Female Wood Duck, sunrise

Please let me know what you think (watermark aside), the more honest the better. No one improves by being told only "nice photo".

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7371211
Please let me know what you think (watermark aside), the more honest the better. No one improves by being told only "nice photo".

Honesty? Is there such a thing anymore?

But this is a great shot. The only thing I see is the DOF was just a tad small. The wing patches are tack, but the crest is a little soft. I wish I could have gotten a shot as good as this!

Greg

I know you said "watermark aside" but the watermark is really very intrusive and makes it hard to see some of the points that might make a comment helpful.

The focus is rather soft and some of the light areas such as the belly area and around the eye lacks detail as though one or more channels may have been clipped. The reddish brown color of the duck does not seem to be quite right (based on many year of duck hunting experience that includes quite a few wood ducks). I do not care for the processing done to the water background, but that is just my personal bias.

The specs and also the reviews on the Sigma 50-500mm lens that you used indicate that it is a bit soft especially at 500 mm and the contrast is somewhat low, but on the other hand, it is quite versatile with its 10:1 zoom range and a good deal for the money. At maximum zoom of 500 mm, a tripod is a necessity (for any lens, not just this one) so if it was a hand held shot, that can have a small effect on image sharpness since the shutter speed was 1/250. The reviews that I read indicate that the image sharpness is best at about f/11 for that lens.

jgrussell wrote in post #7372039
I know you said "watermark aside" but the watermark is really very intrusive and makes it hard to see some of the points that might make a comment helpful.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the big picture beyond the watermark, but I'm not going to put my better work online for anyone to re-use.

bill boehme wrote in post #7372083
The focus is rather soft and some of the light areas such as the belly area and around the eye lacks detail as though one or more channels may have been clipped. The reddish brown color of the duck does not seem to be quite right (based on many year of duck hunting experience that includes quite a few wood ducks). I do not care for the processing done to the water background, but that is just my personal bias.

Yes it is a little front focused, but the DOF is more than acceptable. There are no clipped highlights unless it is a result of web browsers. And I did nothing to the water, I never do. I develop my photographs as traditionally as possible. All I did was WB tweak and curves in LR2. It is a bit of a crop from my 5D with Bigma that can make a good 8x10 print.

The watermark masks a relatively ho-hum picture.
No one wants to "Be Honest" when the critique is dismissed.
Pic looks soft to me too, behind the watermark.
Don't worry too much about someone stealing this image.

DAMphyne wrote in post #7374545
The watermark masks a relatively ho-hum picture....
Pic looks soft to me too, behind the watermark.
Don't worry too much about someone stealing this image.

I was thinking the same thing. The good point of the image is that the critter is doing something other than being a "bird on a stick". The poor element is the eye. With few exceptions, a good, in-focus shot of the eye is a cardinal rule. You got this lady when her eye was half open, which makes it look like she's on drugs or something. In addition, the head -- and eye -- are not in focus. I think there could be a little more contrast too.

The watermark borders on the offensive. If you post a low resolution image, nobody is going to steal it and offer it to the Louvre as their own.

joedlh wrote in post #7375029
The watermark borders on the offensive. If you post a low resolution image, nobody is going to steal it and offer it to the Louvre as their own.

If the watermark caught your attention, it did its job. You need to think in broader terms as far as protecting your work with a watermark. The size I posted is more than large enough for someone to resize smaller and use on a web site for whatever purpose or reason. I've read many posts in online forums about someone's image being stolen and used for a website, be it personal or commercial, and it's always harder and more difficult to deal with the theft after the face. Just like how the greater majority of home alarm systems are installed after it has been broken into.

Thanks for the comments, all. We'll see how it sells at art shows this summer.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7375744
Thanks for the comments, all. We'll see how it sells at art shows this summer.

So, how did it sell?

Where is the shot?

This is the crankiest OP I have ever seen. Too bad I can't see the shot.

kj77263 wrote in post #8913646
Where is the shot?

Living Daylight wrote in post #8913860
This is the crankiest OP I have ever seen. Too bad I can't see the shot.

behind the watermark, from what I gather.

The fact 'Curious George' resurrecting the thread asking about the sale had me in stitches. Thanks for the laughs.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #8913313
So, how did it sell?

Twice in 11x14 which is pretty good for the economy here. I remove the image a while ago since I don't like to leave my photos on this site.