Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comments & Constructive Criticism Please  (Read 7119 times)
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« on: April 20, 2007, 06:20:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
 
I'm attaching the following photo for constructive criticism and comments. It needs to be cropped yet. I'm not sure whether to crop out the yellow refelection on the right hand side of the duck (foreground of the photo)or leave it in?



Thanks
Haider
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2007, 09:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice picture!  I would cast my vote to leave the yellow reflection in
I think it is an interesting touch and adds balance
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8081



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2007, 11:08:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice image. But it's a goose, not a duck.

I agree: keep the reflection.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2007, 07:22:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice image. But it's a goose, not a duck.

I agree: keep the reflection.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks guys for the advice much appreciated. Yup someone told me it's a Canadian Goose. Never really tried nature photography, it's my first attempt:-) I took it at 150mm (300mm 35mm equiv) the goose was swimming pretty quick so it was hard trying to keep it in frame. It was taken hand-held but I doubt a tripod could have been used. It certainly made me appreciate how difficult it is shooting nature.

Haider

PS
Eric very nice website and photographs.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8081



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2007, 08:49:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks guys for the advice much appreciated. Yup someone told me it's a Canadian Goose. Never really tried nature photography, it's my first attempt:-) I took it at 150mm (300mm 35mm equiv) the goose was swimming pretty quick so it was hard trying to keep it in frame. It was taken hand-held but I doubt a tripod could have been used. It certainly made me appreciate how difficult it is shooting nature.

Haider

PS
Eric very nice website and photographs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the kind comments.

You will have noticed that I don't have any moving wildlife on my website. Wildlife is hard!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2007, 04:36:27 PM »
ReplyReply

What inspired me was going to see the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/tem...s/wpy/index.jsp

Not suggesting my effort is anywhere near what I saw there. I was just blown away by the entries, especially the under 10 years old, my jaw just hit the floor. I recommend everyone & anyone to go to the exhibition. I'm sure it must be exhibiting somewhere in the US.

Haider
Logged
safecracker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2007, 11:28:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,
 
I'm attaching the following photo for constructive criticism and comments. It needs to be cropped yet. I'm not sure whether to crop out the yellow refelection on the right hand side of the duck (foreground of the photo)or leave it in?



Thanks
Haider
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Haider,

Great photo of a Canada goose. I'd certainly leave the reflection in.

Now you asked for a little C & C. I know in my own experiences of shooting Canada geese that the neck and head present difficult exposure problems; they usually come out so dark that the texture there is lost. And with it, the all important eye.

My solution is either to expose for this part of the goose anatomy at capture, or fix it in post processing.

Other than that, great shot! Unless I've missed it, could you please give us the EXIF data and lens used for that shot?

Best,

Safecracker.
Logged
BCRider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2007, 12:12:13 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a nice picture of a Canada goose.  But the highlights are blown, the dark head/eye is lost in the shadows and there is an overall lack of detail.   The yellow at the bottom is distracting so I'd crop the bottom off to remove it and also get the picture less centered (as there isn't enough content symmetry to exploit with a centered image).    I also found the yellow bits floating around his head and growing out of his bill to be distracting as is the white/yellow highlights growing out of his back.  It would be nice to get better eye contact as well.  It seems to be cropped a bit tight overall as well.   I do think the foreground water texture has nice potential though.  The overall lighting is directionless and flat...of course one has to take them as they find them but looking for interesting lighting would really add to this picture.
Logged
nikonjim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2007, 06:17:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a nice picture of a Canada goose. But the highlights are blown, the dark head/eye is lost in the shadows and there is an overall lack of detail. The yellow at the bottom is distracting so I'd crop the bottom off to remove it and also get the picture less centered (as there isn't enough content symmetry to exploit with a centered image). I also found the yellow bits floating around his head and growing out of his bill to be distracting as is the white/yellow highlights growing out of his back. It would be nice to get better eye contact as well. It seems to be cropped a bit tight overall as well. I do think the foreground water texture has nice potential though. The overall lighting is directionless and flat...of course one has to take them as they find them but looking for interesting lighting would really add to this picture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like the aesthetics of the picuture as it is.  I find the reflections interesting, but I suppose it is a matter of taste.  You could have perhaps eliminated the strong yellow reflection if you had waited a few moments for the goose to swin out of that light.  

To me, there is acceptable detail in the whites.  If one tries to maintain detail in both the near blacks, the head, and in the whites, the butt, then the range is probably a serious challenge to any media.  Those problems would be helped by heavy overcast light, but not too sure the result would be nearly as sparkeling.

Care to tell us what the media/equipment was?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2007, 06:22:36 PM by nikonjim » Logged
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2007, 06:46:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have lightened the photo via the levels, it's best viewed in Photoshop; IE darkens them.



The shot was taken on an Oly E500 with 40-150mm kit lens at 150mm (300mm 35mm equiv) 1/200s f4.5 ISO100. I processed the raw file in Capture One LE and PP in Photoshop7.

Thanks
Haider
« Last Edit: April 22, 2007, 06:51:17 PM by haidergill » Logged
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2007, 10:17:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure if this is going off topic. Depends if count humans as nature and man made structures as landscape?

I personally think it has a little charm of it own. Well it makes me smile...



Should I put it on my website or is it for the trash can?
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2007, 12:20:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I like this portrait much better than the other woman.  The models eye contact seperates her from the croud.  Nice pose and expression.

I would get rid of the black thing growing out of her head though.
Logged
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2007, 02:21:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Hahaha isn't that cheating?;O)
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2007, 03:38:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hahaha isn't that cheating?;O)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think so.  But if you do, let it grow.  It is up to you.  I thought you asked for comments.
Logged
nikonjim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2007, 01:01:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think so.  But if you do, let it grow.  It is up to you.  I thought you asked for comments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that is kinda the eternal question, isn't it?  Seems to me that with "artistic" expression, as in this case, editing is fine.  In documentary photography, it is probably cheating.  Remember the "doctored" image from Iraq a year or so ago?  The editors fired the reporter because they viewed editing as a no-no.

I love the shot.  The out-focus fans in the background makes an interesting backdrop.  And as someone else said, the gaze of the central figure sets her apart very well.  I't a picture I wish I'd taken.  Good work!
Logged
nikonjim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2007, 01:14:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think so.  But if you do, let it grow.  It is up to you.  I thought you asked for comments.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that is kinda the eternal question, isn't it?  Seems to me that with "artistic" expression, as in this case, editing is fine.  In documentary photography, it is probably cheating.  Remember the "doctored" image from Iraq a year or so ago?  The editors fired the reporter because they viewed editing as a no-no.

I love the shot.  The out-focus fans in the background makes an interesting backdrop.  And as someone else said, the gaze of the central figure sets her apart very well.  It's a picture I wish I'd taken.  Good work!
Logged
nikonjim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2007, 01:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,

I have lightened the photo via the levels, it's best viewed in Photoshop; IE darkens them.

Since you said it looked better in Photoshop, I down loaded it to my computer and played around a bit. (It's a slow rainy day here in Memphis.)  I don't think it ethical to modify the photos of others and then republish, so I'll just talk about a few editing steps you might take.

First, you can enhance the texture in the neck by using the "dodge" tool a bit.  You can also enhance the eye opening in this way.

Second, you can enhance the texture in the white area of the butt a bit by judicious use of the "burn" tool.

I also played around with the "clone" tool a bit in eliminating and modifying the strong white and yellow reflections that others have mentioned.  I don't find these objectionable, but they can certainly be edited to possibly improve the image.  I think the reflections add interest.  The photo goes a bit flat when they are completely eliminated.

I realize that this level of editing is controversial, but I don't see any reason not to do so for artistic photography so long as the intended use does not preclude it.
Logged
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2007, 01:14:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Howie,

I was jus kiddin. I have tried in PS using the clone and healing brush, not to good effect though. It looked worse after my intervention than before it started. I will try and locate a tutorial on the web and give it another shot.
Logged
haidergill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2007, 01:25:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jim. I shall try out the dodge and burn tool and see what I can do. I'm not against PPing the comment was firmly tongue in cheek. I think PS/PPing is an art in itself to be honest. I like the reflections they add something to the photo. The little bit of leaf on the beak I will keep to as it makes it look less sanitized/clinical, that feeling of rustic nature. I'll probably create another photo without the bit of fauna on the beak just to cointrast. I welcome everyones comments as it shows different perspectives especially if i ever want to go pro.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2007, 02:37:10 PM »
ReplyReply

As long as you don't mind burning/dodging, you might give the woman a cheap face lift by dodging the shadows in the creases in her face.  Not that she needs it ezpecailly, but vanity for free is a good thing.  I can't tell if I'm jus kiddin or not.

I wouldn't mess with the shadow on her neck.  Nothing there that really matters in a portrait.

As for the black thing growing from her head.  If you can't or don't want to clone it out. don't shoot it.  The important thing to learn, I think, is to look before you you leap.  If you don't want that thing and just can't part with it, don't shoot it.

A huge difference between a camera and the human eye, the camera records what is there, to a fault.  The human eye very nicely ignores the details.  Practice and learn to see what the camera sees.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 04:00:06 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad