|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
PS Simce I dont use it all the time, I assigned single point focus to FN1. |
May 21st |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Thanks for your suggestions, they really help.
I had my shutter speed way high in the hopes that it would fly off. . .but no such luck. Still, I wanted to be ready just in case. Now I know better, though. Herons are incredibly patient, and this one had only one thing on its mind (and it wasn't flying!), something to keep in mind for next time. I'm thinking that I might adjust the background in PS, if I create a layer with the subject removed and then play around with blur options. Much more difficult than using a wide open aperture in the first place, but I seem to learn the hard way. . .in any event, this will be a lesson I won't soon forget
Thanks for the focus tip. I've switched the settings to 3D and single point. That should help! As would a tripod, I think.
I've heard great things about Magee, especially during warbler season, which is nearly finished so I better quit stalling and get out there! |
May 21st |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
"These lenses are designed to get rid of clutter" -- ahhhh <<light bulb moment>> so I should have narrowed the DOF by shooting as open as possible (I think that would have been f5.6, I had the 500 PF with a 1.4) and gotten a blurred background (bokeh). . .? Got it!
The dappled light was the sparkly stuff coming through the reeds (right?). The light hitting its back was directional (heron was facing kinda N/NW with the light coming from the W (around 4:30 in the afternoon).
But I think I'm catching on. Thanks for your very good explanations! |
May 9th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Um, no thanks! I just heard about the hungry alligator that dragged a poor woman out of her canoe, so I think I will consider whatever number is there as too many!!!
|
May 8th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Reply |
Thanks, Larry!! That's an entire course in Worthwhile Photography 2.0. Printing it out so I can tape it to my turned-up-side-down Lowe's bucket (which I keep in my car in case I need a dry place to sit in a soggy bog bottom. . .right-side-up makes it a handy stepstool but I digress.)
I think I'll add a 7th rule, if I may be so bold, and that is to know when to break the rules. Rule of thirds, symmetry, background, etc. are all very important, but I hope that someday while in pursuit of 1, 3, and 6 I will discover if it might be necessary to follow rule 7. :-)
Not being defensive, but I think I at least approach some of your guidelines. Although golden light was still a couple of hours away, I settled for the dappled light coming through the rushes, which I thought was pretty unique (maybe it's because no one but me likes it, but anyway). Now I'm thinking it is nothing but clutter :-( but maybe the clutter is actually the reeds and weeds in the hyperfocus area in front of the bittern. . .? I'll keep playing with it. In any event, the light is somewhat directional in that it highlights the back feathers (and I was so glad I didn't burn them out!). I did choose a photo that shows him (or her) gulping air in preparation for the slow-draining-kitchen-sink mating call rather than the slim extended neck that most photographed bitterns are caught with.
Baby steps, I know, but that's the way I roll, I guess.
I had a mentor for a couple of years, and the first thing (only thing, actually) he taught was BIF as the sole purpose of the nature photographer. I feel free now! No longer will I spam this group with (bad) BIF photos -- I thank you, and I am sure the rest of the group does too. :-)
The Lightroom phone app is free, but I'll check out the laptop/desktop version.
Sorry Butch, for a while there you were my favorite, but I think this month it's Larry :-) But many thanks to both of you for guiding me along the path of better photography and recognizing that sometimes I need a push :-)
|
May 8th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Ha ha ha, like asking the cat to get off your keyboard. . . fat chance! :-)
I think the sharp and colorful profile of a bird we don't get to see much of -- and in its own habitat besides -- has a magic all its own, especially since some sources list the species as endangered.
Good thing there are beautiful beaches nearby, the dearth of wildlife is a small tradeoff for a few hours of relaxation in a paradise of warm blue waters. :-) but yeah, I'd raather be birding. |
May 7th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Wildebeests? They are rather ugly animals that look like they were put together using body parts left over from some other animal inventions, but I love watching them.
I heard that buttshots are not considered "acceptable" (by whom I do not know), but in this one, combined with the zig-zag line of companions in the distance, I see a pleasant capture of wildebeests meandering to join them. No hurry here, so no perceptible danger. . .a revealing and comforting composition of animals in an evironment known for its danger.
a 300 mm lens -- you were close by! |
May 7th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
I saved this one for last, because I knew it would be dramatic :-)
We have those rails up here, too, and you're right, they just don't get along. And they cry like someone is picking on them :-)
I didn't see your original, so I don't know how much was cropped, if at all. But whatever was done/not done, the result is really great. They may not be getting along, but there is no danger of being eaten by an alligator, so there's that :-) |
May 7th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Ooooh, a fuzzy little baby! And so sharp! Your crop makes it look like you were only inches away, so cool!
I'd be happy if that photo, either cropped or original, fell out of my camera :-) |
May 7th |
| 67 |
May 25 |
Comment |
Thank you for your comments. (I like how you say something nice first!) You just may be my favorite person this month :-)
As I explained, I struggled a lot with this image. The two extremes of light, the furtive subject, and my own inexperience all combined to give me a headache, which continued once I started processing. Since Photoshop doesn't get along with my computer, I've been fooling around with alternatives, including Affinity and DxoPhotoLab 8. This image is the DxO result. Their denoising feature is awesome -- there are 4 options (5 if you have a Fuji with the X-Trans sensor) and no sliders to fool around with, and switching from one to another is instantaneous. But their remove/repair tool (they call it re-touch) is hideous. Rather than removing the interference as a layer to reveal what should be underneath (like PS does), their version acts more like a clone stamp, where it samples a similar area to replace the re-touched area. The results are unreliable -- but to be fair I may not have been using the feature correctly. Anyway, after fooling around with it for far too long with the result looking like someone had sneezed on it, I ended up going back into PS and using their remove tool.
Now for my second issue, which I didn't know was an issue until you brought it up. :-) I took many photos using different angles and settings. I do have some 90* images, where the heron is looking straight ahead and parallel to me, but I chose this one because (forgive me!) I liked it. I thought it was more interesting because s/he isn't staring straight ahead but seems to be surveying what is lying just out of camera range while enjoying the protection of the natural environment. I wanted to maintain that sense of a protection so I used the removal tool judiciously (and even cloned a couple of weeds into some of the blanker areas). Nor did I want to disturb the contrast between the dark surrounds and the little glimmers of (harsh) light that poked through, an attractive (to me) contrast that revealed the watery marsh that the bird was standing in.
I guess this brings me to a dilemma that has haunted me since day one -- what is a "good" photo? Is it one that follows the rules of competition (which I clearly know nothing about) or is it "good" if the technology manages to capture both physical characteristics and emotional appeal? Korczak Ziolkowski, the sculptor who died before completing his magnum opus, the Crazy Horse Memorial, was not classically trained nor was he a photographer, but when asked about sculpting as an art, he would say "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like" which I've adopted as a sort of mantra. But am I correct in doing so? Is that holding me back from improving (I'm really tired of being a newbie!). Can the two philosophies coexist, or are they mutually exclusive?
I apologize if this is out of line and I mean no disrespect, but if you have the time and inclination I'd like to know your thoughts. If not, then let's continue upward and onward. :-) |
May 7th |
8 comments - 2 replies for Group 67
|
8 comments - 2 replies Total
|
