|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you, Rob. All the best to you and your family this holiday season. Happy and healthy 2018 too. |
Dec 24th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
And a very happy holidays to you as well, Pierre. Thank you. |
Dec 23rd |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you for the many comments. |
Dec 17th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you Brenda. Actually, I exposed in camera to eliminate the drainage hole the duck was leaving from under the small bridge. That is why so much shadowing. Luckily, it removed the pipe.
|
Dec 15th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you. My thoughts exactly. This shot was done in Camera with the dark background so I was happy the wood duck swam through that beam of light. Not always does it happen that way. We have very few wood ducks here as well, and I miss seeing them too. I am always happy to find them and be able to get close enough. They are a very skittish species. I think our zoo had them at one time, but not anymore. This is a Canadian wood duck. 😊|
Dec 13th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you for your reply. I am a bit confused though. A bird on a stick is very often static, yet does well enough in competitions to have club members always enter birds on a stick. Birds on a stick also do not normally challenge the photographer's abilities. While this duck is moving very little and no real challenge to photograph, it was caught in the only ray of sunshine in this small body of water. Also the beam of light hits the path in which the duck is moving. I find that the interest of the image, along with the gaze of the bird engaging the camera. This engagement is commonly a fault with birds on a stick, yet more times than not, overlooked by judges while scoring. In critiques I both judge and enter, I would likely get told there is too much superfluous space surrounding the subject that does not tell the story of the habitat in which this duck finds itself, ie the dark background and the tight composition. Yet, the beam of light would be a plus. Here is an original of this duck. Do you still feel it needs more water, which then puts the duck too far to the left of the frame, or centers the subject if left as is? |
Dec 13th |
 |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you Pierre. I suspect it is because it was at 420 mm. Most nature critique groups allow for or even encourage blurred tail and wings to indicate movement, but this bird was not moving very fast. At least, the head and especially the eyes are sharp, they then deem the image usable. I have many record shots of this bird, completely sharp and well focused, but I just liked this one because of the dark, moody background. It was swimming out of an ugly drain pipe, and nobody is the wiser. I also have a swan portrait from the same shoot that looks like a studio shot with a rolled, brown paper background. This swan was in front of Job Johnnies. Sometimes the ugliest backgrounds can be the most interesting. It just takes seeing things differently. |
Dec 13th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
I am sorry you feel this way. I did say you did a nice job with the textures. I mentioned that I prefer the white natural background. I also work with a critique group of pro nature photpgrphers and have for years. They allow editing so no problem there, but they do prefer seeing the birds in more natural surroundings. They also are quite pointed on what needs to be addressed. The image is too dark all around and detail is lost in the bird. Again, my preference in seeing more detail. I am sure you intended to take this image in a different direction. I am also an artist too, painting and drawing, so I have read your comment below saying this is art. New to this group, I did not know artistic alterations were allowed in a group posting nature pics. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Be well and happy holidays. |
Dec 13th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
Thank you. At f10 I am not sure how the tail is not as sharp, maybe it is the dark background making this so. It was cropped because the duck is far to the left and the rings in the water are cropped out. I would have preferred to leave in the water trail, but it pushed the duck heading to the left without room in front of the duck. I also cut out the drakes mate entering the frame. Any suggestions? |
Dec 12th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Reply |
What do you mean by static? Can you elaborate some? The Wood Duck is moving, as is the water. Do you mean not enough interest in the image? Thank you. |
Dec 12th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
There is a lot of noise in the image where the image is supposed to be blurred. Did you add grain? |
Dec 9th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
Since the falling sand is your subject, I would like to see it a little brighter against the darkened areas. |
Dec 9th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
I have little problem when the bird of contrasting color is on a white background. It can be quite striking. You did a nice job on adding the textures though. The tail is blocked out though. |
Dec 9th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
The image is too soft. The ear and even the face need to be sharper. It is nice the squirrel is giving you a slight look back, always a good thing with animals facing away. It would be better if it was looking more in the direction of the camera. |
Dec 9th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
Nice sharp eye. The background seems to need to be more consistently darkened or the subject shown a bit more. I do understand it it is likely the snake itself, so either way would work. I do like that curve at the top right. |
Dec 9th |
| 69 |
Dec 17 |
Comment |
The white at the top is a bit distracting and competing. The long shadows if that is what they are are also stopping the eye in this image. Interesting family gathering, nice that it is three individuals. The young one is tight to the edge of the frame. Nice capture for these hard lighting conditions. |
Dec 9th |
6 comments - 10 replies for Group 69
|
6 comments - 10 replies Total
|
