|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Thank you Ian. You are most kind and I appreciate your thoughts. |
Apr 28th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
I know it sound difficult to believe---but I do try to be careful when I'm out shooting. I just know my limits. |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
The bright wood at the top of the falls was simply there. Under PSA rules and also the rules of many other competitions something in an image CANNOT be edited out. If it is there, it is there. That is the major reason I did nothing with it. As others have said, I probably should have toned it down a bit. Actually these falls are not very high, maybe 15 feet. I also like the lead in from the partial falls at the top.
Thanks for commenting |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
The orange thing is a bit of tree trunk. I admit that I goofed, as Madhu suggested I could have toned it down a bit, but since everything else was in such bright vibrant colors, I just didn't. I honestly don't know why I don't have more rick and moss on the right. In looking at the image after your comment, maybe I should have added it.
Finally, from one car owner to another---thanks for the suggestion. :-) |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
I think you have a a really great image here that also carries a powerful Nature Storyline. Your image is razor sharp and the greatly adds to the power of the image. I think your background is fine, although MAYBE you could bring down the highlights in the background a bit. Since this is a desert type scene the brightness is not a big issue and helps to set the environmental stage. Even being so bright, it is nicely blurred and thus it works quite well. You caught the roadrunner in a very perky and alert pose which makes him have personality. The captured prey completes the storyline and is the perfect icing for the cake. |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Michael
I just want a Sherpa!!
Note: Once I was in Rocky Mountain NP at DreamLake for sunrise. I had finished my shoot and was walking out when I passed a photographer coming up to the lake carrying just his camera. When I asked about his tripod, he replied that it was coming up the trail behind him with his Sherpa. As I continued walking I shortly passed his wife who was wearing his camera bag, and carrying the tripod and other gear.
Don't know about you,but I'm not brave enough to een think about that arrangement. |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
I'm kind of in the ballgame with Michael on this one. He says he uses his long lens which weighs 5.5 pounds My big baby weighs 7.4. He and I both use monopods to help stabilize the lens. The thing when you get into really long focal range (those bordering on and exceeding 500mm) lens shake becomes a big thing. Even a little is too much. I found working on long lens techniques (check out Steve Perry) really helps.
As for the crop I posted. I just did a quickie so you could see. While I use lightroom for 90% of my editing I will use Photoshop for major surgery. I removed the branch using PS the lasso tool to circle what I wanted to remove and then Edit,Fill and Content Aware. It is really quick. Most camera clubs are really picky about extra stuff in the image. Mostly because they don't know what else to pick on. In your case the whites on the grass could be cloned out, I agree, but I don't feel they are critical. The sandtrap is a bigger problem. Note that the eye of the viewer goes to the brightest spot in the image and the sandtrap qualifies. Could I remove it, yes. However in nature photography the story quality of the image plays a bigger role. In most competitions for PSA you CANNOT remove things like and so you have to compose more carefully. In your case, because the background is so creamy it is not a big issue. You have created a neutral background and that works well. You might bring the highlights down a bit and that would help with the sandtrap.
The bigger issue is the sharpness of the subject. If the subject is not sharp the image immediately downgraded severely. That is why it is better to crop less so as to maintain that critical sharpness.
I would suggest that you drop that shutter speed ( you could have gotten the same image with 1/1500) and raise the Fstop---getting f8 getting a bit more DOF. With the clean background, and the distance from subject to background you would have still blurred the background even at a higher fstop. F8 is generally a sweet spot on most lens. In the case of your lens that f5.6 is for reduced light level when you really need the lens speed or when you background is closer to the subject.
Sorry to b e so long winded. |
Apr 9th |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Hi Cheryl
Time I weighed in on this topic. I've been on the road for a photo shoot and am just getting caught up.
You really have a grand subject for this image and one that few have seen so congrats on capturing this species and putting in the effort to get a shot.
As Michael noted crops this big really degrade the image quality and are really best not done. A good rule is if you have to crop more than 40% it is probably best if you don't. Personally I won't crop more than 20% and for me that would be a rare crop indeed. While Miachael's suggestion of a $12000 lens is a good one, I'll stick with my much cheaper suggestion. and that would be getting a Nikon TC1.4. Attaching a TC1.4 to your 500mm lens would make it an effective 700mm lens and add very little in terms of degrading the final image. It will take some learning to handle the TC because at that range handholding becomes very problematic as any little vibration is magnified. But I do promise that in short order it will really improve the quality of your images. I checked a couple of camera supply houses and the Nikon TC1.4 runs about $500 give or take. I would go with the Nikon just for quality purpose. Second party pieces may be cheaper but so is the quality. Think of it as buying a cheap lens. :-)
My suggested crop is below.
MOre thoughts soon. I have to run right now. |
Apr 9th |
 |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Sounds like your SUV looks a lot like mine. Mine is full of clothes for various weather, and all sorts of camera gear. I have special "go" bags in the house so I can just grab and run if the photo opt presents itself. I'm leaving at 5 a.m. for 2 days of bird photography. Might get some good stuff. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Hey Wayne. Long ago I realized that if I need a raincoat--probably my camera does as well. I have a lightweight sleeve that opens to cover my camera and lens from my 24-70 all the way up to my 200x400. But if the weather is really bad I have a raincoat from Lenscoat that has sleeves for both hands and a flap that that will cover my head as well. They are always with me. The lightweight one hangs on my tripod permanently. I also have a waterproof bag (it also floats)that I keep in my car If I go out in a boat, it comes along. Last year I did a swamp walk in the everglades with Clyde Butcher and 2 others. we walked in water up to mid chest. But our camera were all in the bags. It was a good thing because one of the guys slopped and went under. All the camera made it through the trip just fine.
I hope you get some tips on how I think when in the field. Some of these may lead to better shots. This forum is a learning experience and the more ideas the better. I'm trying to learn from you guys as well. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
I think the stark white of the falls really helps make this image work.
The wood that you mention is what alerted me to the fact that that I posted the wrong original. In my files they are just a number off and I missed that. The wood was there and was not an addition on my part. I never thought about it it, but you are right. I could have toned down that wood. My what good eyes you have. Thanks!!
I tried to offer some ideas about how I think when I'm composing. That triangle thing just sort of came to mind while I was working on the set up---but I think it works. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Thanks for the compliment. Other than being cold the walk was not that bad---just had to go really slowly.
The more I look over my photos the more I realize the ones I worked the hardest to capture are the ones I like the most.
My wife always says I come home dirtier than anyone she knows. I guess you just can't take the little boy out of me, even after all these years. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Wow, must have been really impressive to see 500-600 of these all in the same place. Last fall I saw maybe 800 coots (a small Florida black bird about the size of a duck) and I thought that was amazing. However flamingos are much bigger (and brighter). Just amazing.
I feel you have a interesting image and made excellent use of the color pallet with the vivid blues and pinks and white as a blend. I wonder of you could have removed the white stuff on the horizon on the left side as they are a bit distracting.
I'm also wondering how it would impact the image if you crop the bird on the far right? I feel like it would give some strength to the rest of the group without him being a distraction.
Really impressed, I have not seen the white flamingo before so these are a new variety to me. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Oh my---you certainly got a vivid sunrise!
I'm going to differ from others and suggest a square composition.
I was reading a book by Galen Rowell last month and one of this suggestions for others was when you think you are done, crop off 50% or your foreground and see if it makes the image better.
In your case about a third of the image is the silhouette of those grasses. I think you could crop half of those off without damaging the image. Since those weeds are all alike you really don't need that many of them. Likewise I think you can crop off about half of the sky (maybe down to the bottom of the blue) because that section is so similar to the rest it is really adding nothing. This would strengthen the image of the heron who is the key to providing interest in the image. While it is not your fault---it is too bad that that heron didn't extend that long neck, it would hve made him bigger in the image.
All this would leave you with a fairly square image and there is nothing wrong with that.
Your reverse clarity for the sky was a good idea. The treatment of the color works quite well for this image. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Shooting at Waco is always a challenge because of the number of birds and the very busy environment of the breeding island that always seem to get in the way. I like the use of the rim lighting to add a bit of drama to birds and you got a good capture of the female feeding the children. You seem to have gotten some more storks or cattle egrets in the background (that is the white stuff) but as has been noted that could be cloned out. Personally, I would not bring down the exposure on the storks, that would render them sorta grey and unnatural so I would just leave them as they are. Your background is a bit noisy and if you use the masking tool in the sharpening panel you could remove a good deal of that. Just hold down the ALT key as you move the slider to the right. For making such a big crop,the image is really quite sharp.
Looking forward to more shots from your visit. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
First, I wish you had told me you were in south Florida in early March. I often go to Wakodahatchee to photograph the birds. We could have met on the boardwalk.
Judging from your original image I think you were trying to shoot the birds on the big island on the left hand side as you walk into the preserve. That island is particularly full of wood storks this year. In the afternoon that island is always heavily back lit. Hope you got some shots of the anhingas behind the little hut and the little green herons right at the entrance on the left. Did you get a shot of GEORGE the 12 foot gator???
|
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Reply |
Hey, I'm old----my eyes don't "see" any problem.
I just have a selective vision defect. :-)
Update:
It would seem that Richard's disease is catching. I just noticed that I also posted the wrong original image.
Maybe we both need to see a doctor. |
Apr 3rd |
| 67 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
I just saw that I omitted to state that I white balanced the image based on the blurred water on the left side of the falls to guarantee there would be no green tint in the water. I felt this added more pop to the image. |
Apr 1st |
8 comments - 10 replies for Group 67
|
| 70 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
I love to photograph the night sky. However, I am in utter awe of your image. I love this as it is. If and this is a big if, I was going to suggest anything it would be to crop about a half inch from the right to get rid of those two white rocks on the right edge and to remove the little rock in the lower right corner.
The image is beautiful.
|
Apr 1st |
1 comment - 0 replies for Group 70
|
| 89 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Personally, I like the blues of the original better. Still this is a fine photo. |
Apr 1st |
| 89 |
Apr 19 |
Comment |
Pretty bird and good shot. You mention ideas to help get it ready for competition. May I suggest Topaz and AI Clear. To me the image looks a bit fuzzy and quite noisy for competition. AI clear is a plug in for Topaz that does a really good job with sharpening without adding noise. Thus you could be more aggressive with your noise reduction and then use AI Clear to replace the sharpness. Really nice capture. |
Apr 1st |
2 comments - 0 replies for Group 89
|
11 comments - 10 replies Total
|
