Posted by Barry Southon on March 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Can I just seek opinions on this effort which was slightly earlier than my last post.
Canon 1D3 Canon 800mm ISO800 F/11 1/1000sec tripod. I tend to take a large number of frames with slight changes perhaps too many.
RAW to lightroom and resized to post. The larger image holds the colour and has greater impact in my opinion and the cranes on the lighter colours helps.
Critique advice and comments most welcome.
Thanks for looking.
Posted by Barry Southon on March 24, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Within the hour the light had reverted to grey with blue patches but cranes were flying in all directions a flight planning nightmare.
Posted by Brett Lewis on March 25, 2010 at 5:19 AM
Hi Barry I can understand your dilemma and I want to be awkward and say somewhere in between these two images. The formation and detail of the birds in the repost together with the light of the first..? Now there's a challenge for you. Look for separation in the birds and lines that are as perpendicular to your shooting angle as possible. Keep them coming and it must be really nice to hear all the calling that must be going on.
Sorry Barry neither image does anything for me and if mine both would have been filed under the big B.
The first image is just too haphazard its neither a sunset nor a flock shot with the random placement of the Cranes.
The second one is just too dark so there is virtually no detail in the subjects, neither is it a silhouette style image with such a dark sky. In general birds flying away from you never have any impact or interest, and I'm afraid this falls into this category. For it to have worked there needed something for the Cranes to be flying into - either a nice big moon or sunset, but as a standalone image it is just not there.
The first one is really great, the lighting really makes it. The second I would have taken but I think that is as far as it would have gone, you need a “good” sky for these shots to really work.
Might I suggest you go onto some of the american forums, and “Google”, for example “Bosque Del Apache”, and you will see what works and what doesn’t, and more importantly why.
Posted by Kim Connolly on March 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM
I like the first one very much.
Posted by John Chapman on March 25, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Hi Barry, I am with Mike on this one.
Posted by Barry Southon on March 25, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Thank you for looking and taking time to comment.
I'm fully aware of the lack of artistic merit poor light etc what I was trying to invoke was critique and cure from advice.
Now as it happens I like the sunrise and the wonder it inspires the colours are as it was and it was my pleasure to witness and record.
Did I capture the moment I think I did. I'm not trying to sell any prints or suggest I know what I'm doing from a technical aspect I don't.
Why should I conform ? Who set the guidelines ? What's wrong with moving outside of the box ? Artist throughout history challenged the accepted format and look what resulted is photography different?
Perhaps I'm embarking on my photographic outings with the wrong attitude I could well be. As I recall Maggie commenting not so long ago, "if we all wore brown coats".
Perhaps my attitude contributes to my constant struggle who knows, I enjoy trying.
Posted by Duncan Armour on March 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM
There are elements of the first shot that I like but I think there is too much black at the bottom for my taste. Maybe shave some of that off - not much just a little, about 40 pixels at this size. Alternatively maybe rescue some of the detail in that shadow area with shadow hightlights although from close inspection there's a tower that's not so pretty in there. In an ideal world yes there would have been patterns in the flocks but you don't get everything you want some days.
I'm assuming that the second shot was posted to show how much the light had changed but it does look pretty underexposed making the second one look worse.
As far as the criticism goes I think people were quite honest in trying to show you why they didn't have the emotional response to the image that you do - but you have the advantage of having being there and so inevitably it does mean more too you. I think for most people the first image doesn't have enough of a pattern to appeal strongly to them. But if it wasn't there you couldn't shoot it could you !
try panoing the first by cropping so the bottom starts where the lhs ground starts and the top finishes where the light meets the cloud about 2/3 of the way up the rhs.
Discussion
11 repliesCanon 1D3 Canon 800mm ISO800 F/11 1/1000sec tripod. I tend to take a large number of frames with slight changes perhaps too many.
RAW to lightroom and resized to post. The larger image holds the colour and has greater impact in my opinion and the cranes on the lighter colours helps.
Critique advice and comments most welcome.
Thanks for looking.
Brett
The first image is just too haphazard its neither a sunset nor a flock shot with the random placement of the Cranes.
The second one is just too dark so there is virtually no detail in the subjects, neither is it a silhouette style image with such a dark sky. In general birds flying away from you never have any impact or interest, and I'm afraid this falls into this category. For it to have worked there needed something for the Cranes to be flying into - either a nice big moon or sunset, but as a standalone image it is just not there.
The first one is really great, the lighting really makes it. The second I would have taken but I think that is as far as it would have gone, you need a “good” sky for these shots to really work.
Might I suggest you go onto some of the american forums, and “Google”, for example “Bosque Del Apache”, and you will see what works and what doesn’t, and more importantly why.
Hope this helps.
Terri
I'm fully aware of the lack of artistic merit poor light etc what I was trying to invoke was critique and cure from advice.
Now as it happens I like the sunrise and the wonder it inspires the colours are as it was and it was my pleasure to witness and record.
Did I capture the moment I think I did. I'm not trying to sell any prints or suggest I know what I'm doing from a technical aspect I don't.
Why should I conform ? Who set the guidelines ? What's wrong with moving outside of the box ? Artist throughout history challenged the accepted format and look what resulted is photography different?
Perhaps I'm embarking on my photographic outings with the wrong attitude I could well be. As I recall Maggie commenting not so long ago, "if we all wore brown coats".
Perhaps my attitude contributes to my constant struggle who knows, I enjoy trying.
I'm assuming that the second shot was posted to show how much the light had changed but it does look pretty underexposed making the second one look worse.
As far as the criticism goes I think people were quite honest in trying to show you why they didn't have the emotional response to the image that you do - but you have the advantage of having being there and so inevitably it does mean more too you. I think for most people the first image doesn't have enough of a pattern to appeal strongly to them. But if it wasn't there you couldn't shoot it could you !
Anyway keep at it
try panoing the first by cropping so the bottom starts where the lhs ground starts and the top finishes where the light meets the cloud about 2/3 of the way up the rhs.
T