organization is assigned to cover the major at a ribbon cutting. Bored out of her skull she shows up, grabs the shot and leaves — only to discover she has a power pole coming up out of the mayoral head. What to do?

        In the context stated she has no choice but to leave the pole alone. Why? Because she was assigned a picture for the record. Years from now there will be no question about the location of the pole.

        If the shooter’s assignment would have been to use the event to grab a new headshot of a reluctant politico, she would not only remove the pole but eliminate any other distracting elements.

        Going back to your shots, I think it makes a difference that you are shooting for Birds as Art. If, instead, you were producing images for the Environment Daily you would make different choices.

        • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

          Hi George, We are pretty much on the same page. Thanks for taking the time to respond. with love, artie

  • The only reason I would leave the butt in the photo is for editorial purpose. I am okay with the cleanup. There were too many things that took away from the photo. Just my 2 cents.

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Hi John,

      Please explain what you mean when you say “for editorial purpose.” And please let me know when was the last time that you had an image used for editorial purpose.

      with love, artie

      • What I mean “for editorial purpose” is, If I was using the image for a story about pollution on the beach and how it could affect wildlife, I would leave it in.

        • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

          Thanks John, That makes 100% sense. You should have seen the multi-colored plastic trash on Cayman Brac! with love, artie

  • avatar Ray

    I would remove the butt. I would throw this photo out. You should not have to do so much work for a good image. Even after all that work the image did not inspire as most of your work.
    image good for a teaching momemt!

    • avatar Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

      Thanks for commenting.

      I like it; go figure. But then you always need to ask yourself, “What the heck does he know?”

      with love, artie