Critique Does this work?

It depends what you're going for - it has some nice elements, the subject exists in its own space which is always a good thing. I'm not sure the shallow depth of field works well here as the background is quite busy in both colour and texture, even though it's out of focus, but you're working within the limits of available light and what I'm assuming is a telephoto lens? I think the main issue though is that there isn't much going on in the image to give it substance.

There are two ways to look at the image. One is that this is primarily an image about the animal, and the background we see is just a coincidence of where both you and the animal happened to be at the moment you clicked the shutter.... in which case the animal's behaviour needs to be an extremely strong element in the image - just walking through the frame isn't substantive enough.

Or otherwise, it's the aesthetics of the scene which is the main focus of the image, and the animal is only there for scale / compositional balance / etc. In this case, the photograph itself needs to exist on its own merits, without the animal being present at all. The presence of the animal is the icing on the cake to elevate a beautifully shot landscape image into something extra. I don't think this image is quite strong enough to exist on its own merits, absent the animal.

There are elements here of a nice image, to be sure. Perhaps waiting for an interesting gesture from the animal would have worked better, or perhaps a different framing of the scene where the background elements balance better with the foreground. When I look at the image, I get the feeling that I'm waiting for something that's about to happen. Perhaps the next frame in the scene, as though I'm looking at one image from a series.
 
Last edited:
Hi Gav, the first thing to remember is that photography is subjective. I personally like small-in-the-frame shots very much but as a whole, Stevejack is on the money. Technicality aside, you've got to ask yourself - does the image move me? Sometimes. there simply isn't an image to be had, and you should just enjoy these brief, but magical encounters in nature. I will post an example of what I like later and it may not be everyone's cup of tea. That's alright - we're all different!
 
dragonfly said:
Hi Gav, the first thing to remember is that photography is subjective. I personally like small-in-the-frame shots very much but as a whole, Stevejack is on the money. Technicality aside, you've got to ask yourself - does the image move me? Sometimes. there simply isn't an image to be had, and you should just enjoy these brief, but magical encounters in nature. I will post an example of what I like later and it may not be everyone's cup of tea. That's alright - we're all different!
Click to expand...
Hi Des, thank you for the feedback, much appreciated, I feel like I'm in a rut (no pun intended :LOL: ) just trying to find ways to 'expand' my photography. Cheers (y)
 
My 2c ... this doesn't really work for me. As a picture of the deer it fails because it's too small in the frame. As a picture of the scene it fails because the background is blurred and in any case there's no sense of depth or interest.

BUT - I just LOVE the photos of the hares/leverets on your Flickr feed! (and indeed many of your other images).
 
Pdk42 said:
My 2c ... this doesn't really work for me. As a picture of the deer it fails because it's too small in the frame. As a picture of the scene it fails because the background is blurred and in any case there's no sense of depth or interest.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the feedback (y)
Pdk42 said:
BUT - I just LOVE the photos of the hares/leverets on your Flickr feed! (and indeed many of your other images).
Click to expand...
Thank you! Much appreciated :)
 
It works for me.

I appreciate that the deer is small in the frame but at least there's context here which is missing in tighter wildlife pictures. Here we get the scene and I can imagine standing there seeing the deer cross the open field and enjoying the moment seeing that scene and maybe I wouldn't have that feeling so much with a tight shot as in reality I'm unlikely to get that close to the creature without the zoom lens providing the memory. If you can follow that.

If this was all you took it could start to look a bit repetitive but you've taken close up pictures so this and the inclusion of more scenery creating a more realistic what I saw picture is perhaps a bit of a change. Maybe it'd work better is the deer was more spectacular or jumping or... something... but I do like it as a nice scene including a deer and as a change from a tight wildlife shot.

All just my HO :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It works for me.

I appreciate that the deer is small in the frame but at least there's context here which is missing in tighter wildlife pictures. Here we get the scene and I can imagine standing there seeing the deer cross the open field and enjoying the moment seeing that scene and maybe I wouldn't have that feeling so much with a tight shot as in reality I'm unlikely to get that close to the creature without the zoom lens providing the memory. If you can follow that.

If this was all you took it could start to look a bit repetitive but you've taken close up pictures so this and the inclusion of more scenery creating a more realistic what I saw picture is perhaps a bit of a change. Maybe it'd work better is the deer was more spectacular or jumping or... something... but I do like it as a nice scene including a deer and as a change from a tight wildlife shot.

All just my HO :D
Click to expand...
Thank you, Alan (y)
I need to watch for some better BG etc..
Thanks for the feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top