Breaking surface (Kingfisher) + repost

Does this one work? I certainly hope so as I've entered it for a local camera club set subject ('Water') competition and would appreciate members' views on the composition/overall effect.

Incidentally, this is just a re-size of the A3 print version and has not been processed specifically for the web so please excuse any processing deficiences.

Thanks for looking

Taken with Canon EOS30D and Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens at 200mm, f/2.8, 1/200th sec, ISO800

Jeff

I really like it as a pure abstract - the Kingfisher is almost incidental. The colours are nice and the shutter speed freezes the action well enough without losing the sense of movement. I perhaps would consider increasing the blue/green saturation to bring the head feathers out a touch. I think the judge tomorrow (we shall see!) may be a bit concerned about the bright ripples near the edge of the frame drawing the eye away - I don't know whether there is any cropping wiggle room or not.

Andy

Hi Jeff,

not too sure about this one

For me there is a bit too much blur on the head but good luck with the comp

I wish you good luck for the competition, but unless judges have changed somewhat over the years, I would not dare predict how one will react to this shot. Personally, I like it.

David

Camera club judges are a funny bunch and I've largely given up predicting what they will like or dislike on the whole. They do like novelty, as in images that they haven't seen before, so this should score well there. But they tend to dislike lack of sharpness and conflicting areas of brightness for which I think you'll lose marks here. For me you have an in-between shutter speed here - not fast enough to freeze the kingfisher or water droplets but not slow enough to give a pleasing blur. So I'd expect a good kicking from the judge.

The good news is that on the path to greatness, the best photographers tend to get dissatified with the very conventional viewpoint held by many camera club judges, and forge their own path making images for themselves. Perhaps you are on that path

I basicaly would like to echo Andy's comment

I'm gonna come back to this one Jeff as I can't make up my mind

Andy...

This is a challenging image and one which I would want to exhibit were it mine.

I am of mixed feelings about this one Jeff. Just can't make my mind up but I think to see a clear and sharp head would work to your advantage.

Fran

I like it and different,don't know if you tryed or had this image in your head before hand but the end result works very well IMO Jeff

I've got to say jeff that it doesn't work for me but as been said, judges are a funny bunch so good luck. Always worth trying something different.

based on our judges I get hammered entering Wildlife images that dont conform to POF , ROT's, lead lines etc .
As you've already entered it , I'd be intrigued as to the outcome. Its certainly different .

Thanks for all the feedback so far folks - much appreciated

As I expected, some like it and some don't.

I thinks Andy's opening comment hits the nail on the head in terms of what I was trying to achieve - "I really like it as a pure abstract - the Kingfisher is almost incidental".

Given that the set subject is 'Water' - meaning ( I think?) that water should be the main feature of the image rather than anything in it, on it, over it, under it or even reflected in it - I looked through all my Kingfisher diving/emerging shots (and I've got quite a lot!) for one in which the bird is, as Andy put it, "incidental" to the image rather than the main feature of it. In that sense, I think the first one fits the bill - although it's pretty obvious what it is and the bird adds some colour and movement to the image, it's the water and the bird's effect on it which remains as the main feature of the image.

Or am I perhaps trying to be too clever given, as several of you have intimated, the very subjective nature of judging images and the inconsistencies between camera club competition judges that we have all witnessed

Although I've already entered the title as 'Breaking surface (Kingfisher)' I suppose I could make a late substitution of something more conventional - as this one for example - but does it meet the 'Water' criteria given that the bird is now very clearly the main feature of the image?

Or should I stick with the unconventional and continue "on the path to greatness" (as Duncan says - I really like that thought ) - at least until I get a kicking from the judge

Decisions, decisions

As ever, your further thoughts, advice, comments and critique are most welcome.

PS. This one was taken with Canon EOS30D, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lens with 1.4x TC at 280mm, f/4.0, 1/1000th sec, ISO 400

I don't think I can really help Jeff. I am not really into abstracts and I find the first image very "busy". The second image I really like. Okay the Kingfisher is centrefold but it is still portraying water. Got to be a lot more interesting than a "millpond". Good luck anyway.

Thanks Maggie - I think you may be right

Well for me the second one doesn't portray water, although I know a broad view is often taken of these things. On my work monitor the KF head looks quite dark on the 2nd one too.