The Better Ibis?

[Barefoot]

The short answer?

Yep.

[AntZ]

An improvement for sure. I do this quite a bit, but this has just made me think if in doubt with aperture go smaller, as it is easier to blur than it is to add sharpness.

Nice shot too.

[MoinMoin]

Hmmm - the more blurred background looks better. But the white is a touch too shining (maybe just in my eyes!).

[edbayani11]

i prefer the original shot if the dark area behind the head and beak were lightened a litle bit to give more contrast between the head and background.
maybe darken the very light branches a little bit.

[Rinkdaddy]

I prefer the second shot as it makes the detail of the Ibis stand out better and the background is more pleasing to the eye.

[Marko]

I actually like the first shot better but I'd like to see the branches behind the ibis burned in more.
marko

[Ben H]

I see what you were trying to do, and done well I would prefer the PP'd version, as the bird would stand out more.

However, it's been fairly badly done, and I can obviously see the cutout, and therefore it's quite jarring and looks obviously fake. The outline of the bird has a white glow where the bird selection has been feathered and it stands out straight away.

So I'd say - plus one star for the idea (it's one I use quite a bit) but minus one star for the execution, and so in this case the original, the more natural shot, is the only one I could choose.

I know it's not the crit forum, but you did ask which we preferred, and I gave you the reasons why...

(I'd probably also darken those trees down, as they clash quite a bit with the bird in terms of brightness...)