kevin brown
New member
Found myself there earlier in the year, found these little (or not so little) fellas flying round, let me know what you think
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Laguna Ca
- Thread starter kevin brown
- Start date
Mike Spinak
pro member
Kevin,
Welcome to our forum!
I appreciate your efforts. Your pictures show promise, but they also have a lot of issues.
The first shot, of the brown pelican in flight: This shot suffers from the angle of light putting the face into shadow, obscuring detail where one's eye is naturally drawn and most wants to see. Also, the way that the three feathers of the wingtip of the rear wing converge with the pelican's head is somewhat visually confusing. I also find the cityscape competes for visual attention, and does not add anything positive to the picture, so higher framing or a tighter crop would've perhaps been in order, perhaps showing the ridge, but not the city. I do commend you for catching the bird in flight.
The second shot, of the great blue heron on the boat: The bird's pose, turned away from the viewer, looking out of the frame, apparently at nothing in particular, does not work for me. The boat is unflattering and distracting, as is the blurred jetty. The bird's dark body against the bright water is also problematic for me.
The snowy egret: You did well to get so close to the bird. However, this shot would've been better, in my opinion, if the shot had been exposed slightly darker, holding the bird's highlight details better, and making the rest a little darker and contrastier. Again, the bird is turned slightly away from the viewer in a manner which does not flatter the overall composition, and, again, the bird is gazing out of the frame, at something the viewer can't see. And, similar to the great blue heron shot, the pose of the bird is not dynamic, does not show interesting behaviors, while also not working very effectively as a static portrait.
The last shot, of the (double crested, or pelagic?) cormorants perched on the rocks: The birds are so distant and small, and so backlit, that you cannot even tell clearly what they are. Also, their poses are static and somewhat haphazard.
I hope this all doesn't sound too harsh. It does look like you have the potential to do fine photography with birds, and hope you continue in this direction.
Welcome to our forum!
I appreciate your efforts. Your pictures show promise, but they also have a lot of issues.
The first shot, of the brown pelican in flight: This shot suffers from the angle of light putting the face into shadow, obscuring detail where one's eye is naturally drawn and most wants to see. Also, the way that the three feathers of the wingtip of the rear wing converge with the pelican's head is somewhat visually confusing. I also find the cityscape competes for visual attention, and does not add anything positive to the picture, so higher framing or a tighter crop would've perhaps been in order, perhaps showing the ridge, but not the city. I do commend you for catching the bird in flight.
The second shot, of the great blue heron on the boat: The bird's pose, turned away from the viewer, looking out of the frame, apparently at nothing in particular, does not work for me. The boat is unflattering and distracting, as is the blurred jetty. The bird's dark body against the bright water is also problematic for me.
The snowy egret: You did well to get so close to the bird. However, this shot would've been better, in my opinion, if the shot had been exposed slightly darker, holding the bird's highlight details better, and making the rest a little darker and contrastier. Again, the bird is turned slightly away from the viewer in a manner which does not flatter the overall composition, and, again, the bird is gazing out of the frame, at something the viewer can't see. And, similar to the great blue heron shot, the pose of the bird is not dynamic, does not show interesting behaviors, while also not working very effectively as a static portrait.
The last shot, of the (double crested, or pelagic?) cormorants perched on the rocks: The birds are so distant and small, and so backlit, that you cannot even tell clearly what they are. Also, their poses are static and somewhat haphazard.
I hope this all doesn't sound too harsh. It does look like you have the potential to do fine photography with birds, and hope you continue in this direction.
Let me extend my welcome as well, Kevin.
I also echo Mike's constructive comments, which I hope will be received as they are intended - to help you improve your photography, which is why we're all here. Nature photography, and birds in particular, is challenging, but if you stick with it, pick up tips here and there, it can be quite rewarding.
Keep on posting!
I also echo Mike's constructive comments, which I hope will be received as they are intended - to help you improve your photography, which is why we're all here. Nature photography, and birds in particular, is challenging, but if you stick with it, pick up tips here and there, it can be quite rewarding.
Keep on posting!
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Kevin
our specialists are right, but you can get some more of your pics in PP (in regards to colors and light only…)
Selection of the fellow and some highlight.shadow filter in PS…:
our specialists are right, but you can get some more of your pics in PP (in regards to colors and light only…)
Selection of the fellow and some highlight.shadow filter in PS…:
kevin brown
New member
Thanks for the comments guys - just the sort of feedback I'm looking for from here.
Thanks for the PP - I have to admit I tend to not use shadows and highlights much in PS - it can do some horrible things, and have only just started to use an adjustment layer and twiddle the levels in that - giving me a better result .... I think.
I'll happily admit wildlife photography isn't my number one choice of material, though I'd like to do more and get better at it.
The snowy egret - lol - I was standing about fifteen feet above it, on a mole round the harbour, and couldn't get the little chap into better composition without throwing myself off the rocks and into the water! No defence I know.
The Pelican - maybe this one is a bit better?
Thanks for the PP - I have to admit I tend to not use shadows and highlights much in PS - it can do some horrible things, and have only just started to use an adjustment layer and twiddle the levels in that - giving me a better result .... I think.
I'll happily admit wildlife photography isn't my number one choice of material, though I'd like to do more and get better at it.
The snowy egret - lol - I was standing about fifteen feet above it, on a mole round the harbour, and couldn't get the little chap into better composition without throwing myself off the rocks and into the water! No defence I know.
The Pelican - maybe this one is a bit better?
This is a much better shot, Kevin. As Mike had pointed out to begin with, you need to be very conscious of the direction (and quality) of the light to make wildlife shots work. Having it in the right direction, and the bird's head turned accordingly, will make a night and day difference.
I also agree with the comments on post-processing being extremely useful in bringing out all that you've captured. I find that the Shadows/Highlights tool is perhaps the most frequently used tool for me. You're correct that it can be over-done, but if used carefully, in the areas that need it, the impact is dramatic.
I also agree with the comments on post-processing being extremely useful in bringing out all that you've captured. I find that the Shadows/Highlights tool is perhaps the most frequently used tool for me. You're correct that it can be over-done, but if used carefully, in the areas that need it, the impact is dramatic.