monarch and wood stork

Hey again.

As I mentioned in the Carolina wren and cattle egret post, I'm attaching two more unusual shots. While the prior two dealt with focus, these are unexpected in their compositions.

The first was taken last fall, hand held. Of course it's all about the angle which ignores the butterfly's wings and sort of turns the shot into a small landscape rather than a butterfly shot per se. This one I love.

The second is a wood stork, and, as it is such an odd (and prehistoric) looking bird, somehow I like the unusually extreme placement. I also really wanted to retain the palm trees and blue sky to the right to add depth and enhance the primeval feel. Kinda love this one too.

Again as before, more curious about gut reactions to the aesthetics than asking for tech advice.

Thanks.
Brett

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Since you asked for gut reaction....
In the first shot, you have something in front of a nice background. It might be a butterfly on a dead plant, but it is hard to tell as there is just too much background and too little subject. Technically, the photo is well exposed, but the subject just doesn't do anything for me.

In the second shot, you have a giant bright white blur competing with your subject for the attention of the viewer's eye. The big blur wins. In both cases, better framing and stronger subject would greatly improve the images. The other thing to consider, is that much like human photos.....critter photos benefit from having the eyes (or at least one eye) well defined and in sharp focus.

^ Agree...and with time...you will see the difference from henceforth( I do not believe I have ever spelled that word left alone spoke It)

Lovely colours - well done.

David

The butterfly shot's not bad...sucking the last bit of remaining life out of a dying plant. Good exposure, nice DOF to separate the subject from the background. Of course its a small subject...its a butterfly. Cropping may make it more prominent and remove some of the space. I really don't see how it is a "small landscape shot"...there's nothing really discernible other than the butterfly on the flower. The stork shot should be tossed out...the large white spot is a major distraction, as well as the placement of the stork in the frame. This may work if you were using the image in a slideshow or something with text on the right hand side, but from an aesthetic standpoint its not working (at least for me, anyway).

The butterfly shot is OK for me. The background and the subject contrast well, and I would say that the subject is nice and clear (i.e. well focused), so I can't see too much wrong.

(Maybe that is the punter in me, I don't know enough yet to know what I should not like )

The other shot is intriguing. If the bill was the other way around it would fill some of the background, and maybe balance the picture a little. I can see things I would do differently, but it is still interesting to me.

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beer holder.

Thanks, mostly.

Don't want to stir up controversey but I'd have hoped that in such a well established site members--especially long standing ones--would know how to offer their opinions as opinion...and not write things like an image should be "tossed out."

It doesn't upset me with respect to my images--but it does bother me in principle--especially since one might assume this type of language is being used elsewhere, with people who might be sensitive or easily discouraged.

That said, the monarch shot is original size. I cropped it a bit after reading but it didn't change the impact for me, but did cut off some of the nicely curled leaves at bottom.

When I say landscape, I mean that the subject of the shot is less the butterfly and more the entire composition, including the empty space. I could have posted a traditional and traditionally successful full frame shot looking down on a monarch with open wings, but not much point in doing that.

I would have liked in the stork shot to have caught the eye better but it doesn't bother me as much as it would if it was a straight portrait. Again, I see this shot as a portrait/landscape hybrid.

And interesting that a few people find the sky distracting. I've seen the shot with the sky cropped out, and see the current version as adding interest and DOF, making the bird pop all the more.

As I noted in the wren/egret thread, I'm color-blind, and we'll never know how differently things appear to us.

And just caught the "beer holder" upon refreshing the page to post this. Ha ha...

Thanks again.

bmknj17 wrote in post #12851716
Thanks, mostly.

Don't want to stir up controversey but I'd have hoped that in such a well established site members--especially long standing ones--would know how to offer their opinions as opinion...and not write things like an image should be "tossed out."

It doesn't upset me with respect to my images--but it does bother me in principle--especially since one might assume this type of language is being used elsewhere, with people who might be sensitive or easily discouraged.

That said, the monarch shot is original size. I cropped it a bit after reading but it didn't change the impact for me, but did cut off some of the nicely curled leaves at bottom.

When I say landscape, I mean that the subject of the shot is less the butterfly and more the entire composition, including the empty space. I could have posted a traditional and traditionally successful full frame shot looking down on a monarch with open wings, but not much point in doing that.

I would have liked in the stork shot to have caught the eye better but it doesn't bother me as much as it would if it was a straight portrait. Again, I see this shot as a portrait/landscape hybrid.

And interesting that a few people find the sky distracting. I've seen the shot with the sky cropped out, and see the current version as adding interest and DOF, making the bird pop all the more.

As I noted in the wren/egret thread, I'm color-blind, and we'll never know how differently things appear to us.

And just caught the "beer holder" upon refreshing the page to post this. Ha ha...

Thanks again.

No offense, but this isn't a "pat on the back club". You posted images and asked for a critique, but when reading your responses to the critiques you seem to find various reasons to disagree with the critiques and rationalize why you feel the images are "good". If you feel that they're good, why even ask for a critique? The effort seems kinda pointless, especially if you're going to get overly sensitive about the process. As far as the "tossed out" comment goes...not every shot is a keeper, so I stand by it. If you like it, keep it. Very simple. The bottom line is, if you like the images (and that is all that really matters in the long run), why worry about someone else's viewpoint? As far as worrying about sensitivity, then maybe the critique forum isn't the place for folks that are overly sensitive. Mindlessly praising an image for fear of upsetting someone's sensitivity just enables more poor performance...doesn't help in the least.

You miss my intent.

I'm not being at all sensitive to criticism; I invited and welcome it. And I did so, and stated as much, with images that I thought would provoke mixed responses (to which I responded for the sake of discussion).

Incidentally, in doing so, I'm looking to share my and read others' points of view, not have others formulate mine (and decide my actions) for me. And if I was looking for validation, I'd just post what I believe would be widely well received images.

My point in addressing your words, as I very clearly noted, was not about me, my feelings, or my opinion of the image but rather about the inappropriateness of the comment itself, even in context, and regardless of anyone's response to it.

Hopefully we can agree to disagree and not let this escalate.

Not because he needs me to but Argyle is one of the folks in this forum I listen to. He has far more experience than I, and we usually agree on many points.
While I didn't say toss it out, with practice and a focused eye, you will see the vast improvements that can be made looking at the subject in frame a little differently.
You do seem to have you opinion on these and others you have posted, and that is fine and dandy, we are but a small faction here that sincerely want to offer up our opinions , be them good or bad, to better the photo offered up.
Truly take everything with a grain of salt, but hopefully, you will take something that was said here and apply it?

While I appreciate your sensitivity, Flo, you too are missing the point of my comment--and completely missing that of my posting the particular (kinds of) shots I chose (starting with the previous (wren) thread).

Not to be dismissive or disrespectful, but I'm not sure how I could say the same two things a third time any more clearly or emphatically, so I'll not try.

That said, I totally appreciate all of the other comments here, both positive and constructively critical. And yes, the (partial) goal is of course to learn and apply knowledge.

I didn't miss a thing, but your "particular" shots as you call them are just not what I see as capturing the best of the subjects.Just me.I am not saying everything has to be sharp, crisp, etc, but for me, and only me, they do have to have a reason for someone to want to come back and take another look.
I am not seeing a *style* here at all.Sorry.

No ill will at all but there's no point in continuing this as there's no meeting of the minds re: what is being discussed.

Again, though, I appreciate your consideration.

I'm not sure what the discussion is....several people have offered you suggestions on ways to improve some very weak images. By your own admission, you are color blind and have "minimal processing and technical knowledge" and yet, when someone offers you suggestions on ways to improve, you become defensive and confrontational. If you really don't want critique of your work and you simply want a bunch of clowns to say "nice picture".....this isn't the right section of the forum.