Just a Sparrow

Trevor ............... looking away is never good - I won't mention the OOF splurges as they are liked with some on here who have bad eyesight ;)

They are supposed to be "natural" although I have never seen a OOF flower since I stopped drinking the hard stuff
 
Last edited:
Long lenses take some time to get used to Trevor and of course have a very narrow DOF, you have the Sparrow very well focused in that narrow DOF and it is a pleasing shot of a bird that is surprisingly under threat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: den
Mark Johnson said:
Great shot of lbj.

Tell us about lens etc

mj
Click to expand...

Mark, Canon 7d2, 400 5.6 with 1.4 extender.

BillN_33 said:
Trevor ............... looking away is never good - I won't mention the OOF splurges as they are liked with some on here who have bad eyesight ;)

They are supposed to be "natural" although I have never seen a OOF flower since I stopped drinking the hard stuff
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill, I'll bear that in mind. I need to improve..Practice..Practice..Practice
 
gramps said:
Long lenses take some time to get used to Trevor and of course have a very narrow DOF, you have the Sparrow very well focused in that narrow DOF and it is a pleasing shot of a bird that is surprisingly under threat :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, and yes, its much harder than I anticipated.
 
Trevor

looking away and head angle - just to expand before someone jumps down my throat

In certain types of shots, usually like the one you have posted, eye contact and sharpness are important as they act as a focal point for the viewer

(I take a lot of shots with birds looking away ....... mainly out of frustration as it is difficult to get them to pose how you want them to)
 
BillN_33 said:
Trevor

looking away and head angle - just to expand before someone jumps down my throat

In certain types of shots, usually like the one you have posted, eye contact and sharpness are important as they act as a focal point for the viewer

(I take a lot of shots with birds looking away ....... mainly out of frustration as it is difficult to get them to pose how you want them to)
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill, the one shot I got with eye contact is unusable. tip of beak is sharp, but not the eye…onward..
 
The shot represents the little sparrow as it is, looking frantically for predators. (or food)

If the subject needs to be looking directly at the camera, get a human.

Wildlife shots are just that, don't expect the little sod to pose.

Great shot if a little wild life warrior........

IMHO

mj
 
BillN_33 said:
Trevor

looking away and head angle - just to expand before someone jumps down my throat

In certain types of shots, usually like the one you have posted, eye contact and sharpness are important as they act as a focal point for the viewer

(I take a lot of shots with birds looking away ....... mainly out of frustration as it is difficult to get them to pose how you want them to)
Click to expand...


Sounds like to get a bird image that would satisfy the bird crowd, you'd need to meet so many fixed criteria the images would all look the same. Empty background, bird looking a certain way and direction. You must really love Luke Stephenson's work :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sounds like to get a bird image that would satisfy the bird crowd, you'd need to meet so many fixed criteria the images would all look the same. Empty background, bird looking a certain way and direction. You must really love Luke Stephenson's work :)
Click to expand...

Morning David

Seriously, and I mean this sincerely, it would be good to have your comments in this section, even just occasionally as I am sure you can add a different opinion to any Critique

My comments above relate to the type of shot posted and are specific to that - my comments change with composition - as with many other subjects there are general guidelines that are useful to consider ........ I do not believe bird photography is any different ...... use them if you wish ........ disregard them if they are not appropriate, but at least be aware of them as they can help at all levels......... they are useful

I have often said, (to you), that bird photography is (in main) part a technical exercise and as such needs specialised equipment ......... bird "art" maybe be different but "bird art" although it may exist is rarely seen or focused upon in this section - attempts are made to produce such but generally this area is not considered fully because as you have indicated in another section "art" does not have to be "liked" and in fact it can be "disliked" - as long as it causes you to think, consider and maybe form another opinion it could be "art" ........ bird images, although they can cause you to think about nature and wildlife preservation, do not generally have the same meaning to those who appreciate "art" and bird photographers in general have not been exposed to the "appreciation" of "art": it is not where they are "at"............ speaking generally bird photographers look at technical skill and a composition that suits the shot ...... many use pp which is as important to them as any other aspect. Some regard "field craft" as being important, just as a bird watcher would, others are happy to sit in a hide all day or built sophisticated and baited perches. No-one is "right" and the main thing is to follow your hobby and enjoy it, but as with many pastimes bird photographers can take their hobby very seriously...... but most of all bird photography should contain an element of "fun" and a strong appreciation of our natural environment.

I have indicated to you one example of a photographer who I feel produces very good "wildlife" and bird images, some of which I regard as "art" - there are many more who produce fantastic work ..... you should look at some, you may not like what they produce .......... but as with every one you may learn something which may widen your knowledge and horizons and help you in your chosen occupation.

I will re post the link, just in case you have disregarded it

http://davidyarrow.photography


Luke Stephenson - his Clown Egg Register does remind me of some people ...... so at least they caused me to think, but generally bird photography is not an indoor pursuit ..... you have to get "out there" and do some work.
 
Last edited:
wel personally i like the shot, the bird is nice and sharp , you cant instruct the bird to turn and face you and pose, as for the DoF, and the flower in the background, anyone iwll know that shooting with a long zoom will result in very shallow DOF even if your at f/16 or higher, its the nature of the beast and dont see it as an issue.
was going to post my own bird shots from yesterday on here but seeing as some have tree branches in the shot dont think i will bother as someone will most likely ask for them to be cloned out!
 
dean messenger said:
wel personally i like the shot, the bird is nice and sharp , you cant instruct the bird to turn and face you and pose, as for the DoF, and the flower in the background, anyone iwll know that shooting with a long zoom will result in very shallow DOF even if your at f/16 or higher, its the nature of the beast and dont see it as an issue.
was going to post my own bird shots from yesterday on here but seeing as some have tree branches in the shot dont think i will bother as someone will most likely ask for them to be cloned out!
Click to expand...

I never said that I disliked the shot - I also stated that I take many bird shots like that, with birds "looking out to sea"

That was not my point - like or dislike - it is not about like or dislike, that is a personal preference
 
BillN_33 said:
I never said that I disliked the shot - I also stated that I take many bird shots like that, with birds "looking out to sea"

That was not my point - like or dislike - it is not about like or dislike, that is a personal preference
Click to expand...
and i never said you liked or disliked it eitehr but your OOF comment seemed to suggest that it was something that can be avoided thats all natural or not when shooting with such a long lens its something that cant be helped other than clone it out which would then leave an even more unnatural looking blank area.
no matter how good camera lenses are and become they will never be able to truely emulate what the eye would see and focus in the way eyes do ( though if you close one eye and look intently at a close subject you can create an oof background without the need for alcohol :p but makes ya eyes darn water
 
dean messenger said:
and i never said you liked or disliked it eitehr but your OOF comment seemed to suggest that it was something that can be avoided thats all natural or not when shooting with such a long lens its something that cant be helped other than clone it out which would then leave an even more unnatural looking blank area.
no matter how good camera lenses are and become they will never be able to truely emulate what the eye would see and focus in the way eyes do ( though if you close one eye and look intently at a close subject you can create an oof background without the need for alcohol :p but makes ya eyes darn water
Click to expand...

My comment on the OOF areas was not to say that they can be avoided ....... most times they cannot ....... my comments relates to the fact that they can be removed easily and as such that is what many choose to do.

I personally like to see a balance in the shot and generally do not like to see what I regard as distracting OOF areas which I feel distract from the composition - but I did not express my opinion I just pointed to them so that they could be considered, in the same way I could have indicated that the space around the image, particularly the space beneath, could be reviewed and considered - my comments are a cause for further though by the OP ...... and anyone-else who cares to read them
I always try to add a some "light-heartedness" to my comments, hence my reference to alcohol ............. but when I do there is always a few, (the same few), that take my comments the wrong way - Initially I felt that it was because of a lack of understanding, (but I could be wrong), but now I feel it is more by choice.

I have just about given up on this section as I believe that the problems go deeper than "Critique" - they are much more to do with personalities and the consequent weaknesses that they bring - it is just the condition of man - it takes all types

this is now not a place to offer 'Critique" good or bad as it has been inhabited by (a sizeable minority) of folks that do not want it or do not want to take "Critique" in the way that it is given - and with all due respect it is "their" forum as much as anyone-elses ........

I do regard the comments made by Mark in post #9 as ill-informed and poor advice to give anyone ...... they are not "Critique" and verge on the comical ....... but that it just my opinion
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mex
forums have always been the bane of the written word being misinterpreted even when smileys are included to signify humour. i think the problem with critique is it should be split into three areas. technical critique ( way to improve the shot ) , post processing crit ( how to improve your editing to make the shot better) and buyers eye critique, ignoring any tecnhical or post processing flaws and just enjoying ( or not ) the image for what it is.
seen plenty of shots that fail on 1 and 2 but pass with flying colours on number 3 simply because its something i would happily hang on my wall and enjoy even if it wasnt perfect in other aspects.

do find sometimes there are some that forget that the forum is open for all, from pros with years or even deacdes of experience to those picking up a camera for the first time and as such sometimes the crit can be far to harsh and off putting rather than helpful
 
dean messenger said:
forums have always been the bane of the written word being misinterpreted even when smileys are included to signify humour. i think the problem with critique is it should be split into three areas. technical critique ( way to improve the shot ) , post processing crit ( how to improve your editing to make the shot better) and buyers eye critique, ignoring any tecnhical or post processing flaws and just enjoying ( or not ) the image for what it is.
seen plenty of shots that fail on 1 and 2 but pass with flying colours on number 3 simply because its something i would happily hang on my wall and enjoy even if it wasnt perfect in other aspects.

do find sometimes there are some that forget that the forum is open for all, from pros with years or even deacdes of experience to those picking up a camera for the first time and as such sometimes the crit can be far to harsh and off putting rather than helpful
Click to expand...

I consider the following main areas when I look at an image in this "Critique" section, (in the following order) - no special skill, just common sense

Composition
Technical achievements
Fieldcraft

and apply these to the level that I think the OP is at

my comments are not necessarily my preferences, but have evolved from what I have "learned" mainly from this forum, but also from a couple of other forums, one of of which (I only viewed as a watcher) delivers amazing images and fine Critique.
I have only been taking bird shots for 18 months, but being retired I have had plenty of time to study the subject, plus I am surrounded with a mini nature reserve within metres of my house - I am not an expert, but I try to give something back to the Forum in recognition of what I have received from it.

I have always been interested in wildlife, bird watching and the preservation of nature ........ but it was a lot easier when I just used "bins" ............
 
Last edited:
think thats where many people differ in order of critique i guess. some look at technical first, others composition and lighting, others again look at the image as a whole ( as an ordinary viewer if you like ) and technique is secondary , theres no hard and fast rules ( or at least there shouldnt be), the images arent up for a judging panel to get some letters after your name as that would require a set of predefined rules and criteria as to what should or shouldnt be included in the image.
i guess i dont consider myself a critique so much as someone who enjoys photos so more often than not will offer the occasional suggestion rather than a full blown crit of an image.
not here to be judge and jury, here to enjoy and learn
 
Wow not been on this section before or if so it is that long ago I forgot.This is a good read for sure. I have neither the lenses or the ability to capture these but on viewing the image first off I thought what a great photo real nice details in the bird and the oof stuff all added to the depth/enviroment for me.

Gaz
 
dean messenger said:
wel personally i like the shot, the bird is nice and sharp , you cant instruct the bird to turn and face you and pose, as for the DoF, and the flower in the background, anyone iwll know that shooting with a long zoom will result in very shallow DOF even if your at f/16 or higher, its the nature of the beast and dont see it as an issue.
was going to post my own bird shots from yesterday on here but seeing as some have tree branches in the shot dont think i will bother as someone will most likely ask for them to be cloned out!
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Petty criticism discourages the average photographer from bothering to post.

The photo in question is pretty good for most of us.

Camera clubites are too picky IMHO

Mj
 
A really nice shot Trevor, great detail, and good composition.(y)

George.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sounds like to get a bird image that would satisfy the bird crowd, you'd need to meet so many fixed criteria the images would all look the same. Empty background, bird looking a certain way and direction. You must really love Luke Stephenson's work :)
Click to expand...
Pookey....

Not being a bird photographer, you might not have heard of "bird on a stick"? It's a phrase often used to describe, well, a bird on a natural-looking wooden perch, even if it was placed there by the photographer. I wonder if Luke Stephenson is just taking the mick? Having had a quick look at his other work, probably not. Just a co-incidence, I suspect.

You are correct in identifying a style in most current bird photography. It's more like a straightjacket actually, although some of it IS exceptionally good........

The house sparrow - I quite like it!
 
jerry12953 said:
Pookey....

Not being a bird photographer, you might not have heard of "bird on a stick"? It's a phrase often used to describe, well, a bird on a natural-looking wooden perch, even if it was placed there by the photographer. I wonder if Luke Stephenson is just taking the mick? Having had a quick look at his other work, probably not. Just a co-incidence, I suspect.

You are correct in identifying a style in most current bird photography. It's more like a straightjacket actually, although some of it IS exceptionally good........

The house sparrow - I quite like it!
Click to expand...


Nope.. he's not taking the mick.. we've spoken about this... he's an ex Blackpool student actually. He was just fascinated how bird breeders who show birds practically reduce them to scientific specimens in search of the perfect bird.. the categorising of them,... never ending.... hence "Incomplete Dictionary of Showbirds"

I have heard of Bird on a Stick yes... which is why I often refer to all the stuff in the bird forum as "birds on twigs" :)
 
I must say I'm a bit surprised by some of the objection to critique raised in this thread. You may not agree with the critique given, but as long as it is given honestly then surely it should be gratefully received. Even if it seems to be nit-picking, the fact someone has spent their time to review your work and offer their thoughts should be encouraged. If you are not trying to conform to the standards of the particular field, then that's great! It may be worth while adding a few lines to explain what it is you are tring to achieve in such circumstances.

My own opinion is that it's a nice sharp image, good DoF but the oof areas do detract sonewhat for me. No biggy though. The bird looking away is more of an issue. Obviously you can't tell the bird how to pose but you can always try again the next day.
 
@jerry12953 @TimmyG Thanks for your comments. I'm really grateful for all C&C. As I need and want to improve.
 
Coming to this late in the day. I would only tend to share a picture of a bird or other animal facing away from me if there was something else special about the shot. Facing away can suggest its uncomfortable with your presence. Ready to take flight. Often this isn't he case, but the suggestion remains.

As to the OOF areas. No issue with those at all.

Having said all that, if the OP is new to this, then its a nicely exposed shot, while getting the eye sharp can be a challenge in itself. Long lenses take some getting used too
 
Blythman said:
Coming to this late in the day. I would only tend to share a picture of a bird or other animal facing away from me if there was something else special about the shot. Facing away can suggest its uncomfortable with your presence. Ready to take flight. Often this isn't he case, but the suggestion remains.

As to the OOF areas. No issue with those at all.

Having said all that, if the OP is new to this, then its a nicely exposed shot, while getting the eye sharp can be a challenge in itself. Long lenses take some getting used too
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Trevor,

Looking thru your Flickr gallery, your robin on a stick is a great photo.(Amongst many others)

Mj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top