Posted by Ian Mason on December 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM
1D Mk iv, 70-200mm f2.8 @ 155mm, 1/250s, f2.8, iso 800.
Still getting them trained I would have changed the perch, but it was frozen solid this morning. Cloned out small artificial perch.
Posted by David Sewell on December 2, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Sorry, Ian, but that perch has got to go! I like the reflection, and the overall composition though.
David
Posted by Paul Whippey on December 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Superb photo Ian, the perch doesn't bother me much. I'd maybe remove the left most protrusion below the bird if possible? I can see this setup is really working well!
Posted by John Robinson on December 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Hi Ian
No I won't mention the unowot! I think its pretty well known that I have phobia about reflections and have spent years trying to avoid them.As I have said many times - having to include all the reflection makes the main subject size 50% less which I feel is detrimental. Good to see a different approach though ( well it has been done by a few), but I just feel that we would never actually see a bird from this angle and to me it doesnt seem to gell. Just my personal opinions
Nice enough picture and all that.
Cheers
JohnR
Posted by Phil Ellard on December 2, 2011 at 1:43 PM
I think your set up is great, transforming a common subject into something special.
Posted by Neil Burton on December 3, 2011 at 3:22 AM
I like it lots but the perch needs some modification (like get rig of the bit hanging down).
Posted by Bob Johnson on December 3, 2011 at 3:41 AM
I am a fan of reflections and this one is a good one. What is it in the birds beak though and did you consider removing it?
Bob
Posted by Ian Mason on December 3, 2011 at 4:41 AM
Thanks all
Bob
What is it in the birds beak
I presume it's something from one of the feeders
did you consider removing it?
Interesting question!! Clearly I am not averse to cloning as I took out a small part of the feeder perch. I did indeed consider removing it. I suppose one has to best guess the preferences of the intended viewer. For "natural history" competitions, cloning is outlawed other than for "minor distractions" (depending on the competition!!). If I intended to either print this for my own use, or to sell it (for charity, as I do for The Stroke Association), I would have removed it. For this forum, I considered any part of a perch to be out of the question, whereas some "dirt" on the bird to be reasonable. On the other hand you see many prints for public sale that include the whole perch! On reflection however, I should have paid more attention to the cloning I did when presenting here, as it could have been done a lot better! Whether this is acceptable of course is open to debate.
Hi Ian a very nice image, but the bit of background between the legs needs doing and there is a bit on the right side of the perch that needs blurring to, to match the background.
I've got no problem tidying up slight distractions in a photo as long as you are not changing the overall image. If it were mine I don't think I would follow Phil's suggestion of blurring out the frozen ripple (?) on the RHS as that is how it appears. Although I can see what JR is getting at I actually like the viewpoint. Something however doesn't quite sit right to my eye Ian. I mentioned it on your earlier post but the overall setting just seems a bit wrong for this bird. It's probably just me (almost certainly) and the way my mind recalls how I'm used to seeing them.
Having just looked at the image again I now know what is throwing me . . . . . . the background resembles those painted canvas backgrounds that portrait studios always used to use during the eighties, making the bird appear to my eye as having been shot in a studio. So, like I said earlier, it's just my dodgy old thought processes so ignore me.
Posted by Ian Mason on December 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM
Thanks Rob
You're not far off the mark regarding the background. The natural background is shrubs and grass, which can be fine, but can also throw up unsightly highlights when it is sunny. In this case you are looking at an OOF canvas hide (advantage pattern) to obscure the shrubs. I'll keep experimenting. All great fun by the way!
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Very different image Ian. The perch is a little odd in its shape but I really like the concept. The backgound is superb apart from the OOF highlights (have the same problem with evergreen climbers at the back of my feeding station). If you can get a true mirror image I think it will be simply stunning. Keep trying sir!
Nick.
Posted by Matt Cole on December 5, 2011 at 6:26 AM
I think your set-up has lots of potential Ian. My only minor criticism of this shot would be that the perch looks a little unnatural in the sense that you wouldn't normally see a stick like this, complete with lichen, growing out of water. But keep at it, I'm looking forward to seeing more.
Discussion
15 repliesStill getting them trained
David
No I won't mention the unowot!
Nice enough picture and all that.
Cheers
JohnR
Oscar
It's got the lot don't change a thing,excellent.
Keith.
Bob
Bob
I presume it's something from one of the feeders
Interesting question!! Clearly I am not averse to cloning as I took out a small part of the feeder perch. I did indeed consider removing it. I suppose one has to best guess the preferences of the intended viewer. For "natural history" competitions, cloning is outlawed other than for "minor distractions" (depending on the competition!!). If I intended to either print this for my own use, or to sell it (for charity, as I do for The Stroke Association), I would have removed it. For this forum, I considered any part of a perch to be out of the question, whereas some "dirt" on the bird to be reasonable. On the other hand you see many prints for public sale that include the whole perch! On reflection however, I should have paid more attention to the cloning I did when presenting here, as it could have been done a lot better! Whether this is acceptable of course is open to debate.
Phil.
Having just looked at the image again I now know what is throwing me . . . . . . the background resembles those painted canvas backgrounds that portrait studios always used to use during the eighties, making the bird appear to my eye as having been shot in a studio. So, like I said earlier, it's just my dodgy old thought processes so ignore me.
You're not far off the mark regarding the background. The natural background is shrubs and grass, which can be fine, but can also throw up unsightly highlights when it is sunny. In this case you are looking at an OOF canvas hide (advantage pattern) to obscure the shrubs. I'll keep experimenting. All great fun by the way!
Nick.
Matt