Oh, I'm not sure about this one at all!

[Rachel Foster]

There are several things I like about this photo: The colors, the water, the light reflecting. But...I fear that the darkness of the photo renders it....ugh. I'm reluctant to toss it, but I suspect that's all I can do with it. Plus there are extraneous elements ( the sun spot, branch on the upper right) but I don't think I can keep sufficient resolution if I crop more.

Too dark? Toss?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd set this one aside and try again.

You're right that the light on the water is great, and that's one of the things to look for when setting up a bird photograph--standing somewhere where the background will be interesting.

The bird is backlit, though, and the eye is lacking a catchlight, so it comes out flat.

One option in that situation would be to stand in a different place, if possible, so when the mallard wanders through the scene, he will be well lit, and then wait until his head is turned the right way so you can get a nice catchlight. Birds can turn their heads really quickly, so it's good to get several shots that you think are good while you're shooting, and you can pick the best later. No chimping! Watch the bird!

Another possibility would be to stand in the same place and use flash to get some light on the bird, and think of the sun as a "kicker" providing light from behind to separate the bird from the background.

I don't do so many bird photos with flash, because I think it usually looks unnatural even when done well, but in some cases, it's the only way you can get a decent shot, and if you're at a location you might not be able to visit again soon, or if it's a bird that's not easy to photograph, better flash than nothing.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Birds aren't the only ones who get cold!

I was afraid it was unsalvageable. I do love the look of that water though.

You got that lovely reflection also, but your lighting was better. At the river I never know when Family Duck will appear and rarely am in the right spot.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There are several things I like about this photo: The colors, the water, the light reflecting. But...I fear that the darkness of the photo renders it....ugh. I'm reluctant to toss it, but I suspect that's all I can do with it. Plus there are extraneous elements ( the sun spot, branch on the upper right) but I don't think I can keep sufficient resolution if I crop more.

Too dark? Toss?

This is not a picture to keep except to print large and mark up with arrows to what's wrong. The good thing about nature is that she is always there for you.

first I don't see what you shooting conditions were. What was happening, what time of the day, how much light, what ISO, lens and speed. It's good to have these otherwise I have no idea what to suggest as it's too dark. I would imagine that the bird is not sharply in focus or else not sharpened. I hate to speculate but with a troubled image it's necessary to give the data so one know if one can be of any constructive help.

The Good: This location has interesting features: white snow by the edge of a water mass with a powerful vertical block of shadow and an enchanting foreground of silver reflections horizontally across the lower field. The one duck can be potentially just a small focus point around which the different textures play. However, the picture is shot with the wrong lens! It is too long to grab what is needed to bring out a unified composition.

These are the problems:

1. Dark image so there's no detail on the duck!

2. Chromatic abberation: The RGB light paths are out of synch so the edges of objects show color fringing. What lens is this!! No big problem! If there were no other serious issues, Adobe RAW and Photoshop can correct this.

3. Flare: The light can be prevented by having a better coated lens but more important by having a good deep lens hood and also avoiding shooting into the sun with that lens.

4. Composition:

1. Very untidy.
   
2. The snow is just outside the field of interest and only a slither is in the frame. So no, instead of being a great feature of a composition it's distracting.
   
3. The out of focus (? green) branches on the right need to be removed in PS!
   
4. The great feature of the strong vertical bar of shadow in the rippling water, needs greater width in the image on the right, ie more real estate of the lake/river to have counterbalance.
   
5. The bird is not lit well enough to be the main feature of interest.
   
6. The foreground lit water is not well used compositionally, but like the snow above, just seems part of an untidy mess.

Choices:

1. Get an even longer lens and use a flash with a Better Beamer to illuminate the duck but not over expose the water.

2. Not worry about the bird so much, still use some flash but use a wide angle lens to get the whole vista and take advantage of the snow, dark shadows and silver reflections

That is my punishing view as of now, without wine!

Later tonight I might see fish jumping, a couple in a canoe, water lilies and I'll be saying how wonderful it is.

Asher

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

TThe good thing about nature is that she is always there for you.

This is the main reason I don't fiddle too much with bird photos. Mallards are common birds, and birds are creatures of habit, so if you come to this spot regularly, you'll notice when it's a good time to find the birds. I've even found when I photograph a migratory bird, I can return to the same spot a year later to the day and sometimes find the same birds.

So once you have an idea of where the birds will be, put yourself in a good spot so the light and the background will be flattering when the bird comes into the frame. I usually think about the light first and then the birds, because unless the bird is particularly unusual, it's not worth photographing if the light is wrong.

 

[Ray West]

but, no harm in trying

 

[Rachel Foster]

Wonderful critique, Asher!

Part of the problems you outline are my crop, I fear. It was shot with a 75-300 telephoto and the ducks were some distance away.

I would not have given this a second thought if not for the lovely look on the water. I do think it's the first time I've gotten that effect and I'm a bit intoxicated with it. The rest, including the lighting, is problematic.

It's the first time I've seen the ducks in that part of the river so I'm a bit disappointed. I got another lovely shot of the water, but again the sun was behind me and M. Duck, so this one doesn't work either.

.

On the upside, I got a few halfway decent shots of the foliage, so it wasn't a total waste.

David and Asher, the critiques are very helpful. Thanks for taking the time. (But oh...that water!)

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ray! How did you get such a close crop so sharp? It must have very few pixels left at that size!

 

[StuartRae]

Hi Rachel,

Just to show you that the duck has a bit of colour left in it.

Processed with the Light Machine plugin.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Rachel Foster]

Photoshop is amazing.

I think I need to either buy Photoshop for Dummies or take a class. Or both.

 

[StuartRae]

Hi Rachel,

I don't have the full PhotoShop, only PhotoShop Elements which I use as a vehicle for a few plugins, one of which is Light Machine.

I claim no skill or expertise, merely the ability to click a few buttons

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Rachel Foster]

I had no idea you can use the plugins without ps!

 

[StuartRae]

Several applications will run Photoshop plugins as long as they emulate the way in which the image data is passed to and accepted from the plugin.

Irfanview, which is freeware, is one of them although the interface is rather clumsy and only works in 8-bit mode.

 

[Ray West]

Rachel,


<lecturemode>
Learn to properly use the tools you have. My first reaction was to tell you to scrap the picture, then I looked again, and Asher had written a fairly comprehensive summary of the good, the bad and the ugly. I had a few minutes spare, and just did a few basic things, trying to pull together the good bits Asher mentioned, removing the bad and ugly, and probably any software could do it, all very basic. I applied no precision, since the jpeg is too coarse to work with.

One thing I did not do was sharpen it. The duck size is exactly the same size as yours, at least on my browser. As for the rest, it could be a good exercise for you to a) work out what was done. b) work out why you think the duck is bigger, c) spend some time with your software to get similar or different results.
</lecturemode>

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Ray, I think that's a good idea.

<Ramble>
My progression in learning what little I've learned has highlighted a few important lessons for me. One, you can't take short cuts. Two, you can't learn it all at once. Three, that doesn't mean you can't make a list of things that need to be learned and attack them when you've got the previous stuff nailed.

I'm enrolled in a basic photography class at the local community college next term. This will organize my information acquisition in a logical and more comprehensive way. At the same time, I will continue my own independent learning.

One important thing I've learned about the way I personally view the work is that I respond to a photograph in an emotional gestalt rather than an analytical parsing of elements. I liked certain aspects about this photo, and while I knew there were problems and even identified the main ones, I did not do the type of analysis Asher did.

What I don't know is how/in what way to change that. I think art must evoke emotion so an emotional response is critical. I don't want to lose that. At the same time, I must be able to more clearly and concretely identify the problems so they can be corrected -- if not with the current photo, corrected in subsequent photos. So, a current task is keeping an emotional openness and learning to do an analytical review both.

It's odd, but I've realized that those of us who do research in psychology study emotions in an analytical manner devoid of emotion (as much as we can). I worry that if I try to do photography in the same way it will become as devoid of feeling as a scientific publication.

This is part of what will eventually become an essay on the neophyte's experience in photography. Everyone here is so accomplished, so talented, that I can't imagine anyone at the point of "buzzing blooming confusion" (paraphrasing William James who said it in a different context) that the whole endeavor is to me right now.

</Ramble>

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Rachel for being sporting and accepting my tough criticism.

There's a lot to be learned from that picture. I'd love to see what else you shot, everything, by email, so I can try to invent a new composition! I wonder!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Good sport nothing!

I learn from criticism, the tougher the better! Being "hard" on me is doing me a great honor and great favor. If one doesn't want to know what's wrong with a photo, one has no business posting it! Lay into any photo I post, no holds barred.

The one thing I ask is to also let me know if anything about it is good. If I get nothing positive ever, I fear I'll give up hope and get discouraged.

I shot about 100 photos that day, so I'll prune it to the best 20 or so and send you a link. Or a more severe prune? What would you like to see?

 

[Asher Kelman]

This, Rachel is your thread. Take a risk! The worse thing that can happen is that you get harsh comments. But when that happens, guess what, a it's delivered with the anesthetic of good manners and consideration and next it helps others too timid to post.

I'd say after getting rid of 80% of your images, the next 20 ought to have some good ones in need of help.

I would like all the other images of that shoot around the duck to see what was there! Send them to me with quality 8 jpg 400 pixels across so I can go over them. I'm wondering what could have been done with a wide angled lens. Rachel, you are not, as yet a bird shooter. You really need a 400mm or 500mm lens for that.

There's so much beauty in the home of the mullard! That's why I suggest WA. Also you can rethink the composition later and learn a lot just in front of your computer.

Asher

Asher





Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Harsh comments are welcome.

This shot (from a couple hours ago) is not a great shot, but I think it corrects a few of the problems in the duck shot.

The light was more favorable (no glare) although it was overcast. I was out with my 75-300 telephoto but not prepared. I'd left the tripod at home and was surprised by the fowl's appearance. To compensate I steadied (on my poor son's head) and kicked the shutter speed up. That left the overall image darker than I'd like but at least its semi-focused.

The telephoto allowed for a tighter crop. Unfortunately, Mr. Fowl (Ms. Fowl?) placed him/herself right next to that snow-covered rock.

Wide-angled lens jsut went on the wish list.

 

[StuartRae]

Hi Rachel,

I once tried resting my camera on my daughter's head, but she has very sharp elbows and a yellow belt in kick-boxing, so I have up!!

Your choice of lens depends on what you're trying to capture. If you want the heron, you need at least the long end of your 75-300.

As for this shot, congratulations. I've been trying to shoot the heron that lives in my local river for some time without any luck. To find him with fish in his beak is an added bonus. After a bit of adjustment and sharpening he looks quite nicely in focus.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Rachel Foster]

I LOVE that adjustment!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, what kind of WA lens?

 

[Don Cohen]

Rachel,

I've been sitting back while you've been given some very appropriate advice, and I'm sure your images will continue to improve as you practice and learn.

With nature photography in general, and birds in particular, it's all about the light and composition. Your first image created problems because of the intensity and direction of the sun, while the overcast conditions of the Great Blue Heron that you just posted produces a very "flat" type of image.

As a general rule, you'll get the best images in early morning or late evening (typically a few hours near sunrise and sunset), when the intensity of the light isn't overwhelming, and is actually very "warm" and pleasant. Keeping the sun behind you, and shooting when the bird has its head turned toward the light, catching a reflection of the light (called the "catch-light"), will make a huge improvement in your photos. And when possible, getting down low, to their eye-level, will also produce more pleasing images.

Keep on shooting, keep on posting, and it will all come together.

Best,

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Don. Right now I have to shoot when I can, but I've definitely discovered why dawn and dusk are considered "golden" times.

My major areas of attack right now are focus and dof along with composition. Nature shots are difficult re: composition because the darn fowl (in this case) don't always go where I want them. They have minds of their own, it seems.

I do realize these images are far from stunning but every shot and every comment helps me pinpoint the next step.

I've discovered I need to refine my approach to evaluation as well. I need to keep the gestalt in mind while learning how to analyze it at a more elementistic level. I'm also heartened because I can see why most shots now are better than a few months ago.

This particular image, I thought, corrected a few of the problems pointed out by Asher, but won't knock anyone of his/her feet. The basic photog course I'm signed up for should help all around in the learning curve too.

Many thanks to all who have taken time to comment. CRITICISM is especially valued!

P.S. Today's snow was wicked! I must have been standing in a snow bank 10 feet deep (just slightly exaggerated!). Reminds me of when I was a kid and had to walk 7 miles to school in deep snow uphill EACH WAY in Los Angeles. In June. Life was tough then. (Ok, my sense of humor is strange.)

 

[Rachel Foster]

but, no harm in trying

Better late than never..

Ray, I suspect you cropped judiciously, cloned out the bright spotty bits and perhaps the lens flare, corrected the contrast. I'll spot more with a bit more study.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I don't know I'll ever get this lil guy's eyes. There is not enough contrast between the green and his eyes unless I get a super zoom and maybe really good light. This is closer but still just not in the ballpark.

Lenses: I still know very little about them but I am picking up a few things here and there.



Helped with a bit of clumsy photoshop....

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

You work is showing off nature better! Thanks for being careful and for your son's steady head as your monopod!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Any tips on the eye problem?

(Son was glued to his new Star Wars Legos today...had to use a real tripod for that one!)