Liked mirror reflection. Elected pano to include most of the disturbed water. D200, Nikkor 200-400, TC 1.4, focal length 550, 1/800, iso 400, hh. C & C appreciated.
DUCK
Liked mirror reflection. Elected pano to include most of the disturbed water. D200, Nikkor 200-400, TC 1.4, focal length 550, 1/800, iso 400, hh. C & C appreciated.
I very much like the idea here Gary. Inherent in this idea is the unconventional crop, which makes the image IMO. What I'm thinking about though is if the look would be ruined if you added a bit more room at the top and removed some from the bottom?
I agree with John on the crop suggestion.
To me the water droplets in the air look as if they are on your lens (I know they're not) because they are very sharp compared to the background, I think it would help if you could soften them slightly.
Cool idea, I like it very much
I like the crop as well, and nice low angle you have here. Good advice by Joel on soften the droplets.
John, I agree that more is needed at the top. Unfortunately there was not much at the top and it did not look good. I was surprised the duck came out as well as it did being near the top of the frame. I recently recieved Robert OToole's APTATS 2. The complex background with water drops does not lend itself to some of his techniques. Using my crude PS skills I did add something to the top and the overall composition is more pleasing IMHO. The quality of the work is questionable. I know, get the subject centered in the original image. Working on my birds in flight technique.Originally Posted by John Chardine
Thank you,
Gary
The crop makes the photo better, it gets the mallard out of the center
Gary, you said "get the duck centered" and that's not the strongest way to compose an image. We often refer to the "ROT" position which stands for Rule of Thirds. There is at least one thread on the subject in the educational forum and many more on line. For this image, if you'd had the room, putting the duck in the lower 1/3 (vertically) and then at the 1/3 mark in from the right (horizontally) would have given you a much stronger composition. Remember with avian and wildlife images (anything that moves!) that we as viewers prefer to see more space of where the mover is going and less where they have been, hence the 1/3 "been there" and 2/3 "going to".
Make sense?
Posting Permissions
