-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Critique Please (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rka
- Start date
birdman
Орнитол&
That is a stunning bird, rka!
As a photograph, the most obvious "problem" to my eye is the white arched branch (?) in the background.
That aside, I think the composition works really well.
It could be argued that the bird is too small and too central, but I think it is such a vivid contrast that it works.
I have, I hope you don't mind, also cropped your picture to something of a little more unusual dimension, which I think also has appeal.
As a photograph, the most obvious "problem" to my eye is the white arched branch (?) in the background.
That aside, I think the composition works really well.
It could be argued that the bird is too small and too central, but I think it is such a vivid contrast that it works.
I have, I hope you don't mind, also cropped your picture to something of a little more unusual dimension, which I think also has appeal.
Attachments
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
Hi
Apart from the white branch in the background I feel that the bird is too central in the frame, i have cropped the image to how i would have composed the shot. The bird itself needs space to look/move into hence the placing on the left of the image as the bird is facing right, this also enables you to keep the trunk of the tree in shot, by doing this the branch the bird is on is conected and not floating in space, helping to hold the bird in conection with its habitat.
nigel
Apart from the white branch in the background I feel that the bird is too central in the frame, i have cropped the image to how i would have composed the shot. The bird itself needs space to look/move into hence the placing on the left of the image as the bird is facing right, this also enables you to keep the trunk of the tree in shot, by doing this the branch the bird is on is conected and not floating in space, helping to hold the bird in conection with its habitat.
nigel
Attachments
IanF
Moderator
Hi rka,
Exposure wise this shot is spot on and likewise for sharp focus on the main subject. It's just the composition that really lets it down. Better framing could have made this a great shot. Really though the only things wrong are that the subject is a little too small in the field of view leaving looking a little lost. If the bird had been looking to the left instead then it would have been better to have cropped it say from the trunk across to almost the end of the branch, though a litle deeper than what Birdman shows. I have to agree with Nigel's summation of the way that cropping would improve it in that it's definitely preferable to have a little more room in the direction that the bird is looking and likewise the comments about the branch.
I feel I'd like to give it more but I awarded One Star. Technically it's god, but just that composition.
Exposure wise this shot is spot on and likewise for sharp focus on the main subject. It's just the composition that really lets it down. Better framing could have made this a great shot. Really though the only things wrong are that the subject is a little too small in the field of view leaving looking a little lost. If the bird had been looking to the left instead then it would have been better to have cropped it say from the trunk across to almost the end of the branch, though a litle deeper than what Birdman shows. I have to agree with Nigel's summation of the way that cropping would improve it in that it's definitely preferable to have a little more room in the direction that the bird is looking and likewise the comments about the branch.
I feel I'd like to give it more but I awarded One Star. Technically it's god, but just that composition.
birdman
Орнитол&
I can't believe I'm going to argue with Nigel - you should see some of his shots, rka! You should go to his website right away!!!
But... Nigel... isnt' the composition of the shot dependent upon its use?
I think we are all agreed that the white branch could go, but perhaps all three images serve different purposes.
In my VERY UNTALENTED opinion - I think rka's original gives some idea of the "wilderness factor". Of course, there might have been a thousand of these fellas just out of shot, but I get a feeling of remoteness from the photo. And as I said earlier, I think the vividness of the bird perhaps overcomes its size and postion in the photo.
On the other hand, your composition is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a birding magazine. Let me stress, Nigel, I have never been anything less than awe-struck by any of your work, and can only dream of being so good, but would you not agree that you would compose photos in a different way for different circumstances.
Your cropping of rka's shot seems to obey all the rules - the subject is prominent without being too large, the background is neutral and doesn't distract fom the bird, the bird is looking into the frame and is well positioned, the photo is the right shape etc. etc.
But if I have any criticism with the type of photo you get in magazine and guides, it's that they are sometimes so good, that you get the impression that the birds are ten a penny, and that any point-and-click merchant could do the same thing.
Unfair criticism in the context, I know, but I don't get the same feeling of remoteness.
As for my cropping - I could here as I was doing it the voices saying "it's facing the wrong way!".
But I think it works as an image - again helped by the vividness of the bird. I don't think it's superior in any way to the original, but just a different take on the photo - and I deliberately tried not to crop it "guide-book" style. Also, the slightly unusual dimensions took advantage of the branch shape, although I would have prefered a tidier branch.
If all this is anathema Nigel (and IanF and rka and anyone else) then please shoot me down in flames - but I would be happy to hear all opinions.
But... Nigel... isnt' the composition of the shot dependent upon its use?
I think we are all agreed that the white branch could go, but perhaps all three images serve different purposes.
In my VERY UNTALENTED opinion - I think rka's original gives some idea of the "wilderness factor". Of course, there might have been a thousand of these fellas just out of shot, but I get a feeling of remoteness from the photo. And as I said earlier, I think the vividness of the bird perhaps overcomes its size and postion in the photo.
On the other hand, your composition is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a birding magazine. Let me stress, Nigel, I have never been anything less than awe-struck by any of your work, and can only dream of being so good, but would you not agree that you would compose photos in a different way for different circumstances.
Your cropping of rka's shot seems to obey all the rules - the subject is prominent without being too large, the background is neutral and doesn't distract fom the bird, the bird is looking into the frame and is well positioned, the photo is the right shape etc. etc.
But if I have any criticism with the type of photo you get in magazine and guides, it's that they are sometimes so good, that you get the impression that the birds are ten a penny, and that any point-and-click merchant could do the same thing.
Unfair criticism in the context, I know, but I don't get the same feeling of remoteness.
As for my cropping - I could here as I was doing it the voices saying "it's facing the wrong way!".
But I think it works as an image - again helped by the vividness of the bird. I don't think it's superior in any way to the original, but just a different take on the photo - and I deliberately tried not to crop it "guide-book" style. Also, the slightly unusual dimensions took advantage of the branch shape, although I would have prefered a tidier branch.
If all this is anathema Nigel (and IanF and rka and anyone else) then please shoot me down in flames - but I would be happy to hear all opinions.
Last edited:
rka
ttbirds
Hi Sylvia,
It's a Yellow Oriole. Also I did not modify the photograph with any tools. I ensured that the lovely little bird and immediate surroundings were in focus.
The picture truly reflects what was seen - one striking yellow bird by itself in a tree located at the border of a forest (the blurred background).
Nice to see the different perspectives on the picture.
I can see I will learn a lot here.
rka
It's a Yellow Oriole. Also I did not modify the photograph with any tools. I ensured that the lovely little bird and immediate surroundings were in focus.
The picture truly reflects what was seen - one striking yellow bird by itself in a tree located at the border of a forest (the blurred background).
Nice to see the different perspectives on the picture.
I can see I will learn a lot here.
rka
ivewalmer
Well-known member
I just thought that I'd make a second "complete idiot" contributing to this thread! I have yet to ever produce a photo with any great intrinsic worth either as a portrait of a species or as a "habitat shot" as I would describe the image that I am now having the cheek to comment on.
However for my money RKAs image is superbly evocative of a species in it's habitat (well I assume it's in it's habitat - i've never seen Yellow Oriole!). And I guess that's what's so handy with what we can all relatively easily do with images nowdays. First we have a superb, moody "habitat shot" and then with a bit of cropping (and I guess losing a lot of pixels) we have a species portrait. Take one shot get one free!
I do wonder though that as the megapixels on our cameras get higher and higher whether the temptation to crop close in to the birds will reduce the possibility of seeing the wildlife in it's environment. I hope not and hope people post such pictures (as I sure don't see many good uns appearing on my PC when I download my latest set of pics!!).
Ivan
However for my money RKAs image is superbly evocative of a species in it's habitat (well I assume it's in it's habitat - i've never seen Yellow Oriole!). And I guess that's what's so handy with what we can all relatively easily do with images nowdays. First we have a superb, moody "habitat shot" and then with a bit of cropping (and I guess losing a lot of pixels) we have a species portrait. Take one shot get one free!
I do wonder though that as the megapixels on our cameras get higher and higher whether the temptation to crop close in to the birds will reduce the possibility of seeing the wildlife in it's environment. I hope not and hope people post such pictures (as I sure don't see many good uns appearing on my PC when I download my latest set of pics!!).
Ivan
dahyon
Well-known member
This image is most evocative.
Most of the elements are in place, my one distraction is that bright arc stopping the eye from being drawn to the subject. I have cloned some tree into that area and blended it into the background tone. The image is much stronger without that arc.
Most of the elements are in place, my one distraction is that bright arc stopping the eye from being drawn to the subject. I have cloned some tree into that area and blended it into the background tone. The image is much stronger without that arc.
Attachments
I like a challenge and I like the original picture, so here is my suggetions. The contrast between the yellow bird and the surroundings are vital to the picture, but the bird is too central and the white arch is disturbing. The green leaves are framing the bird beautifully and must not be left out.
I choose to crop the picture at the top and left, to move the bird to obey the rule of thirds. Then I use the dodge tool to lighten the right side a bit and the burn tool to darken the remainder of the white arch.
Regards
Jens Erik Nygaard
I choose to crop the picture at the top and left, to move the bird to obey the rule of thirds. Then I use the dodge tool to lighten the right side a bit and the burn tool to darken the remainder of the white arch.
Regards
Jens Erik Nygaard
