Ducks

Aside from the technical problems with these shots in regards to exposure (and even lighting) which have already been addressed, to me there's an even greater problem here...the compositions themselves. Geese and ducks can be a bit tough to shoot because...well...for most people, they're kind of boring. Here in Ohio for example, Canadian geese are pretty much everywhere. I don't really have to walk much further than a mile or so to see a bunch of geese "standing around" and unlike dogs or other animals, they don't really have any "facial expressions" or anything to make the shots interesting. The best shots of geese and ducks that I've seen are usually those where they are just taking off or landing on water (or something involving flight).

The reason I mention this is that even if your exposure and lighting and such had of been right on the nose, these images still would not have been that terribly interesting. This is, as always, just my humble opinion and I know there are people on this board who disagree with this, but in my mind, exposure, focus, lighting, etc., etc., are all academic (and in many cases can be fixed later in post processing anyways). The "art" of photography is in the composition. In other words, if there isn't something about the shot that makes people stop and say "Wow" (from aspects such as beauty, drama, interest, etc.,) then the rest doesn't really matter. Think of it this way...a story in a book can be "technically perfect" with the proper use of grammar and all the words spelled correctly and so on, but if the story itself isn't interesting, no one's going to want to read it. The same is true of photography...if the composition isn't interesting, then who really cares about the rest?

Not trying to be harsh or rude and again these are just strictly my opinions.

Peace,
Jim

Jim,
I think you missed the point, eh? Shooting ducks is required with new equipment. They don't have to be interesting but that helps. They should be close to technically OK though, eh.

And what do you suppose those Canadian geese were doing in Mississippi?

Titus213 wrote in post #5961633
Jim,
I think you missed the point, eh? Shooting ducks is required with new equipment. They don't have to be interesting but that helps. They should be close to technically OK though, eh.

And what do you suppose those Canadian geese were doing in Mississippi?

We ship them there when we have had our fill of'em:p

Walczak Photo, I dont mind you statement at all! You are correct, the pictures (even if done right) would be boring and uninteresting.

Pretty much all the pictures I have taken so far have been that way, but I do have a small reason . I have only been using a camera for about a week now. I have pretty much just been shooting anything and everything to try to get used to how everything works. I have about 100 pictures of salt and pepper shakers that I have been taking to try to learn DOF. I still have a ways to go, but just from the comments on these pictures I have learned a ton!

I am glad you were honest in what you saw, that is the only way people like me will learn!

I just bought a circular polarizer today and I am going to wait for the sun to drop a little more and take my car to the lake to try again (with a better background).

I do have another question about this filter though, how do you know when it is needed and when it will hurt more than help? Is there a rule of thumb or does it just come from experience?

Oh ya, I will tell you why those Ducgeese came to Mississippi...to make me look like a dummy .

Titus213 wrote in post #5961633
Jim,
I think you missed the point, eh? Shooting ducks is required with new equipment. They don't have to be interesting but that helps. They should be close to technically OK though, eh.

And what do you suppose those Canadian geese were doing in Mississippi?

I checked my bird identification book and found that the waterfowl pictured is actually a Mississippi Duck -- a second cousin to the Canadian Goose by marriage. Therefore, I think that you may have fulfilled your legal obligation to take a duck picture provided that the POTN supreme authority will recognize the Mississippi Duck as a legitimate species.

BTW, Canadian Geese are not always hanging around here so it is much more of a rarity than something like a mallard which are worse than pigeons where I live. Besides, they really taste good.

In regards to the polarizing filter, it's used for deepening saturation in skies (look into neutral density filters, nd grad to be specific, if that's the main effect you're going for), and mainly for reducing reflection in non metallic objects. Point it at your car's windows and turn it and you'll see the effect. It's pretty rare that it hurts (you lose a stop or two of light, so if you're getting too low of a shutter speed, that's when it definitely hurts), but it doesn't always help either.

Species Branta canadensis (Canada goose)

We will have to check their country of origin tags beyond that. They may well be Canadian Canada geese, eh.

Oh my, I went to get a polarizer from the camera store that has been in buisness for 30+ years, I get out to my spot to take my pictures and guess what...Thats right, the darn thing is to small! Oh well, that turned out to be the least of my worries, my car seems to attract a crowd when parked and that makes for some tough photography!! Anyway, I am downloading a few pictures but I think I will start another thread since it is kind of not about ducks anymore (although I did catch a duck in one of the pics!!).

I might be slow, but is this whole thread one huge subtle car brag?

Irreverent wrote in post #5964675
I might be slow, but is this whole thread one huge subtle car brag?

More like a lesson on how to shoot the car. I don't need to brag, I have some cars that put this one to shame. I am more interested in how to take a picture of the car than the car itself . I will shoot my Prius next time so it does not look like bragging.

Irreverent wrote in post #5964675
I might be slow, but is this whole thread one huge subtle car brag?

Nope, it's all about how to help pprice tell the difference between a duck and a goose!!! I'd say most of us were just really happy that he was able to identify it correctly as a car and not try to pass it off as a duck too.:p:p:p

Ouch pennypue :P .

I have learned a ton from this one thread, so if someone sees posting of a stupid car as bragging, so be it lol. If I really want to brag, I would take pictures of my family, that is whats worth bragging about .

Screw that! I wanna see the cars. :P

I love cars, I just can't afford a bunch of them. Nor do I have the time talent or patience to do that kind of work. Plus it would wreck havoc on my nails, so I'll just have to enjoy other people's cars. I had a nice car, I got a practical one instead so I could haul two sets of doubles and two scooters in it! (oops, scuba diving equipment...I forget lots of people would have no idea what that might mean! i do the same thing at work too....*hangs head in shame*)

So are you going to do portraits on your family too? I'm jealous of everyone with kids willing to let them take photos.....my daughter won't and lord knows my son isn't very photogenic!!!

Na, I don't think my family is big on getting their picture taken either. I don't have kids (just two dogs). Pretty much all my family on both sides live within 30 miles of me though, so I have a ton of kids in my life. I have some pictures that are pretty neat of my nieces and nephews shooting a gun at the firing range, but my sister took them, so I never put them up. One of them is really cool though, her youngest boy shot the gun and the recoil kicked it back shooting the casing right at his eye (luckly he closed his eyes when he pulled the trigger), but when my sister took the picture, she got the casing right before it hit him. He did not get hurt so it turned out to be cool and she learned they need safety glasses while firing a gun! I will post it if you want to see it.

I dot know that I am going to be so much of a portrait man for awhile, I am more interested in micro and panning right now (I not not tried either yet).

As far as cars go, I have a fleet of them. I have always been into cars and have some pretty cool one I think. I will take pictures of them as I go, the red just seams to be more forgiving I think when in a picture.

pprice wrote in post #5962851
Walczak Photo, I dont mind you statement at all! You are correct, the pictures (even if done right) would be boring and uninteresting.

Pretty much all the pictures I have taken so far have been that way, but I do have a small reason . I have only been using a camera for about a week now. I have pretty much just been shooting anything and everything to try to get used to how everything works. I have about 100 pictures of salt and pepper shakers that I have been taking to try to learn DOF. I still have a ways to go, but just from the comments on these pictures I have learned a ton!

I am glad you were honest in what you saw, that is the only way people like me will learn!

I just bought a circular polarizer today and I am going to wait for the sun to drop a little more and take my car to the lake to try again (with a better background).

I do have another question about this filter though, how do you know when it is needed and when it will hurt more than help? Is there a rule of thumb or does it just come from experience?

Oh ya, I will tell you why those Ducgeese came to Mississippi...to make me look like a dummy .

First let me say that considering the mess this thread is turning into, I'm glad you took my comments the way they were intended. I certainly agree that objective feedback is indeed one of the best ways to learn!

I also more than understand the whole "new camera" syndrome...been there myself many times! LOL!!! When I first started taking photography a little more seriously, I too shot many pictures of "junk" sitting on my coffee table trying to figure out how to control stuff like DOF, etc.. In fact, just about a month ago when I got my new 40D, I shot a bunch of pictures of my kitchen...nothing specifically in the kitchen per say (soup cans, my deep fryer, etc)...trying to see just how much more I could get out of the higher ISO's over my Rebel XT. It's all part of the learning process.

In any case, thank you again for taking my words as they were intended and good luck to you with your future endevors!

BTW...as to whether or not these are actually "Canadian" geese...I'm not an ornithologist (nor do I have any desire to be one). Based on the pictures, to me they look like the hordes of Canadian geese that we have here in Northern Ohio, but they could very well be some other species.

Peace,
Jim