Frigate Birds

[Ramon M. Casares]

Another Frigate Bird from my trip to the Dominican Republic. Hope you like it! C&C are welcome!


1/640Seg.
F9.0
+2/3
ISO 320
70-200mm 2.8
TC2X
at 159 mm

Almost Full Frame and I had to re-locate and flip the secondary bird from the LRC ;)

[Maxis Gamez]

This is very nicely compose IMO. Lovely light and very sharp. I like this very much!

[Kobus Tollig]

Great pose light and exposure. Lots of detail. I'm not a big fan of manipulating an image like you did here but that's your taste and I do like the end result well done

[Stu Bowie]

I like the angle of flight in this, and great detail and exposure from the underwing. Well captured.

[Juan Aragonés]

I like it. The pose of the sharp bird is fantastic and the strong light adds drama to the scene. I also like the OOF bird and your idea of using it to balance the overall composition. Well done

[Lance Peters]

Hi Ramon - really like this - the balance between the birds in the composition is very nice.

Personally not a fan of the manipulation - but to each their own - and I do like the resulting image.

:)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Hi Ramon.

I am with Lance here. Not a fan at cutting, flipping stuff. I think the main bird would look fabulous on its own without the other one that to my taste appears to be competing a little for attention. Perhaps if it were a little smaller?

Thanks and best regards

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I like the light, the 'relocation' of the OOF bird helps the composition and the details look good.

[Ramon M. Casares]

Thank you guys for your thoughts and comments, oe quiestion though, is there a big difference between completely removing the second OOF bird (with the clone stamp or QM) and flipping it? Not looking for truoble, I just want to hear you opinons on this matter as I find it very interesting and always full of different pints of view :)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

One question though, is there a big difference between completely removing the second OOF bird (with the clone stamp or QM) and flipping it? Not looking for trouble, I just want to hear you opinons on this matter as I find it very interesting and always full of different points of view :)

I was thinking that exactly as I was typing my reply last night. Perhaps there is not much difference. I am not 100% for even cloning where possible but will clone/heal a few spots out rather than totally reverse an element for the sake of achieving a better comp. Not that it is a bad thing, but in reality the bird was not that way was it?

Things changed heaps since I began learning photography using slides as medium and a projector/lightbox to look at the results instead of PCs and Photoshop. Then when you got a nicely composed image with all elements in place you had just that. I think it's time I wake up and let go of the old film habits and expectations?

I must admit that it is easy for me too to fall for the cool PS processing tools available today. That does not, however, mean that an image can be absolute garbage and be recovered. Not at all. (Artie had a good, decent discussion with me off line about that some time ago in fact) But I guess everyone wants a perfect image with a perfect background and a perfect pose. In the end I still like your image as presented and sincerely take my hat off to you for revealing the steps taken to end up with the final presentation.

:) :) :)

[Fabs Forns]

I like the second bird as presented, on the opposite pose, converging to the center of the image. I wouldn't flip it, because it would take your eyes out of the left of the frame.
I love your cobinations of in and out of focus with these birds.