|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Bill
Yes that is the color that was there that morning. Quite unusual. The long exposure really made the clouds a lot softer. I know the fore3ground rocks were bright, they were a whole lot brighter. Had so me problems making them darker without turning them into gray. Maybe next time. :-) |
Mar 18th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I can see you put a great deal of time and effort into the remake of the image. I do feel it is much improved. When compared to the original I'm left with the thought that for a overcast day with lots of clouds and fog why does the yellow in the lower part of the mountain look so bright and also why is the fog on the right side likewise look so bright? Should those areas be a bit muted in luminance? Where is that brightness coming from? |
Mar 16th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
The instant give away that this is a reflection is the white sign with the lettering reversed. Still it is a most creative idea and works well. I might bring down the highlights so the sign is not so bright. I love the overall exposure and the yellow lights in the windows add a great deal. For me one of the first things I noticed is the buildings on the right look like they are leaning to the right, as does the building in the center. Perhaps adjusting them to be a bit straighter would make the difference. The maybe cropping the darkest part of the center building at the bottom of the frame. As it is, it just makes the bottom feel like a black hole. |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
For me the browns in the foreground make the shot. They add just a touch of warmth to the stark moody feel of the rest of the scene. The sky is lovely and fits the mood. However, in my opinion, the snowy trees just look crunchy and over processed. As a result they stand out and dominate the scene ruining the peaceful scene of a winter day. Even their reflection is the water looks a bit unnatural, reflections should be softer. |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
This just drips with atmosphere. There are two things that immediately drew my eye. The first is the halo around the mountain. The second is the white lights in the foreground. Everything else is soft (maybe too soft), moody and natural. Those man made lights are an affront to the senses. Personally, I'd clone them out. The image is soft and moody other than the water. Like the lights the rough water seems to be out of place. Perhaps a long exposure to soften the water would have added to the moody feeling. (alert notice: I'm a fan of long exposures---it is a personal bias) |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
For me everything in this seems to fit nicely together. The sky replacement seems to match the mood and thus works as well. For me the star of the show should be the castle but it kinds of merges into everything else. Perhaps adding a linear gradient to the grounds below the castle and would slightly darken the grounds and just ever so slightly increase the highlights in the bushes. The adjust the castle to make it a shade lighter and thus stand out as the star of the show. I truly love the winding pathway. It is so inviting. |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
This is very much a "classic" shot of this area. The lack of sky is really a must as it would be bright and take away from the colors in the ricks. What I really like is you have separated the various colors and each of them stand out to claim its rightful place. The various textures are a bonus. My only suggest would be to increase the blacks slightly and add a bit of drama |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
While I like the lone tree and the sort of minimal look to the scene the image feels incongruent. Somehow the sky feels like it should be brighter (based on the amount of blue and the type of clouds). It just seems flat. Others have suggested contrast and dehaze adjustments but you might try white balance as well. Then work with the HSL sliders |
Mar 12th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Diane
First, yes this the color of the scene 9I've never seen this much yellow, but it was there. There was a lot of surface sorta of white water and the water was not blue. I did bring down the foreground rocks. Very low angle of the rising some this time of year. I do not like the rocks as bright as they are, but they were a lot brighter.
Please be as picky as you like. Because of the rocks I would never enter this in anything. |
Mar 7th |
| 36 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Thanks Michael. This was a very unusal morning with the yellow/orange sky and racing clouds. As you suggest the long exposure does place focus on the sharp lighthouse as I intended. I did remove a fair amount of sky, having more just seemed unnecessary. |
Mar 5th |
6 comments - 4 replies for Group 36
|
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Well, seems opinions are really wide spread on this one. If I were going to frame one of these shots I would be the main image on this page and not original 2. I just like the look of the water. I don't care is no one else can see the fish, I know it is there and that is good enough.
As for your comment about snowy fishing habits, well, you will have to wait until next month. :-) |
Mar 15th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Hi Stephen You pose an interesting question. I have been shooting these birds throughout the Florida Everglades for more than 30 years and have never seen water as high as it is this year. Many of the land marks I use as "signposts" while paddling around in my kayak and no longer visible. Also the total bird count, by my unofficial count, is lower than in previous years. Birds do not nest where there is not an adequate food supply. So there is clearly something different. I have seen the behavior in the past preformed by Snowy Egrets but not by Tricolor Herons. This year I have seen several Tricolor Herons exhibiting this behavior in this particular area. However in a different pond about 20 miles further north there is an abundance of nests, but no one was fishing using this technique. Perhaps some hungry birds are try8ng to learn a new trick. |
Mar 15th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
The flower is much better but maybe just tiny bit darker would work. The bird can come up a bit more. Remember they are very bright colored naturally. |
Mar 12th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I'll share my white bird tricks. First trick is to only shoot on overcast cast days. That solves everything. When that is not possible, and especially in situations like you show here, I shoot in full manual. When I read the exposure suggested by the idiot camera meter I immediately increase the shutter speed by 2/3 of a stop. Note I have my camera set so that each advancement of the shutter speed dial is 1/3 of a stop (the a full one stop increase of shutter speed from 1/60 is to 1/125. The camera is set to advance from1/160 to 1/80 then to 1/100 and then 1/125). The I take a quick test shot, if the whites still look bright I increase another 2/3 stop. In camera my images usually look a bit dark. But this way I never get burned highlights. I find it easier to increase shutter speeds since you can never have too fast a shutter when shooting birds and because the shutter speed dial is right where my thumb rests on the camera so it is really fast to do. In 10 seconds I could have at least three shots taken each one getting better. Shutter is set in burst mode but I can click off one shot at a time if I choose.
Also make sure your highlights alert is turned on. |
Mar 12th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
This is a lovely location and I feel the composition works to achieve your goal. These types of shots really speak of the Smokies and you did a nice job with this one. Generally the goal is to keep some detail in the water and what shutter speed accomplishes that largely depends on the amount of flowing water. Anything from a half second to several may be necessary. To me the rocks look a bit phony and perhaps over processed, perhaps using a polarizer would have been a good choice. In the Smokies I can't imagine a water show without using one. The Smokies are so lush that the greens are always a problem. Perhaps playing with the Luminance (especially the yellow channel) would restore the natural look.
To me the biggest problem is the movement in the leaves due to the long exposure. With the new cameras (even an older model) this can be solved using a focus stacking technique Tae one shot of the leaves ( your background) using a faster shutter and then take your slow shutter shot of the water and merge the two. This is fast becoming a standard technique and so you might want to look into this for the future. Sadly the days of taking one shot and calling it a success are fast vanishing. |
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
If these are siblings one is usually much more dominate and the others from the clutch have learned to avoid trouble which is likely the case here. I do agree that the background is lovely and the great contrast between the whites and the green is quite impactful.
Looking at your original I can see why you cropped the bottom as much as you did (due to the blur) but I still can't help but wish there was a bit more of a base for them to stand on. The images are sharp but adding a bit of exposure compensation to tone down those whites might have been wise.
Still the image is eye catching and well done. |
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
First and foremost I like the image. The water droplets on the flower create a feeling of rain or early morning dew and the dark background sets off the subject quite well. The blur you mention, at least to me, is not objectionable since the eye and the body of the bird are quite sharp. The wing blur just shows the speed at which they are using their wings.
For me the only issue is the brightness of the flower, which I feel steals the show. The bright flower becomes the subject and the bird is quite secondary. I sincerely wish the flower were dimmed and the bird brightened.
As Richard so correctly pointed out concerning my image what you need is good light, good composition and a moment. Here, I feel the light fails you as it left the bird in too much shadow. |
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
This is a quite visually stunning image that delivers a considerable amount of the WOW factor. The soft background sets off the colorful subject quite well. In my opinion (and I am not always right like Michael) this image looks to have been raised in processing out of heavy shadow and that coupled with the high ISO has resulted in a quite flat and soft image. The elevated ISO has left the fine detail of the feather structure compromised and your sharpening techniques left it with an "overcooked" and crispy look. Using something like Topaz will likely not make it any better. Topaz needs a deft hand to keep it from looking artificial and takes a great deal of practice.
To me the issue is in the technical aspects of the capture. From what you say it seems this was taken in adverse conditions with what you say were wrong settings--what do you think the setting should have been?
When faced with extremely low light and trying to shoot birds I have found the best solution is to use flash and compliment the flash with a Better Beamer attachment. See the link below:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Better%20Beamer%20Flash%20Extender&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&ap=Y&gclid=Cj0KCQiAx6ugBhCcARIsAGNmMbgjExYdDpuMg7_7U6pjS4rfXRNAmGRNmexn5RgHEvXgC20r3al6EWAaAnBLEALw_wcB
This will allow you to throw light considerable distance and thus use shower shutter speeds since the speed of the flash takes the picture and also lower ISO levels.
|
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Without seeing the original background it is hard to make a final decision. As shown the image is quite nice. I really like the simplicity and the limited color pallet. The relatively flat light is not a problem---it that is what the weather is, then there is nothing wrong with displaying that. I do think the image is a bit soft and since the Z6 is supposed to have the ability to use high ISO levels why you didn't use 3200 ISO. I ran your image through Lightroom and resharpened as shown below.
Just had one additional thought. A great deal of the need for AI use is because the tools to create these types of images the traditional way are just prohibitively expensive.
As for the replacememt background now that AI is taking over I see two avenues. For me the question to be considered is are you photographing nature or creating fine art? Either is a fine but they are very different approaches. Nature photography is supposed to represent the world as it actually is. If the goal is just to capture a beautiful image then making any and all changes are perfectly fine. Just looking at this image is a pleasure---this is excellent eye candy and I can see it framed on a wall (if it was slightly sharper) As I noted above, the color palette is beautiful the simplicity of the image just stunning. It is all about the goal of the maker and the maker is always right---it is after all their image.
Just had one more thought. One reason AI has become so popular is the it can help create images that previously could only be created using gear that is prohibitively expensive. For example using a 400mm lens with a tc1.4 (not you have 550mm) will produce a image far different from using a 800mm f5.6 lens and a tc1.4. The 2 degree angle of view provided by the 800mm lens can do things to a background that can only be dreamed of doing with a 400mm lens. There are reasons why Nat Geo photographers get those amazing images. |
Mar 10th |
 |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
Thanks Richard. Capturing these shots was quite time consuming as I spent several hours each of the three days I worked on this. All this action happens so darn fast. I like number two for the same reasons you indicate but I do hate that tree reflection. I guess it will come down to what judge reviews the image. A really good judge with focus on the moment as you note while a less knowledgeable
judge will focus on the technical aspects and deduct for the tree reflection.
Maybe I'll just have to speak to the birds about fishing where there are better backgrounds. :-)
You are so right about capturing the "moment" |
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
I fully agree with your assessment. The main submission is just a prettier image---especially without the palm tree reflection. Besides I have learned to accept the wisdom set forth in your opinions. As you note you are always right. :-)
I will likely enter the original 2 image for the reasons you indicate.
Thanks |
Mar 10th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Reply |
Ok Susan, look at it this way. In a nature image the EYE is everything. No eye the image will be downgraded for certain. So I have the eye. The big issue (at least for me) is this. In the main image you do not actually "see" the head moving back under the body as the bird flies forward. To the discerning eye the water wake that is under the bird and connected to the bill shows the prior position of the head and also shows that the head is rising into flight position. In the second image the head position is further under the body of the bird thus more clearly displaying the position during fishing. When the bird actually grabs the prey its head in under water in a horizontal position. But the eye is invisible. So the questions comes down t0 how is the story best shown, with the wake included or without.
Actually getting a winning or exception nature image is really tough. getting all the details right really does matter. Lots of images are shown and posted everywhere, but so very few really have the WOW factor that works. I try,and often do not succeed, to show images that really work. This is why I put the pressure on the group, to see what they think. |
Mar 6th |
| 67 |
Mar 23 |
Comment |
A quick question. Under Original 2 I have uploaded a second image of a Tricolor Heron preforming the same fishing act described above. My question is which of the two images do you fell best tells the story of the fishing technique? The image in my original post or the image labeled as Original 2. If you could tell me why you made your choice I would be appreciative. Thanks |
Mar 2nd |
7 comments - 6 replies for Group 67
|
13 comments - 10 replies Total
|
