Brown-crested Flycatcher

[Tim Foltz]

Canon 1DMKIII • 500 mm • 1/1000 • f/5.6 • ISO 250 • handheld • manual

This was taken a few years ago in the Anza Borrego Desert.

Thanks for looking.

-Tim

PS. I thought the addition of environment would be nice in this image.

[Isaac Grant]

Hi Tim. Not a species I have seen on here before so nice to see. This is one we look long and hard for in the east but have never found one. All of our late fall vagrants are all Ash-throated. I think there are some things that could have improved this one. Shooting angle is a bit too steep, the head angle is not ideal and not really engaging, sun looks too high in the sky and created some strong shadows, background is too busy

[Tim Foltz]

Hi Tim. Not a species I have seen on here before so nice to see. This is one we look long and hard for in the east but have never found one. All of our late fall vagrants are all Ash-throated. I think there are some things that could have improved this one. Shooting angle is a bit too steep, the head angle is not ideal and not really engaging, sun looks too high in the sky and created some strong shadows, background is too busy

Isaac, I have to disagree with you on this one though although I value your opinion, here are my reasons:
#1 the shooting angle is a bit steep but it was my ONLY chance to get this bird in the clear.
#2 the head angle is not glancing at me true but it does show a nice profile of the bird.
#3 the strong shadows are deep within the thicket and not on the bird.
#4 the reason I do like this shot is because of the environment/nature, sure it's nice to get just a bird on a clean stick but to me the environment in some shots shows the habitat and has more of a natural look to it rather than a shot that could have been produced in the studio.

Just my thoughts and until I make the journey way down south and hopefully get a chance to shoot one of these again it's a keeper, plus I like the small flower

Thanks -Tim

[William Dickson]

Very natural looking frame Tim. I am ok with the HA. The bird looking straight ahead is good IMO. If the birds head was turned away from us, then thats a different story. I love the feather detail you have captured, and the colours on the bird blend well with its surroundings. Thanks for sharing as I have never seen this bird before.

Will

[gail bisson]

I have to agree with Isaac here but can certainly understand why you like it as per reason #1!
My biggest issue with this image is that there appears to be some heat shimmer going on and it is impacting the IQ of the head.
Gail

[Isaac Grant]

For me the key to bird photography is to have a shot that is interesting and worth viewing. I don't find that taking a sharp photo is noteworthy, nor do I think it is an accomplishment when using modern gear that is so good. (unless we are talking about some crazy BIF type situation) I think the key to making a good image is for me exactly what is lacking in this shot. While I understand that you wanted a shot of the bird, I do not think this image works. Basically it is a bird perched above eye level in a dense bush with less than optimal lighting. When an image does not have other elements that make it interesting such as a direct stare, perfect and glowing light, beautiful backgrounds or some type of isolation that makes the bird really stand out then it is not interesting. It could even be some type of gesture such as a raised foot, or a feeding position. For me an image should have emotion and feeling to it. If not, then it is just an image of a bird. Shooting angle is vitally important but not always a deal breaker. Was the image not shot at eye level so we can get a reflection in water? Or to get the horizon line from crossing the head? Things like that are important to the composition of an image, but again I do not see that here. Unfortunately the bird clearly was uncooperative and stayed to high I agree that environment is nice to see in an image but not a dense tangle where the largest branch is crossing right across the bird. A bird on tundra, or in waves, or many other options have interest. The lighting is not optimal here as well. The lower belly and undertail and just below the wing are all shaded. Not sure what you are referring to. Sun was clearly not at your back and low in the sky or you would never have that type of shadow on the bird. I agree that the perfect head turn is not a necessity, but only if it tells a story. Is the bird gazing at prey? Is it gazing at the sunset? A mate? Into some beautiful landscape? Again here we just have it looking a bit away from us into a tangle. The background is interesting but I think it would have been far better if there was a little more isolation between the bird and the background. As is I feel it overwhelms the bird and the photo. Not trying to be argumentative but just telling it like I see it. Clearly we disagree on the issue and that is fine. I always welcome new perspectives.

[Tim Foltz]

For me the key to bird photography is to have a shot that is interesting and worth viewing. I don't find that taking a sharp photo is noteworthy, nor do I think it is an accomplishment when using modern gear that is so good. (unless we are talking about some crazy BIF type situation) I think the key to making a good image is for me exactly what is lacking in this shot. While I understand that you wanted a shot of the bird, I do not think this image works. Basically it is a bird perched above eye level in a dense bush with less than optimal lighting. When an image does not have other elements that make it interesting such as a direct stare, perfect and glowing light, beautiful backgrounds or some type of isolation that makes the bird really stand out then it is not interesting. It could even be some type of gesture such as a raised foot, or a feeding position. For me an image should have emotion and feeling to it. If not, then it is just an image of a bird. Shooting angle is vitally important but not always a deal breaker. Was the image not shot at eye level so we can get a reflection in water? Or to get the horizon line from crossing the head? Things like that are important to the composition of an image, but again I do not see that here. Unfortunately the bird clearly was uncooperative and stayed to high I agree that environment is nice to see in an image but not a dense tangle where the largest branch is crossing right across the bird. A bird on tundra, or in waves, or many other options have interest. The lighting is not optimal here as well. The lower belly and undertail and just below the wing are all shaded. Not sure what you are referring to. Sun was clearly not at your back and low in the sky or you would never have that type of shadow on the bird. I agree that the perfect head turn is not a necessity, but only if it tells a story. Is the bird gazing at prey? Is it gazing at the sunset? A mate? Into some beautiful landscape? Again here we just have it looking a bit away from us into a tangle. The background is interesting but I think it would have been far better if there was a little more isolation between the bird and the background. As is I feel it overwhelms the bird and the photo. Not trying to be argumentative but just telling it like I see it. Clearly we disagree on the issue and that is fine. I always welcome new perspectives.

Isaac, the bird is only slightly above I level it is the branch that arcs upwards, just because this shot isn't the way you would like it to be doesn't make it a bad shot.
I would rather have this shot than a cookie cutter image that there are literally thousands of on the internet. You say you are not trying to be argumentative but your diatribe suggests otherwise.
I don't feel the bird has to be isolated to show interest, just the simple yellow flower in this shot ads interest and shows the birds natural habitat. I'm glad you think your images provoke such emotions and feelings.
I was showing a picture that showed some environment that was taken years ago that I happen to like. If you don't feel it's worthy I can live with that no problem.

-Tim

[Isaac Grant]

Tim this is a critique forum. People aren't being argumentative when they point out the specific issues that they have with a photo. They are being argumentative when they have defensive responses to the critique. I never spoke of my images. Only yours. And clearly to me this one doesn't work for the reasons I stated and then stated with more details. Isn't that the point of this forum. To get critiques? Aren't we supposed to state what we think is good and bad about the image and why? And what makes it good and bad to the viewer?

[Tim Foltz]

Tim this is a critique forum. People aren't being argumentative when they point out the specific issues that they have with a photo. They are being argumentative when they have defensive responses to the critique. I never spoke of my images. Only yours. And clearly to me this one doesn't work for the reasons I stated and then stated with more details. Isn't that the point of this forum. To get critiques? Aren't we supposed to state what we think is good and bad about the image and why? And what makes it good and bad to the viewer?

What I'm saying is that there are more ways to shoot images besides the "standard", and to state that there is only one correct way of looking at things is incorrect.
If everybody shot the exactly the same way things would be boring. You said the image doesn't work and I disagree and I pointed out why, I have just as much right to voice why I like it just as much as you don't.