|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Thanks for comment Michael
This lighthouse is hard to get reflections as it is set really far back from the water and there are several dredging barges that are moored in front of the lighthouse but not moored at the water edge. I think the potential reflection is falling on the barges. I've added two other shots I took that night while waiting for dark. They are added under originals on the right side of the page.
Thanks for offering the suggestions.
|
May 16th |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Reply |
I'll look forward to seeing your Color Beyond Structure. Is this just an image or a project, maybe portfolio? |
May 12th |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Well, it is different. Not exactly my cup of tea so to speak, but different. Regardless, the colored partial circles running across the top could be cropped out. For me there is just too much going on but remember I'm a naturalist, and while I shoot urbanscapes, I'm not a great fan of them. So what do I know. |
May 11th |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Comment |
While this is technically sound I feel like the real story is the dark clouds rolling over the dark mountains in the center of the image. Getting closer to those dark mountains and clouds framed by a couple of trees with some foreground to balance the scene would make a awesome shot. |
May 11th |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Several years ago while driving through New England I photographed a number of similar really long covered bridges. In general your composition pretty much mirrors mine. (guess we old timers think alike) I think the long bridge needs an anchor on the far bank to provide a sense of purpose location for the bridge. Therefore i'm quite partial to your image. I also like the numerous leading lines, coming from both sides of the image that lead to the mill |
May 11th |
| 36 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Photographing fog on the Blue Ridge is one of my favorite things to do whenever I'm in that area. I love the evergreens wrapped in the fog. I like your version showing the depth and many ridges fading into the distance and there is just enough foreground to balance the image. However, for me, there is just too much space taken up by blank fog. I would rather see the fog used more of a frame especially since the fog mostly lacks that whispy look. I thus offer my crop suggestion below for your consideration. |
May 11th |
4 comments - 2 replies for Group 36
|
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Thanks. Just got home and will be working on that now. |
May 21st |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Cindy
Both the moorhen and the coot have such HUGE feet. I always marvel at the sheer size of them. Their toes (?) are not only long but wide. Amazing. |
May 21st |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Its a pretty fowl for sure But like Butch said the background is questionable. Reducing the background by cropping is a good idea. I do like the similar tones between the bird and the background.
The curiosity is killing me. The is NOT native to Hawaii right, it has to be a domesticated import right? I'm asking because PSA says no domesticated animals are allowed (including their descendants) and for future reference I'm curious. |
May 11th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
This is one of the better Wildebeests images I've seen so far this year. The story is strong (at least to anyone with some wildlife knowledge). I like the "S" curve in the background. The raised leg of the two on the left adds motion in tension to the story. Personally I'd like just a bit more space in front of the leader on the left, but that is just me. Perhaps if you shot at f8 or 11 you would have a bit more DOF and the animals in the background would be a bit sharper but I can recognize them as they are here, so on a print it should be even easier. In the end just how sharp you want them, depends on the story you are trying to tell. The more blurred the distance is the more forelorn the ones in the foreground appear.
I've got to know--what is that brown thing the foreground they are stepping around? Just a rock? |
May 11th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Hey aren't you the one who says rules (suggestions) are made to be broken? This is a good example of when to break the rule. |
May 11th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Yep. This looks better. You are right you can't take off any more from the bottom because of the need for space.
The new version looks better and the vignette is so slight it is hardly noticeable.
|
May 11th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
I can't add emojis to replies on this server or I'd be sending you some handclapping,, cheerleaders leaping in the air---well you get the idea!!
You are exactly right. I'm always willing to help someone who wants to learn. You are doing great! |
May 11th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Thanks for the memories. It has been decades since I've seen or heard the call of this birds. I now remember how the adult played that broken wing game to lure predators away. Oh, childhood memories...
I love the shot. You show the fluffy nature of the young that makes them adorable and I like the bent right leg to add a bit of motion.
I'll admit the reflection looks a bit odd, but you can't remove it. Everyone knows that a bird walking in the waer has a reflection and if you had removed it then the image would look weird. However, reflections should be darker than the reality. Thus you might get away with darkening just a bit so it would not be a bright white object on the edge of the image. I love the camera angle and you have a perfectly clean background. Happy to see there is not even a hint of a background shoreline. |
May 8th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
I have a basic non rule about rules in general. Do not regard rules as rules--think of them as suggestions. Thus you have the suggestion of thirds. Personally I ink of composition as follows: I start with finding a strong subject as I defined yesterday. After estabishing a subject then the goal is to compose an image so that the subject looks as good as possible. Then I work to make certain that EVERYTHING other than the subject enhances the subject. If something does not enhance the subject, then I work to remove it or diminish its visibility. As for all the grasses and reeds, ask my question from above. Do the grasses and reeds make the subject look better? Nikon (for example) has a very popular prime lens. It is a 300mm f2 lens and sells (last time I looked) for over $10,000. What would an f2 lens do to backgrounds and foregrounds? These types of lenses are designed to get rid of clutter. Nikon would not create and nor would photographers buy them if they were not important. Your reeds and grasses fall into two categories. Some are foreground elements and some are background elements. So, do they enhance the subject or not? You might not have the right lens to work DOF to get rid of the distractions, but if they are distractions, how can you get rid of them? Sometimes the answer is to NOT take the shot. Find a better one. It is not how many images you bring home each time you go out. It is how many really good images you bring home. You do not have to fill the memory card.
Above you mention "dappled" light. So I will ask you, Does dappled light make the subject look better? You said you like the dappled light on the feathers on the bird's back. So the question is: Do you want the viewer to look at the bird's back or at its face? Directional light is beautiful, if it improves your image. Does light on the bird's back make the subject look better? |
May 8th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Oh boy. So many questions, so much to talk about. The best part of this image is the sharpness (your image is much sharper than mine). Your image is not only sharp it is wickedly sharp--doesn't get any better than that!
As for Photoshop-bah! who cares! I do 99% of my editing in Lightroom and with the latest upgrade I may never open Photoshop again. he new masking tools are awesome. And if you are going to use denoise do it right after you adjust the lens corrections. The new Lightroom has an excellent remove tool, actually three of them.
I'm going to answer your next two parts together, because they really are the same thing. We are going to talk nature images mainly but most of this applies to any picture. What makes a great picture will forever be up for debate but there are basics that make a good set of guidelines. So what is first---Getting it right technically which is mainly two things--nail the exposure, no excuses. Second, get it sharp. Fail there, then put it in the trash can.
Next are the five basics and for nature I'll add a sixth.
1. Be original. Take something no one else is going to duplicate. Don't shoot an osprey in flight (boring) get him in the stoop! Wings folded, talons out. Sharp and properly exposed you have a winner! Period
2. Have a strong subject. One that is clear, easily understood, COMPELLING (One that is emotional, one that generates that OMG! one that is unforgetable) and is well separated from the background.
I agree with Ziolkowski about shooting what you like. But at the same time do not settle for just any shot. Seek the better shot. I refuse to just shoot a bird in flight. He has to be doing something or I won't activate the shutter.
3. One that tells a story that is easily understood. Nature is ALL about telling a story. Remember my alligator? There are easily 3 trillion images that are nothing more than a portrait. Bird on stick, Bambi standing tin the meadow, A close up head and shoulders. Nobody cares
4. Use the light for something besides getting proper exposure. Use directional light, use rim light, use backlight, use golden hour light. Even a shot of a bird on a stick if lit by a single beam of directional light can be magical.
5.Remember to always KIS. That is, Keep It Simple. Avoid clutter, distractions.
6. Nature images demand a visible eye. And always try to shoot peak action and never shoot DOWN on your subject.
|
May 8th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
This is the same body of water that I got the last months image from. Care to count them? |
May 7th |
 |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
This is my fault completely. I did get the eyes sharp. I was shooting at 550 mm focal length using my 200-400 with a tc1.4 attached. Thus I have a aperture of 5.6. I should have set the aperture at f11 to get both birds within the depth of field range. I'll try to do better next month.
As for the crop this is pretty close to full frame in width. There is a little lost as I had to straighten the image. The major crop was reduction from the top and bottom (mostly top) to get the pano format. I thought that since this was all about linear motion the pano would make it a stronger composition. |
May 7th |
4 comments - 8 replies for Group 67
|
8 comments - 10 replies Total
|
