I might be wrong here, but are you using a mirror lens here ?? As the last time I remember seeing rings like this, was from the use a mirror lens, they create such rings when they pick up highlights, such as you get from water droplets etc..
Other than the above, I think you have two main problems here.
Firstly the light, with a dark headed subject you need the light coming from you to subject, if only to get the eye and that all important sparkle in a shot.
Now viewpoint, I think you were too low. Let me explain.
I would first consider cropping off the foreground, due to the low angle.
Take your mouse, click and hold down the left hand button, when over the top bar of this window, this allows you to move the window around the screen, now use the edges of your monitor to simulate cropping. Move the image down so as to mask out the foreground, see what I mean ??
But now you need more space for those virtual feet. So I would have considered a slightly higher viewpoint. Say 10/15 degrees from the horizontal, this would also give you better use of you DOF.
Take your mouse mat, and place it against the edge of your desk vertically. The width of the mat is your DOF. Now pivot it away from the vertical, you will notice that the width of the mat, effectively your usable DOF is increasing. I think the maximum practical DOF, would be when it is at 45 degrees, an increase of upto 20% with no change of “f” stop.
I hope I haven’t offended you, as this is a very good capture, looking at the detail that I’m seeing, and image size, and that the Turnstone is so relaxed. Not many can get this close. I think that you have a good eye for a photograph.
Posted by eric weight on February 5, 2009 at 1:04 AM
A 'nearly but not quite right' shot for me too I'm afraid.
For me the bird is lost in shadow and the fg is too intrusive. I would agree with Ray's suggestions of a higher PoV and better lighting. Although you could brighten it up in Photoshop, I think it would not do much for the overall quality.
I also agree with Ray about your eye for an image. I have enjoyed your previous posts, so it's just one that never quite made it for me. Eric
Posted by David Sewell on February 5, 2009 at 4:32 AM
I am not sure that I agree with Ray about it looking like a mirror lens, as far as I recall they produced halos that looked like ring doughnuts - not quite the effect here. This shot could be improved by use of the shadows/highlights command in Photoshop, but I do think that the POV was just a little too low for the terrain. Like the others, I have enjoyed and appreciated your previous posts, but I do not think this one is quite up to your usual standard.
Some different side lighting and intersting droplets in the back ground,I can see what you were trying to achieve but not quite worked but interesting none the less.
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Posted by Dawn Monrose on February 5, 2009 at 5:02 AM
This is an interesting shot. I agree with David here - the circular highlights are not caused by a mirror lens, a mirror lens causes ring doughnut shaped highlights, which is a very strange effect. When that happened to me, that was the very last time I ever touched a mirror lens!
I like the setting and the highlights giving a sparkly effect. The image would work really well if the turnstone had it's head up and with more eye contact. Then all you need is a little more light thrown into the bird, a tiny pop of flash perhaps, or a tweak in levels. Not to lose the backlighting as I think that makes the image.
For me, this is an image with potential!
Posted by Barry Southon on February 5, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Marek
An interesting shot whilst I'm unable to contribute on the techs I find it useful reading the comments and advice offered thanks for sharing.
Whilst we see plenty of great shots all the others also add a great source for information.
Ray,dont worry,you dont offend me,I like your comments,but I dont quite agree witch you,
fFrst problem-light-I can agree is to sharp,I should take this photo 10 or 20 minutes before,but I like when light come from subject to me I know-this is not to popular,but I like try do something different. It can give good and unusual effect(for example rings like on this photo)In next post I give you small example,I send two captures Red Backed Shrike,see it,and tell me ,wchich is better for you.
Second problem,angle.Maybe you are right,maybe not,I am not sure is this good photo ,but I am sure this capture is different from hundreds photos from Salthouse
thanks for comments
marek
p.s.sorry for my english
Marek
First: Re “sorry for my English”, your English is a damn site better than my Polish, I have to have a second screen open with a “word” document window open, to write comments first and to check my spelling and grammar, and I’m English, well half English, my father was Canadian. Many say that this explains a lot..
You say “but I don’t quite agree with you,” That is great, we should always be open to questioning, both our own work and ourselves, it is how we all progress and learn.
I would never advocate any one method, be it backlighting or anything else, circumstance frequently dictates composition. When on a shoot, I’ve found from experience, that it is best to take as many different images, composition wise, as possible. It is amazing what a few years down the road a publisher would ask for. But as you are aware, be prepared for comments which are not necessarily in line with what you are thinking. Comments are passed on the image as posted, with no other information than what is supplied. Never forget that those who are commenting were not there. But do keep trying to do different things, and make us all start thinking differently.
When I next have an opportunity, which should be Monday, I intend to do a sketch showing different angles when shooting low, with regard to depth of field. You never know it might be of interest to some.
Now this business with the circular highlights, I find it very intriguing. As I said the effect reminded me of Mirror lenses as I used to get exactly the same when using either my 500 or 1100 (Russian) lenses, they are now both collecting dust.
You say “Second problem, angle. Maybe you are right, maybe not,” what I think is relatively unimportant, it is in the end what you thing and if you enjoyed taking it and then viewing it.
I look forward to see your shrike shot, I really do not have no preconceived ideas about any image, it all depends on the situation as to what is best. I just speak the truth as I see it, which has been known to get me into a lot of hotwater on occasions.
Discussion
9 repliesOne from Norfolk
regards Marek
I might be wrong here, but are you using a mirror lens here ?? As the last time I remember seeing rings like this, was from the use a mirror lens, they create such rings when they pick up highlights, such as you get from water droplets etc..
Other than the above, I think you have two main problems here.
Firstly the light, with a dark headed subject you need the light coming from you to subject, if only to get the eye and that all important sparkle in a shot.
Now viewpoint, I think you were too low. Let me explain.
I would first consider cropping off the foreground, due to the low angle.
Take your mouse, click and hold down the left hand button, when over the top bar of this window, this allows you to move the window around the screen, now use the edges of your monitor to simulate cropping. Move the image down so as to mask out the foreground, see what I mean ??
But now you need more space for those virtual feet. So I would have considered a slightly higher viewpoint. Say 10/15 degrees from the horizontal, this would also give you better use of you DOF.
Take your mouse mat, and place it against the edge of your desk vertically. The width of the mat is your DOF. Now pivot it away from the vertical, you will notice that the width of the mat, effectively your usable DOF is increasing. I think the maximum practical DOF, would be when it is at 45 degrees, an increase of upto 20% with no change of “f” stop.
I hope I haven’t offended you, as this is a very good capture, looking at the detail that I’m seeing, and image size, and that the Turnstone is so relaxed. Not many can get this close. I think that you have a good eye for a photograph.
For me the bird is lost in shadow and the fg is too intrusive. I would agree with Ray's suggestions of a higher PoV and better lighting. Although you could brighten it up in Photoshop, I think it would not do much for the overall quality.
I also agree with Ray about your eye for an image. I have enjoyed your previous posts, so it's just one that never quite made it for me.
David
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
I like the setting and the highlights giving a sparkly effect. The image would work really well if the turnstone had it's head up and with more eye contact. Then all you need is a little more light thrown into the bird, a tiny pop of flash perhaps, or a tweak in levels. Not to lose the backlighting as I think that makes the image.
For me, this is an image with potential!
An interesting shot whilst I'm unable to contribute on the techs I find it useful reading the comments and advice offered thanks for sharing.
Whilst we see plenty of great shots all the others also add a great source for information.
Barry
fFrst problem-light-I can agree is to sharp,I should take this photo 10 or 20 minutes before,but I like when light come from subject to me I know-this is not to popular,but I like try do something different. It can give good and unusual effect(for example rings like on this photo)In next post I give you small example,I send two captures Red Backed Shrike,see it,and tell me ,wchich is better for you.
Second problem,angle.Maybe you are right,maybe not,I am not sure is this good photo ,but I am sure this capture is different from hundreds photos from Salthouse
thanks for comments
marek
p.s.sorry for my english
First: Re “sorry for my English”, your English is a damn site better than my Polish, I have to have a second screen open with a “word” document window open, to write comments first and to check my spelling and grammar, and I’m English, well half English, my father was Canadian. Many say that this explains a lot..
You say “but I don’t quite agree with you,” That is great, we should always be open to questioning, both our own work and ourselves, it is how we all progress and learn.
I would never advocate any one method, be it backlighting or anything else, circumstance frequently dictates composition. When on a shoot, I’ve found from experience, that it is best to take as many different images, composition wise, as possible. It is amazing what a few years down the road a publisher would ask for. But as you are aware, be prepared for comments which are not necessarily in line with what you are thinking. Comments are passed on the image as posted, with no other information than what is supplied. Never forget that those who are commenting were not there. But do keep trying to do different things, and make us all start thinking differently.
When I next have an opportunity, which should be Monday, I intend to do a sketch showing different angles when shooting low, with regard to depth of field. You never know it might be of interest to some.
Now this business with the circular highlights, I find it very intriguing. As I said the effect reminded me of Mirror lenses as I used to get exactly the same when using either my 500 or 1100 (Russian) lenses, they are now both collecting dust.
You say “Second problem, angle. Maybe you are right, maybe not,” what I think is relatively unimportant, it is in the end what you thing and if you enjoyed taking it and then viewing it.
I look forward to see your shrike shot, I really do not have no preconceived ideas about any image, it all depends on the situation as to what is best. I just speak the truth as I see it, which has been known to get me into a lot of hotwater on occasions.
Looking forward to seeing more of your images.