Beginner shots - fowl

I would like to learn to improve my photos. I went to a lake yesterday and shot some photos and I think these came out the best (which may not be saying much ) But could I get some general advise. I used an S2IS handheld and did some PP in Paint Shop Pro X. I just used the changes the program suggested.

Thanks
Stefan

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

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

I think you have excellent exposure on both shots - the whites are properly placed. I can't really tell whether there is much shadow detail or not in these images as posted.

Whether it be humans or animals, it is always better when they can be looking into or moving into the picture rather than out of the picture.

Very nice shots!

God! I love that second shot!

First shot is just a run of the mill snapshot that needs it's white balance corrected.

But the second one is GREAT.

As Bob stated, it is usually a bad idea to have the subject looking or moving out of the frame (see this thread for more on that) BUT, here it is excusable, even desirable. What makes this shot SO GOOD is that you have an almost perfect negative space silhouette of the duck created by the snow against the tree. The only thing that it needed was a little better cropping so that the duck and the silhouette are more precisely in opposite corners. The balance was off some.

Great job, thanks for sharing. Another case of "Damn, I wish that were mine!"

Rad

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

Well done to get the exposure correct in the first shot. I agree with Rad about the second shot- very nice.

Why do you think #2 is so great? I don't think it's anything to even comment on - just an average snapshot not worth even a critique.

I like the top shot too. Yes it does need some WB correction. There seems to be a bit of fluff lodged on the top of the second goose's beak. Can you edit it out?

Thats not very nice...

Canadian Geese... oh boy do i miss the days when the used to buzz my bed room window at 5:30am honking... guess thats the price you pay living by a creek in a small town... it probably wouldn't be so bad now, but when you're 16 years old... man... nothing more annoying.

Hi,

I think the shots are nice however to me the first one looks over exposed... doesn't it?

For the guys who said 'perfect' can you share how you think its a perfect exposure... (im not being a pain, I am genuine and interested)

I think the second shot os fantastic (yes, except the direction... the balance is ok for me)

Do you have any filters? I mean, I think maybe ND filter or polarizor may have helped get more detail in the snow here.

Peter.

Thanks for the advise everyone. This was my first time going out to shoot these guys and it was challenging for me to get them to keep looking at me. They were like a wave, as I would walk near, they would all walk away as a group - or a gaggle . No, I don't own any filters. I purposely over exposed most shots that I took that day because I read that when shooting snow, that is what you should do to avoid gray. Next time I go out, I will make a better effort to get the ducks facing me. What I liked about the first one is that I caught them with their beak open - like they are talking to each other. I also liked the shadow of the other duck with his beak open.

Thanks
Stefan

Stefan A wrote:
Thanks for the advise everyone. This was my first time going out to shoot these guys and it was challenging for me to get them to keep looking at me. They were like a wave, as I would walk near, they would all walk away as a group - or a gaggle . No, I don't own any filters. I purposely over exposed most shots that I took that day because I read that when shooting snow, that is what you should do to avoid gray. Next time I go out, I will make a better effort to get the ducks facing me. What I liked about the first one is that I caught them with their beak open - like they are talking to each other. I also liked the shadow of the other duck with his beak open.

Thanks
Stefan

Your remarks about overexposing to get the correct placement of snow is, in essence, the Zone System. Some people learn to do it without an understanding of the Zone system, but it's not that difficult to understand the logic of it once you accept that lightmeters are as dumb as a rock.

The reason I say that is that a lightmetering system is designed with several objectives, but the overriding principles are that the integrated values of the scene, with whatever weighting factors are applied, are taken by the metering system to be middle Gray and the nominal exposure is computed from that to render the scene accordingly. In other words, if you take a scene, any scene, be it the inside of a coal bin or a field of nothing but new snow in sunlight, the metering system is designed to render that as middle gray. Could anything be dumber than that?

So, knowing that, you are 'forced' to make some intelligent decisions about how you 'really' want the scene rendered, and that's what the Zone system is all about - placing important values where they belong (through positive or negative exposure compensation).

Of course, in the film world there are additional aspects, such as over and underdevelopment, pre-exposure, and so on, that we have to try to accomplish differently in our post processing.

No one said the exposure was "perfect" - you mis-read the comments.

For example, I said the the exposure was excellent, because the whites were properly placed.

The only other comment using "perfect" was in regard to a perfect negative space, which has nothing to do with exposure.

When an exposure is such that "important" values (in this case the important values were the whites) are properly place while at the same time making the best compromise with other values, then you have a good exposure.

I am surprised, since we are usually on the same side of the fence where critiques are concerned.

The big difference between #1 and #2 is compositional quality. With #1, there is a cute photo of some ducks, but no effort toward use of space within the frame, no thought of line, direction, balance, symmetry, no rhyme or reason for inclusion or exclusion of elements. (Why the duck in the background has his head cut off? If he is not important, then why include him in the first place? Why do the white ducks have no feet or tails? What was the purpose? None. In the shooters own words, he just liked a picture of ducks with their beaks open.) In other words, it is just a snapshot.

On the other hand, the second shot, whether by design, accident, or intuition DOES incorporate elements of composition. As I mentioned before, the symmetry of the dark duck against a light background contrasted with the light duck-like shape of show against the dark background of the tree. Almost a shadow in inverted tones. It is a balanced yet interesting composition that has just a little bit of whimsy. It is an infinitely stronger composition.

Rad

Which is what many refer to as "learning how to see".

I really enjoy these critique threads. Great learning tools. I wish I had the technical and artistic insights of Robert and Radtech1. The learning curve remains near vertical..

But that second shot was just too much to resist...you want the Canada Goose (he may be Canadian but it's hard to tell, they all look alike ) walking into the picture? We can do that quick and easy. Just cut the left side of the picture and place it on the right. It even blends OK to a degree.

Titus213 wrote:
I really enjoy these critique threads. Great learning tools. I wish I had the technical and artistic insights of Robert and Radtech1. The learning curve remains near vertical..

But that second shot was just too much to resist...you want the Canada Goose (he may be Canadian but it's hard to tell, they all look alike ) walking into the picture? We can do that quick and easy. Just cut the left side of the picture and place it on the right. It even blends OK to a degree.

Goodness no, the walking out of the frame works for me. It gives the impression of having completed a trip through the frame, and has a whole different feeling than if the goose were walking INTO the frame.

And agreed, the first shot is nice, but not that interesting. The second shot is very interesting though. Might have been nice to let the duck walk a tiny tiny bit further to move the tree more to the right and inline with the rule of thirds, but it works nicely as is anyway.