Need C&C site

[chauncey]

I've been doing this photography thing as a hobby for about 3 years now and I still can't "see" what makes a good image.

The technical aspects aren't the problem, it's that lack of vision that does me in. They look more like well done snapshots.

What I'm looking for is a credible site that would do a C&C of the RAW images that I've amassed,
to tell me which ones would be worthy of Photoshop work or to send to the delete file.

This would be a service and I would expect to provide compensation for services rendered if I was convinced of the competency of those providing the service.

Any direction would be appreciated. :confused:

[chauncey]

Any help here?

[Naturalist]

FWIW, I've always felt that a "good image" is one that either brings out an emotion from the viewer or at least causes them to pause and look deeper into it.

I also feel there are different criteria for different types of photos when determining if it is a good image. Portrait photographers look at the lighting, background separation, pose, etc. whereas a documentary photographer would have a different set of criteria, as would a nature photographer.

What kind of camera work do you do?

As for a credibal site to review your work, I think you found one here. Have you tried locating a camera club in your area? This would also allow much feedback.

[Gentleman Villain]

I've never shot wildlife in my entire life...but I do understand something about composition.

You're catching the birds and wildlife in some great moments! I can tell that you really love the wildlife. It looks like you have a good eye for "anticipation" and seem to read what the wildlife is going to do next. That's awesome! You're showing a lot of love and an ability to anticipate.

So I think your idea is sound...I actually think your problem is technical. I think your issues are the reverse of what you think they are...

The #1 problem I see in your photographs is that the background is too distracting and the animals are not filling the frame. I think that if you were to come in tighter on the animals and let them fill the frame...And blur the background further so that it doesn't distract from the animals....then your images would start looking like fashionable wildlife pictures instead of "snapshots."

The animals are the stars of the show in your photographs. The environment is just a prop supporting the stars. So you want to come in tighter on the animals to show them off more...and you want to blur the background out so that it doesn't distract from the stars of the show.

I don't know what kind of gear you're using but I think you need to get in tighter and shoot at a shallower DOF. So it might require a longer focal length lens and faster lens than you're already shooting.

[Gentleman Villain]

Here's an example:

You caught the bird in a beautiful moment....And there is a gorgeous reflection of the bird in the water. But the best part of the picture is only a TEENY TINY portion of the overall shot. There's all this distracting foliage and leaveless branches that are taking away from the star of the shot...

This would have been a great shot if you had come in tighter on the bird and the reflection and cut out all that other distracting stuff....

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii176/ConsensusTrance/fashion.jpg

This may sound strange but I look at good wildlife photography as being similar to swimsuit photography. Bikini pictures usually feature beautiful models photographed on the beach with very long lenses at shallow DOF. The long lenses compress the background so that it doesn't distract from the bikini model. And the shallow DOF turns the colors into a beautiful blur and makes the bikini model "pop" out of the picture.

It might be good to start treating the wildlife like little fashion models. Give them the beauty treatment...come in a little tighter on them....fill the frame with the subject....shoot them with longer lenses and more shallow DOF. Shoot the birds like they are little bikini models :)

Just some thoughts...good luck with your photography.

[chauncey]

Gentleman Villain, it took you some time to dig that image out and I appreciate the time it took, as well as the commentary.
The crop that you suggested, as ideal as it is, would not allow sufficient pixels for a decent sized print.
My technical brain assumed that showing the bird in its environment would make a better image, can't 'see' other options.
The 300mm lens was the longest that I have and could not get closer.

Naturalist, I use a Ds3 encompassing 17-300mm lenses.

The adequate images that I do have are the result of the "blind squirrel will occasionally find a acorn" scenario.
And I don't have a clue as to which ones are the acorns

[DStanic]

I have the same problem- don't know what are good and what are bad. Well more like I don't know what are good (I think I can filter out most of the bad ones). I have hardly any photos posted on the walls in my home, sad considering I've put over 10k shots on my camera over the last year. But for some reason, I just like to keep on shooting!

[Gentleman Villain]

Gentleman Villain, it took you some time to dig that image out and I appreciate the time it took, as well as the commentary.
The crop that you suggested, as ideal as it is, would not allow sufficient pixels for a decent sized print.

Yep, I totally understand that. That's why I said the problem is technical and not ideological. You actually found the picture but it's just not executed correctly. The bird looks great but it's just in a distracting environment. That's why the image has a snapshot quality.

If you want to improve your pictures...You've gotta isolate the subject better. That's pretty much all you need to do...everything else looks great.


My technical brain assumed that showing the bird in its environment would make a better image, can't 'see' other options.

Longer lens and shallow DOF still shows the environment, but it takes away the distractions. There only needs to be a small amount of environment to give the subject a sense of place. But the surroundings should never overpower the subject. Right now, almost all of your images contain environments that overpower the subject. That is easily fixed by coming in tighter and shooting with a more shallow DOF



The 300mm lens was the longest that I have and could not get closer.

Naturalist, I use a Ds3 encompassing 17-300mm lenses.

That's definitely a technical problem to me. You need a longer lens and the ability to get tighter on the subject. :) Sorry man...it stinks because gear is expensive.... But I'm telling ya that gear is probably what's limiting you. You're capturing awesome moments and you've got beautiful subjects ....the idea behind the picture is perfect. The only problem is that you're too far away from the subject. That's it...it's a technical problem. The good news is that technical problems are easy to solve. Talent is the hard part....technical problems are easy. You've already got the talent so now it's just a matter of getting the technique to match the talent.


The adequate images that I do have are the result of the "blind squirrel will occasionally find a acorn" scenario.
And I don't have a clue as to which ones are the acorns

I really like Kristen Westlakes wildlife photography:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lxC9dXPs5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD6Zw5r91P4

Take a look at her images....ALL of her images contain subjects that fill the frame and the background is heavily blurred. She's using a very long lens with a shallow DOF.

The only difference between you and her is that her background is controlled and her subject is tight in the frame. Otherwise, you're every bit as good as her IMHO

Anyhow....Good luck Chauncey....I can see plain as day what's holding you back...it's not talent...it's a matter of technique and it could just be a matter of picking up some more gear. Don't get discouraged...you've got talent...it's just a matter of coming in closer and controlling the background a bit more.

[LeuceDeuce]

I'll chime in reinforcing what's been said here already. I've seen several of your heron shots, and the best thing you could do to improve them is to get closer. If you can't physically get closer, then you need a longer lens.

You've already mentioned in other threads that this is the same bird day in day out, and that it's always at this location. Odds are pretty good that you'll have a successful trip if you rent a longer lens for the day. Much cheaper than purchasing one, and you'll be able to see how much your image of the heron improves at a fraction of the cost.

[chauncey]

You humble me gentlemen with your comments, I will take them to heart.

Thank you. :)

[Gentleman Villain]

Cool man :)