Getting out of my Comfort Zone II

[Fabs Forns]

As I posted last week, it is good sometime to venture out of safe compositions and proven angles and try and do something different, to try and row and incorporate other views into your work.
Here's habitat that breaks my mold, but that made me look outside my personal limitations. I thought about taking out the little piece of sky but decided against it, as a point of reference to the scene, it works for me.

D300, 300/2.8 plus 1.7
f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 640
hand held

Comments appreciated.

[Jim Fenton]

Hello Fabs....

The little piece of blue sky doesn't bother me and I thoroughly enjoy the inclusion of the birds environment...much better that seeing birds on naked sand all of the time :)

This particular image has one distracting factor for me however and it's a bit of a major one...that being the major gray colored branch which is directly above the birds head / bill. I find it even more distracting as the subject wasn't looking towrd you, but rather down and out of the image.

If it weren't for this, I'd like the image considerbly more.

Now....I frequently argue that we shouldn't remove things that are actually there, but in this case, where it's a major object within the image, I likely would have either looked for a better angle (I do know that all too often there are none) or found some way to minimize the impact of the branch so that I could have removed it later.

Pretty cool seeing a Limpkin in a tree however :) (I think it's a limpkin? I've only ever seen one very briefly)

Just my 2 cents :)

[Fabs Forns]

Jim, I appreciate you took the time for a well thought out critique. I can see your points and that's exactly why I called it "out of m comfort zone"
If there were no branches and eye contact, I'd probably feel very comfortable with it and it would be another day at the office. My exercise is to add things that we don;t do on a regular basis and try to look at them with new eyes.

I must be getting old :)

[Loukie Viljoen]

Fabs this is NATURE as God intended it to be we brought about rules and regulations to suit us and our tastes, nature knows no rules or tastes well seen & taken top marks, regards Loukie

[Jim Fenton]

One of the reasons I try and shoot so many different subjects and in different environments is so that I'm not stuck in one scene mode and I'm comfortable shooting whatever situation presents itself.

Sometimes it takes me away from what I'm supposed to be doing ( as an example...trying to get terns flying in front of backgrounds of dune grass when I'm supposed to be shooting interactions in the sky)....but it's well worth it in the long run.

I also find that there are those editors / buyers that would oftern prefer an environmental shot, rather than a "sterile" image...so I need to be both able and ready to shoot both :)

[Jim Fenton]

I guess my take always comes down to.....

Is the image of any value in the end?

Is it publishable, saleable, of a quality where it's really worth sharing with others?

Personally, I find this image to be a great example of 2 things:

A) Fabs stepping out of her "comfort zone" which is always a good thing for anyone.

B) This image should garner a lot of thought, discussion and critique.

[Stephen Stephen]

Fabs I personally like habitat images although I know that Jim about that one particular branch. Before I went Digital I could only create habitat images so I can appreacite these as wella s clean closeups.

I applaud you for moving outside your comfort zone.

[Steve Wheeler]

I like it Fabs.... I like the rich environment represented here. If viewed in the "Traditional BPN" frame of mind there are some distracting elements as mentioned above... But I LOVE the fact that you intentionally shot this outside of those traditional view points as there are many ways different people appreciate nature and nature photgraphy. I'm not a pro, but certainly understand the idea of... "Will someone want to buy this?" ...and... "Will this image help pay the bills?" But just from a pure enjoyment POV... I like this a lot!

Thank you for sharing your "Outside Your Comfort Zone" adventure! I hope to see more!

Steve

[Sabyasachi Patra]

First let me confess, that I am a type of guy who shoots through lot of vegetation. The only time I find a tiger in a clean background, is when the tiger is swimming in water. :-)

I like this image. The branch over the head doesn't bother me. This image gives an idea about the habitat of the bird. The sky doesn't bother me either. However, the eye of this bird is at the center of the frame. I would have liked a different placement. I would have tried to frame the bird at the top left power point with the bird looking down.

Please keep on trying and sharing with us.

[Loukie Viljoen]

Jim any image means something to someone, therefore it has value, if you are walking on a quayside with your girlfriend, there is a big boat at anchor there is a party on board, the two of you hear the music, smell the sea, colored lights on the boat, you take a photo [out of your comfort zone, it is not a BIF] , every time you see that photo it means something to you, it has emotional value, if you add monetary gain into the mix then a publisher sees it as just another boat, no sale, no money, but it was taken for a different reason not materialistic, but emotional, Fabs saw that scene it evoked an emotion, every time she sees it the same emotion is evoked, nobody will most probably ever buy it for a cover or article, but it means something. I like it, yes the light spot, worries somebody but it is nature, Freeman Patterson from British Columbia has a great approach to the art of seeing and the value of light, I say go for it Fabs and others that feel the same, in this photo it is sharp, exposed 100% it was the encapsulation of a decisive moment.

[Arthur Morris]

Have not read anything above yet... Though the bird is sharp and the placement of the subject in the frame is very good this one does not work for me because of the large curving branch above the bird's head and the several too-white branches in the llc. Folks often criticize my stuff as too sterile, lacking the bird's environment. Yes, it is good to try new stuff.
If the environement is beautiful, then I will include it. If it is less than artistically pleasing to me, then I will work to isolate the subject.

[Arthur Morris]

Fabs this is NATURE as God intended it to be we brought about rules and regulations to suit us and our tastes, nature knows no rules or tastes well seen & taken top marks, regards Loukie

Hi Loukie, I am confused by your comment. Yes, nature is often chaotic and it is what it is, but part of the task of a nature photographer is to create order out of chaos. If you just want to go pointing your lens at anything natural, push the button, and say, "That's nature," that does not make the resulting image pleasing or artistic...

[Grace Scalzo]

Personally, I think that the habitat is way too over powering here. I'm bothered by all the rather bright curving branches, one even kind of blends in with the bill. Overall, I do like creatures in their habitats, and I certainly applaud you for keeping the creative fires burning.

[Loukie Viljoen]

Artie having spent most of my photo years . all 60 of them in the film era, you could not simply point and shoot wily nilly, it cost to much, but, the scene must have appealed to you emotionally, then photography means something, that is my feeling, I bought the equipment I paid the film etc. That was my philosophy. Fabs you must be chuckling in the back ground what has you comfort zone done to us, get off our brains

[Steve Wheeler]

"Fabs you must be chuckling in the back ground what has you comfort zone done to us, get off our brains"

That's pretty funny.

[Fabs Forns]

<-------------chuckling indeed :D

[Sabyasachi Patra]

If it is less than artistically pleasing to me, then I will work to isolate the subject.

I think this is fundamental. However, too often we forget it.

I think this site is pretty amazing, as you get responses that are straight out of the heart. 15 responses trying to dissect one photograph, is a pretty good rate. Congratulations to you guys.

[Jim Fenton]

I love environmental shots, but at times, they simply aren't meant to be unless you can gain some subject isolation on a least a part of the subject which will draw your attention.

I find more and more that at times, it's best to simply enjoy the view and consider yourself lucky for having seen it :)

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Unfortunately the emotion evoked by the photographer upon seeing an image he(or she) created has nothing to do with creating excellent photographs, it must be artistically characterized and critically demonstrated to be a good photograph. That is what we are here to learn. We are here to learn to create photographs that are not snapshots.
The photographs here have nothing to do with"value" to someone simply because a photograph was taken. You could take a photograph and a million people might like it, but that doesn't mean its a good photograph. You could sell a million copies of an photograph, which would be great for you I'm sure, but that doesn't mean it was actually a good photograph. It could just be that a million people are idiots.
What we are here to learn are the fundamentals that make excellent photographs, and one of the fundamentals is simplicity. Easily achieved by a bird on a beach, but more difficult, but not impossible, in an environmental scene. In this regard, the photograph shown here is a failure. The elements here are a Limpkin (I think), a tree, branches, leaves. In structural composition terms it is chaotic. The solution should have been found in the viewfinder, with special attention made to the background, or environment if you will. Even small movements of the camera position can have significant results. Moving closer, or increasing magnification is the number one tool in creating simplicity. There must also be a connection made between the elements. It could be geometric, or color, or even ideas. In summation, in my opinion, environmental scenes, albeit seemingly complex, make it even more important to create order out of what at first glance is disorder. Thats my 2 cents~Bill

I just read Arthur's post, after I wrote this. I thought of deleting this post, or changing part of it because he said a few very similar things, I think I'll post it anyway.

[Fabs Forns]

Bill, I totally disagree with you. A failure would be something that served no purpose, and at the very least, the image caused some educated minds to analyze, think and exchange points of view.
To me, that is a success :)

Thanks for your input!

[Arthur Morris]

Fabs, I just read William's post and did not see where he said the image was a "failure." Did I miss something?

I must disagree with William when he wrote, "Unfortunately the emotion evoked by the photographer upon seeing an image he(or she) created has nothing to do with creating excellent photographs..." because the statement is an over-generalization. Why? At times when the photographer is excited by what they see the results are both artistic and spectacular.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Arthur: I agree, I was over generalizing. I wasn't referring to that moment when the photograph was taken, and the multitude of factors, including evoked emotion that help the the photographer "know" that this is "the moment" to capture an event. Indeed we all live for the moment when we see results that are both spectacular and artistic. Yet my point, and I could very well be incorrect, is that this individual reaction, and value placed upon the image by the photographer, does not necessarily mean it is a good photograph. I believe, and I could be incorrect again, that what makes up great photographs can be objectively explained, learned, and used to create more great photographs . If we were only concerned with the subjective, and based our reasoning on what makes up a great photograph on our emotions and our likes and dislikes, we have no concrete method to learn how to create great images ourselves.
Fabs: I was discussing the fundamental photographic concept of simplicity. In that context I thought your image was a failure, and in relation to simplicity only. You may very well disagree with that.
As far as value goes, and I'm sure I am not explaining this very well, your photograph, and practically every photograph on this site has a great deal of value to everyone who sees it. There is an overall goal in mind, to practically all who see these images, and that is to become a better bird and wildlife photographers. The technique employed is criticism, and often it is the critical way of thinking itself about these images that is most important, even more than being correct. The best images as well as the worst photographs shown here are of great value because they get us thinking of different and more effective ways ways we can communicate the natural world to others. Thus, I am in agreement with you when you said "at the very least, the image caused some educated minds to analyze, think and exchange points of view.", except the "very least" part. It is the most important part. regards~Bill

[Fabs Forns]

Fabs, I just read William's post and did not see where he said the image was a "failure." Did I miss something?

I re-read it. On the second line of his second paragraph.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Fabs: I'm sorry if I said something that you were offended by. I'll tell you what. From now on I'll simply give a simple opinion on an image, like "I like this because" and "in my opinion this could be improved by." I see that I've crossed the line, not just here, but in other posts, and I would like to apologize for that, especially to you. regards~bill

[Arthur Morris]

Jeez, talk about dumb. I read the thing six times and still could not find the word "failure" so I cut and pasted it and used search. And I did find it.

For me, no image can be a failure. Even if 100 out of 100 do not like it there is tons to be learned, so yes, William, a poor choice of words. (Been there, done that too many times myself...) :) :)

[Fabs Forns]

Fabs: I'm sorry if I said something that you were offended by. I'll tell you what. From now on I'll simply give a simple opinion on an image, like "I like this because" and "in my opinion this could be improved by." I see that I've crossed the line, not just here, but in other posts, and I would like to apologize for that, especially to you. regards~bill

No offense, Bill. Just that the word failure is such a strong term. I know you mean well :)