Posted by Larry Corbett on November 20, 2006 at 5:14 PM
It's amazing what shots get forgotten, whilst trawling through my processed tiff images this evening whilst working on my website I came across this image I took in the garden one snowy morning last winter, hoping to improve on this during the winter season.
This image was taken in my garden, I had placed a metal post in my lawn to the top of which was tied the remains of an old worn out spade handle which had long since broken off the actual spade. I found the spade handle which had already started to rot whilst cutting back some overgrown bushes in the garden and thought that it would make an attractive perch. This Robin seemed to be on my wavelength and quickly took to using the spade handle on its way to the bird table.
The background is snow which is a rare thing where I live!
Posted by Dennis Alden on November 20, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Nice image Larry but the very light/burnt out background would be a major nit for me.
dennis
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 20, 2006 at 5:55 PM
Fair point Dennis, IMHO it's much better when viewed with a black browser page (http://www.larrycorbett.com/robin_0009.html), as I said am hoping to improve on this image this winter
Hi Larry,
A very eye-catching bright and airy shot with the Robin's red breast really grabbing your attention and standing out superbly from the lighter surroundings.
It doesn't quite work for me though,if I'm honest, for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm not so keen on the Robin looking out of the frame. 2) The background is a little too bright.I know it's snow and it's supposed to be bright,but I'd prefer to see some visible detail and texture to it.
If it wasn't for these two things,it would be a stunner.
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 20, 2006 at 6:09 PM
another fair point Justin, this is another image of the same bird but a bit too tight for my liking, plenty of scope for improvement though as these images were taken on a comparatively overcast and dull day and IMHO really show the plumage well
Posted by John MacTavish on November 20, 2006 at 6:13 PM
It's no wonder I'm giving up with this nature photography stuff, when a shot like this comes up and I think; lovely!
Yeah it has some faults, but overall I like it
Can someone tell me why a blurred, w/o detail background in white should be any worse than a blurred, w/o detail background in pea green? If both fit the scene then why not?
Also why is it that if a subject is not looking into the frame then we say it is bad?
Hi Larry,
The repost is a cracker and the light on the bird is gorgeous.
In answer to John's very valid points,as I made the comments I'm happy to justify them.
Regarding the bird looking out of the frame.I didn't actually say it was bad or wrong,just that my personal preference on that particular composition would have been to have the bird looking into the frame.
Regarding the out of focus backdrops,I personally love totally difuse backgrounds (and also detailed in-habitat shots) not because it's reasonibly fashionable but because I think the vast majority of species are beautiful in their own way and I enjoy seeing the complete emphasis and impact of an image placed solely on the bird,it's colours,'it's markings and it's beauty.
Perhaps I should have worded by critique better,but it isn't the lack of detail that spoils the first image for me,it's the fact that the snow appears too bright and distracts attention from,and overpowers the bird,the re-post is still without detail but works much better as it's a little less bright and easier on the eye,IMHO of course.
Posted by John MacTavish on November 20, 2006 at 6:37 PM
I'm not poking at you Justin, it's just that so many critiques come away with the same thing time after time that it often seems the overall impact of the shot is forgotten.
John,
PS repost is also a very good shot too, there's thousands of christmas cards out there that will have shots a lot worse than either of them on them this year, and next.....
Hopefully my comments didn't come across as too critical,but in view of the recent thread regarding honest feedback versus 'nice shot' comments I thought it perhaps best to make an effort to give an honest opinion,warts and all,(thinking that's what was wanted and expected by the majority of people) rather than just complimenting the images repeatedly.Perhaps not!
At the end of the day it's just an opinion,for what it's worth, that can be taken on board or just as easily dismissed.
Posted by Graeme Lee on November 20, 2006 at 7:03 PM
Hi Larry,
I agree with Justin about the minor nits, but overall a very nice image indeed. It is subjective and we all have our preferences. I'd like a shot like this, but haven't had the opportunity yet. Bring on the snow
Graeme
Posted by John Gardner on November 21, 2006 at 3:57 AM
I saw this last night on my laptop and it looked really bright on the screen so I didn't comment. On my desktop now it's not as bright but I still think the b/g would benefit from burning in. It's a lovely image, very sharp and the exposure is spot on or the bird but at the expense of blowing the b/g.
In answer to John's question the white for me is very harsh, whereas a 'pea green' b/g would be far less so and I feel is more complementary to all other colours. In an ideal world I'd have a green b/g on ANY bird shot I could, but it's not always possible but a darker b/g works better IMO than a light one in giving depth to the image and making the subject pop.
I also agree with Justin in that the bird is looking at the edge of the frame and not into the space, while I do agree it's not a show stopper, I would say that birds looking into the frame is asthetically much more pleasing, difficult to describe why but it just is. It's same as subjects in the centre of the frame are less attractive than those on the 'thirds'. Can't say why, it just is.
I much prefer the second image as the b/g is much more muted and I can see a bit more of the bird. However, both images are fien and I wouldn't bin either
John
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 21, 2006 at 6:10 AM
Thanks for taking time out to make comment on my images, I had a feeling that the background may have been an issue but thought i'd post anyway as the Robins plumage looks fab (IMHO), the thing that struck me about both images is how even though they were taken in flat dull overcast winter light the reflections from the snow on the ground below the bird coupled with a minor amount of saturation in photoshop have really helped to highlight the fluffy winter plumage of the robin
I agree with the comments regarding the Robin not looking in to the frame in the vertical composition, unfortunately I wasn't lucky enough or maybe I should say quick enough to capture the Robin with it's head turned left before it flew on to the bird table, in the second shot my camera was horizontal and the Robin was gone before I could turn the camera/lens through 90deg
As I said lots of room for improvement with these images, not sure if they're up to christmas card standards yet, but i'm sure andrex may be interested in using them for thier pattened toilet tissues.
As many of you will know i've not really done much serious photography for 3 1/2 years now and I feel very rusty, I'm finding it all very frustrating especially getting the exposures right, sharpening, most of photoshop functions etc etc, so if sometimes I appear to bite back that's just me showing my frustration. Much of what I have learnt over the years in photography I have forgotten and am having to learn again, with my 1d2 on birds where I am working fast I tend to blow highlights all the time, underexpose/ overexpose cock up the compositions but with the 5d where I have a much slower methodicaI approach am having lots more fun, the exposure meter in that camera is superb and the images i'm getting out of it (again IMHO) are so sharp they are breathtaking...a lesson learnt already.
Thanks for the kind comments
Posted by Mike Smith on November 21, 2006 at 12:33 PM
OK sat at work with 5 minutes or so to kill, so here is my take on what makes or breaks an image
Whilst only a tiny portion of an image, perhaps the most important aspect of a living image is to do with the subject's eyes. Humans generally revolve around eye contact - that is how we engage with people. - ask any girl; she will have far more interest in a man that looks into her eyes, than one that only looks below her neck.........
Instinctively we follow the gaze of an eye, a subject placed in the left third looking into the right third has much more impact because we follow where the subject is looking across to. Similarly a subject placed in the left third looking out of the left third edge will always feel cramped because we instinctively ignore the right two thirds of the image and follow where the subject is looking across to, ie out of the frame.
Another principle applies to eyes with or without catchlights, without a catchlight you have a dead black space, with a normal catchlight we can instinctively work out where the subject eye is looking by angle and position of the catchlight. But too central or too low a flash catchlight is un-nerving as it is positioned against our natural expectation of where the sun angle should be.
Next is the "prime-evil" hunting instinct, we are much more interested in a subject flying towards or across us compared to something flying away from us - the latter is a lost opportunity, the former two a potential full belly! - images of birds flying away/out of frame have much less impact than something flying into frame/towards you
Where there are no "eyes" we instinctively look for and follow "leading lines" and "converging lines", hence in landscape work an image with strong leading lines will have far more impact than an image with nothing for the eye to follow. An image with converging lines looks more natural as it easily allows us to gauge the 3D dimensions of an image.
These are very staid traditional ideas of what makes an image, but they "tick all the right boxes" for me
So in the above two images
image 1 is looking out of frame with a rather low catchlight, makes me feel awkward as I cannot follow the eye gaze well, I instinctively ignore the blank expanse of nothingness to the right, as a result the image feels really cramped - satisfaction quotient low - would I keep this image if it were mine - no - HOWEVER a turn of the head so that the robin is looking down and across the image towards the spade handle and this would also tick all the right boxes - its the head position and eye contact that is wrong.
Image 2 is looking across the frame with the catchlight where we expect it - upper half of eye, my eye instinctively flits across the frame to the right following the robin's gaze. satisafaction quotient high, - cracking image ticks all the right boxes.
Discussion
12 repliesThis image was taken in my garden, I had placed a metal post in my lawn to the top of which was tied the remains of an old worn out spade handle which had long since broken off the actual spade. I found the spade handle which had already started to rot whilst cutting back some overgrown bushes in the garden and thought that it would make an attractive perch. This Robin seemed to be on my wavelength and quickly took to using the spade handle on its way to the bird table.
The background is snow which is a rare thing where I live!
1D2, 300/2.8LIS + 2xII extender 1/200sec @ f5.6 (sharp enough??
dennis
A very eye-catching bright and airy shot with the Robin's red breast really grabbing your attention and standing out superbly from the lighter surroundings.
It doesn't quite work for me though,if I'm honest, for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm not so keen on the Robin looking out of the frame. 2) The background is a little too bright.I know it's snow and it's supposed to be bright,but I'd prefer to see some visible detail and texture to it.
If it wasn't for these two things,it would be a stunner.
Yeah it has some faults, but overall I like it
Can someone tell me why a blurred, w/o detail background in white should be any worse than a blurred, w/o detail background in pea green? If both fit the scene then why not?
Also why is it that if a subject is not looking into the frame then we say it is bad?
John
The repost is a cracker and the light on the bird is gorgeous.
In answer to John's very valid points,as I made the comments I'm happy to justify them.
Regarding the bird looking out of the frame.I didn't actually say it was bad or wrong,just that my personal preference on that particular composition would have been to have the bird looking into the frame.
Regarding the out of focus backdrops,I personally love totally difuse backgrounds (and also detailed in-habitat shots) not because it's reasonibly fashionable but because I think the vast majority of species are beautiful in their own way and I enjoy seeing the complete emphasis and impact of an image placed solely on the bird,it's colours,'it's markings and it's beauty.
Perhaps I should have worded by critique better,but it isn't the lack of detail that spoils the first image for me,it's the fact that the snow appears too bright and distracts attention from,and overpowers the bird,the re-post is still without detail but works much better as it's a little less bright and easier on the eye,IMHO of course.
John,
PS repost is also a very good shot too, there's thousands of christmas cards out there that will have shots a lot worse than either of them on them this year, and next.....
At the end of the day it's just an opinion,for what it's worth, that can be taken on board or just as easily dismissed.
I agree with Justin about the minor nits, but overall a very nice image indeed. It is subjective and we all have our preferences. I'd like a shot like this, but haven't had the opportunity yet. Bring on the snow
Graeme
In answer to John's question the white for me is very harsh, whereas a 'pea green' b/g would be far less so and I feel is more complementary to all other colours. In an ideal world I'd have a green b/g on ANY bird shot I could, but it's not always possible but a darker b/g works better IMO than a light one in giving depth to the image and making the subject pop.
I also agree with Justin in that the bird is looking at the edge of the frame and not into the space, while I do agree it's not a show stopper, I would say that birds looking into the frame is asthetically much more pleasing, difficult to describe why but it just is. It's same as subjects in the centre of the frame are less attractive than those on the 'thirds'. Can't say why, it just is.
I much prefer the second image as the b/g is much more muted and I can see a bit more of the bird. However, both images are fien and I wouldn't bin either
John
I agree with the comments regarding the Robin not looking in to the frame in the vertical composition, unfortunately I wasn't lucky enough or maybe I should say quick enough to capture the Robin with it's head turned left before it flew on to the bird table, in the second shot my camera was horizontal and the Robin was gone before I could turn the camera/lens through 90deg
As I said lots of room for improvement with these images, not sure if they're up to christmas card standards yet, but i'm sure andrex may be interested in using them for thier pattened toilet tissues.
As many of you will know i've not really done much serious photography for 3 1/2 years now and I feel very rusty, I'm finding it all very frustrating especially getting the exposures right, sharpening, most of photoshop functions etc etc, so if sometimes I appear to bite back that's just me showing my frustration. Much of what I have learnt over the years in photography I have forgotten and am having to learn again, with my 1d2 on birds where I am working fast I tend to blow highlights all the time, underexpose/ overexpose cock up the compositions but with the 5d where I have a much slower methodicaI approach am having lots more fun, the exposure meter in that camera is superb and the images i'm getting out of it (again IMHO) are so sharp they are breathtaking...a lesson learnt already.
Thanks for the kind comments
Whilst only a tiny portion of an image, perhaps the most important aspect of a living image is to do with the subject's eyes. Humans generally revolve around eye contact - that is how we engage with people. - ask any girl; she will have far more interest in a man that looks into her eyes, than one that only looks below her neck.........
Instinctively we follow the gaze of an eye, a subject placed in the left third looking into the right third has much more impact because we follow where the subject is looking across to. Similarly a subject placed in the left third looking out of the left third edge will always feel cramped because we instinctively ignore the right two thirds of the image and follow where the subject is looking across to, ie out of the frame.
Another principle applies to eyes with or without catchlights, without a catchlight you have a dead black space, with a normal catchlight we can instinctively work out where the subject eye is looking by angle and position of the catchlight. But too central or too low a flash catchlight is un-nerving as it is positioned against our natural expectation of where the sun angle should be.
Next is the "prime-evil" hunting instinct, we are much more interested in a subject flying towards or across us compared to something flying away from us - the latter is a lost opportunity, the former two a potential full belly! - images of birds flying away/out of frame have much less impact than something flying into frame/towards you
Where there are no "eyes" we instinctively look for and follow "leading lines" and "converging lines", hence in landscape work an image with strong leading lines will have far more impact than an image with nothing for the eye to follow. An image with converging lines looks more natural as it easily allows us to gauge the 3D dimensions of an image.
These are very staid traditional ideas of what makes an image, but they "tick all the right boxes" for me
So in the above two images
image 1 is looking out of frame with a rather low catchlight, makes me feel awkward as I cannot follow the eye gaze well, I instinctively ignore the blank expanse of nothingness to the right, as a result the image feels really cramped - satisfaction quotient low - would I keep this image if it were mine - no - HOWEVER a turn of the head so that the robin is looking down and across the image towards the spade handle and this would also tick all the right boxes - its the head position and eye contact that is wrong.
Image 2 is looking across the frame with the catchlight where we expect it - upper half of eye, my eye instinctively flits across the frame to the right following the robin's gaze. satisafaction quotient high, - cracking image ticks all the right boxes.