EB Forsythe NWR, Oceanville, NJ USA
Canon 7D
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L
1/640sec f/5.6 ISO 800
Crop for composition, levels, sharpening in CS5
NR on BG in Noiseware Pro
Peep
EB Forsythe NWR, Oceanville, NJ USA
Canon 7D
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L
1/640sec f/5.6 ISO 800
Crop for composition, levels, sharpening in CS5
NR on BG in Noiseware Pro
Hi Ian, nice pose and head angle. I think this is a Least Sandpiper, but I'm no expert on peeps! I would like to see more of the environment, especially above and to the left, and a bit more light on the bird. The pop-up flash on your camera would have helped. There is a cyan cast to the whites, easily fixed in PS.
"It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart, and head." - Henri Cartier Bresson
Please visit me on the web at http://kerryperkinsphotography.com
Ian, love the little ones and nice low shooting angle. Might add more sharpening to image after you resize for web posting. A bit too tight for me, I like to see the habitat as well.
I'd suggest a bit more sharpening and noise reduction. I love the pebble beach. And it is definitely a Least Sandpiper.
Ian, pretty little rascal, with nice delicate feet . . . agree with others about sharpening.
I am new here so this is as much a question as a critique.
I like the Least Sandpiper but find the DOF/background/forground distracting. It is almost like it makes me dizzy. I find it difficult to focus on the bird. Is this a fair comment? Is this image what a "pro" tries to capture?
Thank you all. I agree about the cyan cast and will fix that. As for the tight crop, I sort of liked it that tight, but see what you folks mean and will try loosening it up a bit (I have a little bit of real estate available). Yes, it's a Least Sandpiper -- I should have put that in the original post -- sorry.
Rick, I am unable to comment on what "pros" want -- I am a mere mortal amateur. All comments are fair and all are subject to the viewer's perception. If it makes you feel dizzy, that is certainly a valid point to make! If I am judging it correctly (and I'd appreciate other comments on this), a bit of fill-light (as suggested by Kerry) would have brought him out of the BG a bit and made the BG/FG a bit less overwhelming. I thought I was accomplishing that with the tight crop, but perhaps not.
Ian I am far more an amateur than you. I am trying to learn what the criteria to aim for are.
As for the dizzy comment maybe I need to have my eyes checked - I believe I'm due.
The criteria I use (and those more experienced are encouraged to pipe in) are to give suggestions that would make it a more enjoyable image for a viewer. If what I do makes you dizzy, than I certainly want to hear it so I can consider whether or not there is something I need to change. You don't need to be an expert to make critique because, in the end, it is the effect of an image on the viewer that is important. There are many things written on critique and I'll see if I can find you some links.
Here's one to start you off:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...at-to-look-for.
Thank you Ian that link is very useful.
The subject is underexposed, and feather detail is lacking because of it. It is likely attempts were made to lighten the image in post, but insufficient light does not allow sufficient detail capture in the first place. Proper exposure of the subject is imperative, and in this case it would have likely overexposed the background, but you can deal with that it post. regards~Bill
Posting Permissions
