Critique please

Ktdragonfly84

Ktdragonfly84

Messages
29
Name
Kate
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone, I am new to the site and photography (I have had my camera x3 months) I took this picture last week and was hoping to get some feedback please. Thanks in advance. :)
 
OOF areas are ok behind the bird, but in front they can distract
I'd bin it and have another go
 
I like it! And it's fairly typical behaviour. Only this morning did I see my resident Blackbird peeping out of a thick bush and I thought I'd love to capture an image of it.
 
Hi Kate, welcome to TP.

It's quite an interesting shot. First, the technical side. Blackbirds aren't the easiest birds to get correct exposure on, so well done for this effort. You've kept feather detail and the bird doesn't look washed out. The sharpness looks good, but not quite perfect - however this could be down to several factors, what gear you use, settings, the size of the crop. My personal feeling is you got the focus right, but one of the above factors has affected things. If you could give us a bit more info that would help.

Composition wise I quite like it. It shows the bird in its natural habitat, most of the blackbirds I see are either hiding in bushes or searching the floor. I would be tempted to lose about half of the foliage on the right of the shot to provide a slightly nicer balance and take the bird just off centre. This would give a nice shot with plenty of environment.

Overall though,in my opinion it's a good shot, allthe better if you're new to photography.

Hope that helps a bit
 
I rate it pretty highly, especially as you are new, but agree with the suggestions above. One suggestion for the future is to consider using a high ISO, even in decent light, to help get sharp shots (lets you use high shutter speeds and smaller apertures).
 
Last edited:
Nice photo and capture. Welcome to the forums, that's the first Black blackbird I've ever seen :D (If this was done in PP can you put up unedited?). Normally has a purple or bluey hue to the feathers.

pooley said:
I would be tempted to lose about half of the foliage on the right of the shot to provide a slightly nicer balance and take the bird just off centre. This would give a nice shot with plenty of environment.
Click to expand...

As above I would have pushed bird over to the right and more open space to the left. If you are not aware then have a check out of the rule of thirds (Not hard and fast rule but a good starting point)
 
Wow thanks for all the info and welcome's everyone :) I was using the canon 1100d for this shot which a friend had lent me. (I got my canon 70d a couple of days ago :D) The shot is unedited, what is pp? It was shot using jpeg which I have been told since I should shoot RAW? Thank you all for making me feel welcome :)
 
Ktdragonfly84 said:
(I got my canon 70d a couple of days ago :D) The shot is unedited, what is pp? It was shot using jpeg which I have been told since I should shoot RAW?
Click to expand...

....I got my 70D in December and now shoot exclusively in RAW. To begin with I shot only in JPEG and then tried both JPEG + RAW together but now only RAW.

The camera's sensor records what it's exposed to in RAW anyway and then will 'convert' it to JPEG within the body before you upload it to your computer etc. Whereas a JPEG might be 5 Mb for example, the RAW version of the captured image will be around 25 Mb because so much more data is retained.

This extra data allows you to manipulate it in PP (Post-Processing) to your advantage but you need specific software on your computer to do that manipulation/enhancement.

Until you have enhanced your image it often looks very dull in RAW when you first see it. When you have finished editing/enhancing the original image might then be as large as 100 Mb but you can save and copy it as a JPEG which might only then be 500 Kb.

The plus side of such large RAW file sizes is that it very quickly focusses you on only keeping the images which you really like and you bin the rest. Once you have got used to handling and editing RAW images there's really no going back - They are simply much better at unlocking and showing you your potential. However, you might want to get familiar with your 70D's controls first rather than jump straight into the deep end.

I hope this helps :)
 
Thank you that is very helpful :) I think you are right I need to get to grips with the camera first! Would you recommend Lightroom, Elements or any other software?
 
Ktdragonfly84 said:
Thank you that is very helpful :) I think you are right I need to get to grips with the camera first! Would you recommend Lightroom, Elements or any other software?
Click to expand...

Lightroom and Elements is a good combo thats what I use as have no need for full Photoshop (wouldn't use 90% of what it can do). Elements can do a fair bit anyway.

There is loads of software out there so it depends on what type of photography you are going to be doing. GIMP is a free Photoshop esque software, onone do a free lightroom/photoshop esque programme which is free here;

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/effects8free/

Black and white, Silver Efex.

Lots and lots of good software out there.

Might be worth using free software first so you can see what you need don't need!
 
If you are on Windows then Lightroom is not only a powerful editor but also a very good organiser for your images, albums, and projects etc. If on a Mac, then Aperture is similar.

Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements which I have never used because I used to pre-release for Adobe for many years and have free software) is more useful for finishing off processes such as sharpening. It also depends what subjects you like to photograph - Wildlife, people, architecture, landscapes, etc etc.

Noise reduction software (for cleaning up and reducing graininess in backgrounds) is available as plug-ins for Photoshop, Aperture, and Adobe Lightroom.

onOne's Effects software is just that: Presets for applying effects. Ok, you can edit the effects but Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop offer more control for RAW images.
 
One thing to remember about Lightroom and Aperture is that they are non-destructive editors. They don't alter the underlying file at all, but just remember the instructions you have given, and recreate the edited image each time you display it. You can always go back and alter things without any quality penalty. In effect, you're always starting with the master file. In that sense the workflow is simpler than Photoshop, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top