Posted by Dave Sewell on November 19, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Hi,
THis is one from early morning at Titchwell in May this year. I'm not sure about the crop on this - although there isn't an awful lot more frame to play with. Comments welcomed.
All best,
Dave
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 20, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Hi Dave - not too sure about this one as it stands, it just doesn't 'sit right' with me.
I think if it was mine I might try adding canvass on the left, enough to bring the left wing just to the right of frame center line.
I'd also add a bit of canvass at the top aswell - perhaps increase what's there already by 50%.
Once I'd done that I think I might somehow try to get a tiny bit of definition between the stump and its reflection, rather than it looking like one continuous black object.
It's such a pity you couldn't get wide enough to get the bird and its full reflection in the frame - that would have been mighty impressive.
Sorry mate for sounding a bit 'neg' on this - but remember it's only my opinion and I'm sure there's plenty who'll think different
Posted by Mark Fellowes on November 20, 2007 at 3:51 AM
My immediate response was a positive one - this is something a bit different and I like the way the gull's mirrors are showing, taking it away from a standard silhouette. It's nicely composed (follows the rule of 3rds pretty much perfectly!).The lighting has given it lots of atmosphere - overall it has a kind of 'art card' feel. I see where Andy's coming from, and he's right, but I'd suggest that this is one of those shots where (I'll get ready to duck now) technical issues come second to the emotional response evoked by the image. 99% of shots here have to be technically right, because it's all about detail, but this one isn't like that. If I had to come up with a nit, it would be that I'd have liked more of a turn to the head, to emphasise what it is, but that's just being awkward.
It's good to have a shot that people will disagree about
Mark
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 20, 2007 at 3:58 AM
Aaah...one of those moments when you've got too big a lens on: never had one of those!!
I like the overall feel of this as a first reaction like Mark, but on reflection it does need a bit more space above and left to be relly good (all of the ripple circle would have been nice) but if you haven't got the lens on then it's photoshop only to resolve this time!
A few sharpening halos too being really nit-picky: they show up on a clean b/g like this one.
Nice pic overall though.
Mark
Posted by Dave Sewell on November 20, 2007 at 5:09 AM
Guys thanks for these comments. Andy – I prefer criticism to praise to be honest. You never learn anything if you always get it right first time!! Anyway, taking these comments on board I think I have enough space to crop as Andy suggests and I will try that tonight when I’m not at work! The original also has almost the entire inner circle of the ripples so I’ll work that in as Mark suggested.
I think the biggest problem that Andy highlights is the continuous black stump. There is a point in the shot where the reflection gets lighter but that just confuses things. I’m not sure how to go about creating definition between the stump and the reflection without it looking artificial.
Bearing this in mind I’m wondering if the effect of this additional shot which was taken on the same day might work. The ripples at the base of the stump created by the bird in the water enable you to tell where the stump enters the water which I think makes it work where the other shot doesn’t. My Q is: could I use the cloning tool to create this effect?
All best,
Dave
For me the original image makes a very nice comp if you crop it to make use of the symmetry. Kind of like this. Tristan
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 20, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I like Tristan's crop but the second shot doesn't work so well for me though as the simplicity of the first is lost, and there's too much detail in the bird on the post: better as a pure silhouette with the transparent mirrors.
Look forward to seeing your re-worked image though!
Discussion
6 repliesTHis is one from early morning at Titchwell in May this year. I'm not sure about the crop on this - although there isn't an awful lot more frame to play with. Comments welcomed.
All best,
Dave
I think if it was mine I might try adding canvass on the left, enough to bring the left wing just to the right of frame center line.
I'd also add a bit of canvass at the top aswell - perhaps increase what's there already by 50%.
Once I'd done that I think I might somehow try to get a tiny bit of definition between the stump and its reflection, rather than it looking like one continuous black object.
It's such a pity you couldn't get wide enough to get the bird and its full reflection in the frame - that would have been mighty impressive.
Sorry mate for sounding a bit 'neg' on this - but remember it's only my opinion and I'm sure there's plenty who'll think different
It's good to have a shot that people will disagree about
Mark
I like the overall feel of this as a first reaction like Mark, but on reflection it does need a bit more space above and left to be relly good (all of the ripple circle would have been nice) but if you haven't got the lens on then it's photoshop only to resolve this time!
A few sharpening halos too being really nit-picky: they show up on a clean b/g like this one.
Nice pic overall though.
Mark
I think the biggest problem that Andy highlights is the continuous black stump. There is a point in the shot where the reflection gets lighter but that just confuses things. I’m not sure how to go about creating definition between the stump and the reflection without it looking artificial.
Bearing this in mind I’m wondering if the effect of this additional shot which was taken on the same day might work. The ripples at the base of the stump created by the bird in the water enable you to tell where the stump enters the water which I think makes it work where the other shot doesn’t. My Q is: could I use the cloning tool to create this effect?
All best,
Dave
Look forward to seeing your re-worked image though!
Mark