Posted by John Robinson on October 9, 2008 at 4:34 AM
Goldcrest
Plenty of dyingleaves to add some colour but the trouble is they can overpower the subject. Once they start falling its in an out of the hide every few minutes which is not good. These little fellas realy zip about.Once they get wet they go into a frenzy. Lot of waste shots from this short session.
Woodland pool. Usual setup.
JR
Use of flash rather obvious, and I don’t mean the twin catch lights, the complete lack of shadows is the give away. As you say, the fallen leaves do compete for dominance in the image. Still a good capture.
Posted by Andy Shepherd on October 9, 2008 at 5:26 AM
I really like this one John, flash issues aside this is a really nice capture, good work.
When are we going to see some of your work Ray ???
Myself being a complete novice at flash photography Ray, maybe you can give me some tips ???
I really like it. The lack of shadows is not a technical issue as far as im concerned, a slow shutter speed on an overcast day in a dark wood will give the same shadowless result, but would obviously much more difficult to achieve due to the behaviour of these tiny birds. I think the leaves are more complimentary then detracting, they give a good feeling of the season, and do not clash with the subject at all. I wish it were one of mine !!!!!!!
Posted by John Robinson on October 9, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Thanks all.
Ray- I think you will find when you use flash , it actually makes the shadows more pronounced. Copy the picture and then blow up the eye. Sorry - no flash just sky in the background behingd the hide
I always have the camera on low contrast to lessen the noise effect.
Cheers
JR
Posted by Mike Smith on October 9, 2008 at 8:40 AM
The twin catchlight is slightly confusing leading to the thought that flash had been used....
beautifully sharp and popping out from the surroundings
Mike
Posted by Matt Cole on October 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
is the 2nd catchlight from the reflection of the water? I'm getting a sense of deja vu with Ray and his flash comments
I think this is a fantastic image and one I would be very proud of. The composition and the natural setting are very nice and while, technically, we're supposed to object to things competing for our attention for me on this occasion the leaves add to the autumnal/woodland feel of the image. I've never managed anything better than snatch shots of goldcrests that are rarely pin sharp.
Matt
Posted by Chris Jones on October 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Nice shot John.
Different perspective having one on the ground.
Regards Chris
Posted by Rob Howard on October 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Hi John,
Very nice result in a lovely setting. Colours etc look fine to me. My only observation is the leaf directly in front of the bird looks very out of focus compared to the leaf "under" it and the leaf "above" the bird but furthur away is sharper than the leaf in front of the bird, does that make sense?? Perhaps it's one of those optical illusion things I'm sure there hasn't been but looks as if the area has had some PS work done on it
Anyway a cracking shot of a lovely litle bird, thanks for sharing
Regards
Rob
Posted by John Robinson on October 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Thanks again all.
Rob- certainly not PS - don't use it. Probably one of the leaves was moving - I really don't know.
What with the Snipe head moving around as well I am starting to worry !
Cheers
John
Posted by Ian Mason on October 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Fascinating dialogue! Nice picture too . Just ot add my tuppenceworth, I wonder if it looks a bit on the green side - but I've only seen a couple of goldcrest before so could be way off the mark. I like it!
Posted by John Robinson on October 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Ian
You may be right- its certainly a bit up on the green /blue end. I usually have the WB on cloudy and that makes a difference.
Anyway the birds are quite bright so lets have 'em pretty eh ?
John
Posted by Magnus Hird on October 9, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Like this John, the pool looks fuller than your shots a few months ago
Like the setting and the leaves add to it and aren't too distracting for me
Posted by Major Gilbert on October 9, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Lovely Goldcrest John dont mind the leaves at all in fact think they add to it.
The blurring on the left does draw my eye a bit though, but think it could be worked on to lessen that.
Major.
Posted by Simon Litten on October 9, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Damn fine shot, in my opinion - as all your pool shots are.
Simon
Posted by David Taylor on October 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Right, let me make one thing very clear, I speak/write as I see it, and I don’t go in for platitudes, just because the author wants them, or because everyone else expresses them, if I don’t honestly believe the image concerned deserves it, then I will say so or if I think the author concerned doesn’t want to hear such opinions, then I tend to ignor their posts, as obviously they just don’t want to learn/progress with their photography, you are never too old to learn.
One of the main differences between a professional photographer and a serious amateur, is that the pro. understands light and how to use it and few amateurs do.
Light gives LIFE to an image, or to put it another way, sparkle/punch.
A Charles Glatzer once wrote: “Light Illuminates, shadow defines”. I couldn’t agree more.
This brings be to the above image.
In my opinion, and I stress my opinion, the above image lacks any true depth, and as a result it is FLAT. This is due to the perceived quality of light in the image as presented, and the lack of any substantial shadows, it just isn’t right.
As you read this, look around you are there any shadows ???
Shadows are an integral part of any scene.
There are instances where shadows are effectively eliminated. When flash is used wrongly, I was fooled by the twin catch lights with this image, another instance is when the situation is as Steve Fletcher describes. On a very overcast day, shadows are all but eliminated, but the lighting here tends to discount this, until you bring technology into the equation.
You can use your camera settings to achieve a semblance of an image in poor light and then use Photoshop or another photo editing program, to further to “enhance” the image. But, and it is a big BUT, if the quality, light being one factor, just isn’t there to begin with, then it never will be.
I believe John uses a 300, this together with the acute angle he invariably shoots at, tell me that he in right on top of the pool. I haven’t seen any shots of his set-up, but if a square hide is used, and for example is under trees then all this could easily contribute to the pool being in shadow, subdued light, for most of the time.
When I work a pool, my shooting position is set up for a 600 or a 400 + a 1.7x, for a subject the size of a Blue Tit, in the “killing zone”, and the pool is always fringed by vegetation/bushes/trees, but it always has unhindered natural light falling on it, for the majority of the day.
Now to answer the posts which followed my initial posting.
Andrew S: I’ll get to you last, now that’s a good start.
Steve F: You mention the leaves, I have no problem with that, but I would have had smaller ones in the “killing zone” in order to remove any possibility of them detracting from the main subject.
John R. I accept that you don’t use flash, but I think that I have explained my thoughts above.
Matt C. Your comment about and I quote: “I'm getting a sense of deja vu with Ray and his flash comments”, I rarely use flash, I much prefer natural light, but saying that, it is an option which I always have at the back of my mind. I do have a thing tho’, about an image being true to the natural world, and that obviously includes lighting.
Right Andrew now your turn. My hat off to you. You are the first, who has ever called my bluff about posting images. It is easy to criticise an image, but that doesn’t mean that you can also produce the goods, does it. So even with the credit crunch being what it is, I’ll join, and let others have a crack at me. By the way, never be afraid to ask, I know you aren’t, as invariably behind every image that is posted, on this forum and others, there is always something going on in the “shadows”. Pun intended.
Re flash photography. I don’t think this is the thread for it, so I’ll post a thread where I’ll explain a few of the things which I do, including remote supports etc..
To those of you I haven’t mentioned, I respect your opinions, as I hope you do mine.
Finally, question both your own photography and the images you see on the various forums, that is the only way you and others will ever learn. Don’t go in for the platitudes.
Posted by David Kjaer on October 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Hi John
It's easy to nit pick an image and a lot more difficult to take a good one especially of this species. I like it John, wish it was mine!
David
P.S. We often read Ray's 'Masterclass' so really looking forward to some images from him!
Posted by John Robinson on October 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Ray
Lighten up Ray -its just a picture of a bird for goodness sake.
Could you perhaps show me some of your pics so I can get my settings right . I am learning all the time but I haven't got that long left.
Cheers
John
John there is nothing to lighten up about, I’m perfectly chilled out. Although I do think there is some history here, but not with you, which unfortunately I semi bite on it.
Re your picture, I honestly think that there is every chance that you could sell it, and the publisher wouldn’t notice the shadows, I also think that 98% of viewers wouldn’t either, but that doesn’t make it right, does it ??
Take out my initial comments and all the references to it, and you have just another image on the forum saying for example “Great image, wish it was mine”, nothing wrong with that, if its honestly meant.
But surely that isn’t what the forum is all about. Those who contribute/lurk want to be in the remaining 2% as photographers, or at least be aware as to what to look for in any image.
Images are posted for honest criticisms to be made, and as a result the author learns, and progresses. Now when I read the last entry on this post, there were 344 views, with 21 comments by 17 members, including ours. Lets say that the 344 views represent 20+ lurkers following the thread, in the hope of learning something. Isn’t this what it is all about, learning from the posting of each others images and comments ???
Invariably when I comment, I have at the back of my mind that, other than the author, others will be reading what is written.
Referring to one of my above statements, and I quote: “I believe John uses a 300, this together with the acute angle he invariably shoots at, tells me that he in right on top of the pool. I haven’t seen any shots of his set-up, but if a square hide is used, and for example is under trees then all this could easily contribute to the pool being in shadow, subdued light, for most of the time.” There was a subtle point here.
On a piece of paper draw a rectangle 52 units high and 39 wide, if memory serves a “Fensman” was/is 52 inches high, taking the bottom right corner measure back 52 units, midway between these points go up 54 units, between these three points draw the profile of a dome hide. From the front corner place a mark at the approximate position of the centre of your pool. From this point, draw a line tangentially to the “Dome” profile, now parallel to this draw another line from the top right corner of the “Fensman”, you can now see what effect just the design of the hide can have, on the amount of light falling onto your “killing zone”. Now in your minds eye look to at the difference in the amount of shadow which will be transversing the whole area as the sun travels across the sky. One last point, draw a line from the “centre” of your pool to the top of the “Fensman”, now look at the height of the sun has to be to illuminate the “pool”, don’t forget that you are also tending, if not totally, to loose your side lighting.
John, send me a few grab shots of your hide/pool, one from behind, wide angle, and a side on shot, plus pool to hide one, with the direction of the sun at mid day relative to the hide/pool. Then we are both talking from the same song sheet, so to speak.
Re seeing some of my shots, joined last night, so give me a day or two.
John, everyday we hopefully learn something new, if we don’t then my father said it was a wasted day.
Now about this “not long left”, I’m not that far behind you, and according to the male line of genealogy in my family, I’m already on borrowed time.
Sorry if I went on about the shadows re hides everyone, any questions just ask.
Never forget all comments made are the writers opinions and should be treated accordingly.. Hopefully tho’, there is some substance to them, backed up by experience.
Discussion
22 repliesPlenty of dyingleaves to add some colour but the trouble is they can overpower the subject. Once they start falling its in an out of the hide every few minutes which is not good. These little fellas realy zip about.Once they get wet they go into a frenzy. Lot of waste shots from this short session.
Woodland pool. Usual setup.
JR
I really like this one John, flash issues aside this is a really nice capture, good work.
When are we going to see some of your work Ray ???
Myself being a complete novice at flash photography Ray, maybe you can give me some tips ???
Andy...
Ray- I think you will find when you use flash , it actually makes the shadows more pronounced. Copy the picture and then blow up the eye. Sorry - no flash just sky in the background behingd the hide
I always have the camera on low contrast to lessen the noise effect.
Cheers
JR
Love it!!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
beautifully sharp and popping out from the surroundings
Mike
I think this is a fantastic image and one I would be very proud of. The composition and the natural setting are very nice and while, technically, we're supposed to object to things competing for our attention for me on this occasion the leaves add to the autumnal/woodland feel of the image. I've never managed anything better than snatch shots of goldcrests that are rarely pin sharp.
Matt
Different perspective having one on the ground.
Regards Chris
Very nice result in a lovely setting. Colours etc look fine to me. My only observation is the leaf directly in front of the bird looks very out of focus compared to the leaf "under" it and the leaf "above" the bird but furthur away is sharper than the leaf in front of the bird, does that make sense?? Perhaps it's one of those optical illusion things
Anyway a cracking shot of a lovely litle bird, thanks for sharing
Regards
Rob
Rob- certainly not PS - don't use it. Probably one of the leaves was moving - I really don't know.
What with the Snipe head moving around as well I am starting to worry !
Cheers
John
You may be right- its certainly a bit up on the green /blue end. I usually have the WB on cloudy and that makes a difference.
Anyway the birds are quite bright so lets have 'em pretty eh ?
John
Like the setting and the leaves add to it and aren't too distracting for me
The blurring on the left does draw my eye a bit though, but think it could be worked on to lessen that.
Major.
Simon
One of the main differences between a professional photographer and a serious amateur, is that the pro. understands light and how to use it and few amateurs do.
Light gives LIFE to an image, or to put it another way, sparkle/punch.
A Charles Glatzer once wrote: “Light Illuminates, shadow defines”. I couldn’t agree more.
This brings be to the above image.
In my opinion, and I stress my opinion, the above image lacks any true depth, and as a result it is FLAT. This is due to the perceived quality of light in the image as presented, and the lack of any substantial shadows, it just isn’t right.
As you read this, look around you are there any shadows ???
Shadows are an integral part of any scene.
There are instances where shadows are effectively eliminated. When flash is used wrongly, I was fooled by the twin catch lights with this image, another instance is when the situation is as Steve Fletcher describes. On a very overcast day, shadows are all but eliminated, but the lighting here tends to discount this, until you bring technology into the equation.
You can use your camera settings to achieve a semblance of an image in poor light and then use Photoshop or another photo editing program, to further to “enhance” the image. But, and it is a big BUT, if the quality, light being one factor, just isn’t there to begin with, then it never will be.
I believe John uses a 300, this together with the acute angle he invariably shoots at, tell me that he in right on top of the pool. I haven’t seen any shots of his set-up, but if a square hide is used, and for example is under trees then all this could easily contribute to the pool being in shadow, subdued light, for most of the time.
When I work a pool, my shooting position is set up for a 600 or a 400 + a 1.7x, for a subject the size of a Blue Tit, in the “killing zone”, and the pool is always fringed by vegetation/bushes/trees, but it always has unhindered natural light falling on it, for the majority of the day.
Now to answer the posts which followed my initial posting.
Andrew S: I’ll get to you last, now that’s a good start.
Steve F: You mention the leaves, I have no problem with that, but I would have had smaller ones in the “killing zone” in order to remove any possibility of them detracting from the main subject.
John R. I accept that you don’t use flash, but I think that I have explained my thoughts above.
Matt C. Your comment about and I quote: “I'm getting a sense of deja vu with Ray and his flash comments”, I rarely use flash, I much prefer natural light, but saying that, it is an option which I always have at the back of my mind. I do have a thing tho’, about an image being true to the natural world, and that obviously includes lighting.
Right Andrew now your turn. My hat off to you. You are the first, who has ever called my bluff about posting images. It is easy to criticise an image, but that doesn’t mean that you can also produce the goods, does it. So even with the credit crunch being what it is, I’ll join, and let others have a crack at me. By the way, never be afraid to ask, I know you aren’t, as invariably behind every image that is posted, on this forum and others, there is always something going on in the “shadows”. Pun intended.
Re flash photography. I don’t think this is the thread for it, so I’ll post a thread where I’ll explain a few of the things which I do, including remote supports etc..
To those of you I haven’t mentioned, I respect your opinions, as I hope you do mine.
Finally, question both your own photography and the images you see on the various forums, that is the only way you and others will ever learn. Don’t go in for the platitudes.
It's easy to nit pick an image and a lot more difficult to take a good one especially of this species. I like it John, wish it was mine!
David
P.S. We often read Ray's 'Masterclass' so really looking forward to some images from him!
Lighten up Ray -its just a picture of a bird for goodness sake.
Could you perhaps show me some of your pics so I can get my settings right . I am learning all the time but I haven't got that long left.
Cheers
John
Re your picture, I honestly think that there is every chance that you could sell it, and the publisher wouldn’t notice the shadows, I also think that 98% of viewers wouldn’t either, but that doesn’t make it right, does it ??
Take out my initial comments and all the references to it, and you have just another image on the forum saying for example “Great image, wish it was mine”, nothing wrong with that, if its honestly meant.
But surely that isn’t what the forum is all about. Those who contribute/lurk want to be in the remaining 2% as photographers, or at least be aware as to what to look for in any image.
Images are posted for honest criticisms to be made, and as a result the author learns, and progresses. Now when I read the last entry on this post, there were 344 views, with 21 comments by 17 members, including ours. Lets say that the 344 views represent 20+ lurkers following the thread, in the hope of learning something. Isn’t this what it is all about, learning from the posting of each others images and comments ???
Invariably when I comment, I have at the back of my mind that, other than the author, others will be reading what is written.
Referring to one of my above statements, and I quote: “I believe John uses a 300, this together with the acute angle he invariably shoots at, tells me that he in right on top of the pool. I haven’t seen any shots of his set-up, but if a square hide is used, and for example is under trees then all this could easily contribute to the pool being in shadow, subdued light, for most of the time.” There was a subtle point here.
On a piece of paper draw a rectangle 52 units high and 39 wide, if memory serves a “Fensman” was/is 52 inches high, taking the bottom right corner measure back 52 units, midway between these points go up 54 units, between these three points draw the profile of a dome hide. From the front corner place a mark at the approximate position of the centre of your pool. From this point, draw a line tangentially to the “Dome” profile, now parallel to this draw another line from the top right corner of the “Fensman”, you can now see what effect just the design of the hide can have, on the amount of light falling onto your “killing zone”. Now in your minds eye look to at the difference in the amount of shadow which will be transversing the whole area as the sun travels across the sky. One last point, draw a line from the “centre” of your pool to the top of the “Fensman”, now look at the height of the sun has to be to illuminate the “pool”, don’t forget that you are also tending, if not totally, to loose your side lighting.
John, send me a few grab shots of your hide/pool, one from behind, wide angle, and a side on shot, plus pool to hide one, with the direction of the sun at mid day relative to the hide/pool. Then we are both talking from the same song sheet, so to speak.
Re seeing some of my shots, joined last night, so give me a day or two.
John, everyday we hopefully learn something new, if we don’t then my father said it was a wasted day.
Now about this “not long left”, I’m not that far behind you, and according to the male line of genealogy in my family, I’m already on borrowed time.
Sorry if I went on about the shadows re hides everyone, any questions just ask.
Never forget all comments made are the writers opinions and should be treated accordingly.. Hopefully tho’, there is some substance to them, backed up by experience.