Sometimes it is difficult to separate subjective from objective reasoning, especially when you are attempting to critique something you have created photographically. Here is an example of an image I subjectively like, yet no compelling objective basis for this comes to mind. I could say that I purposely shot this at an angle to create this effect, and you might believe that since it is not a minor angle variation, it must be deliberate. Well, I was laying on my stomach and accidentally shot a few way off horizontal. Anyway, the lighting, the subdued reflections, and even the out of focus yellow-legs, is in my opinion, interesting, if not unusual. However these factors do not, in themselves, make good photographs. So I would like to see what other people thought about this obviously "out of the box" image.
Sony A-700 Tamron 200-500mm ISO 400 1/1250sec F6.3 regards~onlybill
It is Monday May 28 7:48 PM CST and my image, as well as most others I try to look at, are not appearing. I guess you might need to wait for the full size image until the site is fixed (if it not just my computer).
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 07-29-2008 at 06:14 PM.
Reason: image not showing up
William, I've been looking at your image for awhile now and there are several things that I really like about it. First, the quality of the light is gorgeous. The gold tones mixed in with the light blue tones is really lovely and gives a soft glow to the image. Next, the front bird is nicely in focus and there is good separation between he and the other bird in the image. What's really funny is that the main bird is almostdead center and you'd never know it because of all the other angles and elements in the image! I think you have the right amount of FG & BG and you gave the bird plenty of space to walk into. The only thing I don't really love about the image is that the head of the bird is cut off in the shadow before him. I, personally, would consider cloning the shadow out or toning it down for that reason.
The perspective and angle are what really makes this image special IMO - and the use of space throughout the image is very nice as well - nothing too crowded, nothing in excess.
Dan: I can't see it either. Maybe I need to try uploading it again?
Fabs: collapsing angle: good description. In a way I think that is what I found so unsettling when I first saw the image.. I have other images , shot at the same time where the image is similar, lighting etc., without the collapsing angle, and they are far less visually interesting, at least to me. About the noise reduction. Does the noise help or hurt this image? I thought about this as well, and reduced the noise of the image to see what would happen, and I thought it reduced the visual impact. In my opinion, although noise reduction will almost always improve an image, especially when high ISO was necessary to get a shot, there may be exceptions.
Julie: I really appreciate your well thought out comments on the image. You have given me an objective impression that pretty well nails down why I liked the image in the first place. I might add one observation:I think that the structural composition, the angles of the elements, would not exist (or at least not be as noticeable) without the collapsing horizon. The clipped head shadow? I will take that into consideration, and see if toning it down helps. Oh! since I can't see the image on the this web site, I have to keep switching back to the original. Do you mean the reflection of the head of the yellow legs, that looks like a shadow, and the way it comes to a point? I see what you mean, if that is the case~regards~Bill
I re-uploaded the image and it is showing up.
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 07-29-2008 at 06:16 PM.
Reason: re-uploaded image
The main thing I would like seeing in this image is more room As presented feels very tight You need room for the bird to move.
For these type images all rule (guides) apply as well I like seeing the oof bird in mirror image pose As far as the tilting its a personal matter some will like it others will not I'm in the not camp Maybe with more room it would make more sense to me? I like the experimentation !!!!
William, the shadow of the front bird is the one that appears to me to be "beheaded." The reflection contains the body of the bird but not the head and that makes the photo look oddly cropped to me. I'd either put the head back on :D or take the body's shadow and tone it down with the values in the water. Funny, but I never even gave the darker shadow from the back bird a second look!
Hey William, I see it!!!! Yeah!! I really had to study this one. At first, my thought was "just a mistake" but after reading and looking, I am getting attached to the idea. It is definately out of the box! In the repost, I did some eye work, sharpened the stilts body, reduced noise in the BG, removed the shadows a bit and finally (really OOTB now) I used a good size liguify brush and bent the right edge down. It looks as though the birds are walking at the edge of a falls! I don't know if these things are improvments (I may have ruined your idea here!) or just a product of not being able to post for 3 looooong days. Hope you aren't offended by my efforts. Dan Brown
Dan: no problem with you re-posting the image, and I like everything you did, especially with the stilts eye, except the liquify brush. At least you took care of the shadow Julie suggested was a problem. I know what you mean about the 3 looong days. The "falls", in my opinion, is a bad idea. Although the original is out of the box, with the tilt and everything, the liquify brush is just too far out. However, if you are just itching to play around in PS, why don't you expand the canvas as Al suggested. I'd like to see what it looks like then. I'm sure you can do it a lot quicker than me. regards~Bill
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 07-29-2008 at 09:58 PM.
Dan great idea !!! This image needed something and you hit the nail on the head !!! Love he falls You get an assist on this one It is really appealing !!!
Thanks Al! The falls seems to sort of bring the image out of the box and make it more natural, but I know that this is not what Bill intended. Interesting idea of Bills.
Bill, here is an attempt to extend the canvas. With the diagonal, it proved to be difficult to do for me. Good practice though. It does look more roomy. Dan
Dan: Very interesting. Before I come to a conclusion, I'll have to sleep on it. It getting kind of late. Thanks for your efforts (both reposts). later~Bill
I like both reposts! I thought it was an interesting shot before but its even better with more canvas on the right side...really gives the birds a destination to head towards!
Now, this makes no sense at all but I like the ORIG post best of all artistically but it needs Dan's eye work and sharpening. As I said, I have no idea why I like the first one, I just like it. And at least I know who to call when I need a waterfall! Thanks for your efforts here Dan. Oh, and BTW, a double bubble in the hot shoe helps you to get square to the world when you are on the ground....
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Arthur: Now if had used a double bubble on my hot shoe, which I hadn't heard of before reading your post, you think I would have been crazy enough to shoot this image deliberately? Probably not. That I might try it again on purpose? What the heck, yeah I'd try it. Might delete it immediately too.
Dan: you got your marching orders from number one. Not as in Star Trek Next Generation, but BPN#1 (Arthur). Get the original image sharpened and do the eye thing. Chop, chop! Just kidding, could you tell me exactly what you did to the eye, and is the highlight manufactured? regards~Bill
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 07-31-2008 at 10:35 PM.
Hi Bill. It was a few days ago and I couldn't remember exactly, so I redid it. On the eye, I zoomed in on it and selected the area including the feathers around the eye a little. I then inverted this selection so that only the eye was effected by my next move, which was producing a "brightness and contrast" layer. I increase the brightness about 95 points and reduced the contrast about 15 points. This lightened the eye area. When this area was lightened, a slight highlight was visable, So, I cloned from a white area near the base of the bill using a 1 pixel brush with one click at 100% for the final piece on the eye work. Next, I selectively sharpened the Stilt, using Nik Sharpener Pro, which increased the brightness in the eye a little more. Finally, I ran the image through Noise Ninja, used the mask brush on the Stilt and the in-focus water in which he/she is standing. This protected these areas from the noise reduction. Viola! Dan (I miss my falls:D)
Dan: Excellent re-post! Your description of what you did is clear and concise, and might I say "very educational". Without a doubt you have made the image as technically good as possible. About the highlight. I have looked at the eye area in other images I've created where there is no visible highlight, for that telltale few lighter pixels that fix the position where it should be, and then expanded it. I tried that with this image as well, before your repost, and couldn't find them. You did.
I think you and me have created a pretty darn good image.
No, you will not miss the falls. What you are in love with is the liquify brush! regard~Bill
Stilt and Yellowlegs
