Turnstone

[pooley]

a little turnstone out looking for breakfast



Mike

 

[Box Brownie]

I do like this especially for the setting and PoV........................but the very thin DoF is in some ways just too thin bearing in mind the uncluttered BG it is a pity that the whole bird could not be in focus.

Also, the composition ~ too central! As you say looking for breakfast, so would have liked less negative space on the RHS and more space to 'move' into on the LHS.

These are minor nits but feel that the whole look might have been better with that in mind?

 

[pooley]

I do like this especially for the setting and PoV........................but the very thin DoF is in some ways just too thin bearing in mind the uncluttered BG it is a pity that the whole bird could not be in focus.

Also, the composition ~ too central! As you say looking for breakfast, so would have liked less negative space on the RHS and more space to 'move' into on the LHS.

These are minor nits but feel that the whole look might have been better with that in mind?

Hi Pal,

Cheers for the proper crit

The thin DoF is what it is unfortunately, the light was dim, and no chance of getting the entire bird in focus

The framing I agree with, I have a bit more negative space on the left with which to work with

Thanks for your comments

Mike

 

[Box Brownie]

Hi Pal,

Cheers for the proper crit

The thin DoF is what it is unfortunately, the light was dim, and no chance of getting the entire bird in focus

The framing I agree with, I have a bit more negative space on the left with which to work with

Thanks for your comments

Mike

Hi Mike

Ah! the photographers nightmare.......low light = large aperture with too slow (or at least only just fast enough) shutter speed at an acceptable ISO :agh!:

Constructive critique is the raison d'etre of these TP sub fora

I look forward to seeing the revised composition

Laurence

 

[Dale.]

It's sharp where it needs to be though so not a write off. I too like the POV and the background is super. Low light is a pain isn't it?... and you make do with what you get. One thing I've learned is that sidey on is best in these situations.
I was working at f8 and thereabouts at the kingfishers last week and the light was never super kind. At f8 and the birds 15+feet away, I could get the bird's head and bodies sharp but he tails were sometimes soft. I always go for sharp eyes/head, then hopefully, the rest will follow. It was the first time I could comfortably work at higer ISO numbers though, as previously, I used a 7D and that had woeful lowlight performance.

I'm no expert and I'm still learning though, so please take that with required amount of salt.

 

[pooley]

Hi Mike

Ah! the photographers nightmare.......low light = large aperture with too slow (or at least only just fast enough) shutter speed at an acceptable ISO :agh!:

Constructive critique is the raison d'etre of these TP sub fora

I look forward to seeing the revised composition

Laurence

Ay up pal, Tried a more pano crop with more in front as per your thought - any better?



Mike

 

[pooley]

It's sharp where it needs to be though so not a write off. I too like the POV and the background is super. Low light is a pain isn't it?... and you make do with what you get. One thing I've learned is that sidey on is best in these situations.
I was working at f8 and thereabouts at the kingfishers last week and the light was never super kind. At f8 and the birds 15+feet away, I could get the bird's head and bodies sharp but he tails were sometimes soft. I always go for sharp eyes/head, then hopefully, the rest will follow. It was the first time I could comfortably work at higer ISO numbers though, as previously, I used a 7D and that had woeful lowlight performance.

I'm no expert and I'm still learning though, so please take that with required amount of salt.

Cheers for your thoughts Dale, good to read.

I agree that side on is often best, just on this occasion I fancied something a little different, having gone through the 'regular' shots.

Everybody has their own thoughts on how much of the bird needs to be sharp - some like the entire bird sharp, others (like me) don't seem to mind as much as long as the eyes are sharp, then the rest can fall way out of focus. There really is no correct answer, just personal preference.

Don't have to offer any salt - everybody can have their own thoughts, and they're all valid, especially when it comes to the aethetics of a shot rather than the technical side. Not many have commented here, but I've enjoyed the responses by yourself and @Box Brownie

Mike

 

[den]

Not sure on this one Mike ,i always like yourself try to get down low (up close and personal) with my subject when possible.
To me Mike even though its well presented it just doesn't have the punch like you previous posts ,technically you very rarely get it wrong ,lovely light and well exposed as usual ,iMHO Mike i think its just the postion of the bird ,looksclumsy and i am not trying to be rude ,jusy looking for a way to describe my first thoughts on your shot ..

 

[RedRobin]

Wildlife is one of the most challenging subjects to photograph and, as you say, we cannot control the lighting and hence how it can limit our camera settings.

The 'golden rule' has always been to get the eyes sharp before anything else < Why? Simply because we all always look at eyes first [except perhaps when confronted with something which excites us sexually!]

Personally I find the ultra soft focus of the front ground area slightly unnatural. Has it been post-processed that way?

 

[pooley]

Not sure on this one Mike ,i always like yourself try to get down low (up close and personal) with my subject when possible.
To me Mike even though its well presented it just doesn't have the punch like you previous posts ,technically you very rarely get it wrong ,lovely light and well exposed as usual ,iMHO Mike i think its just the postion of the bird ,looksclumsy and i am not trying to be rude ,jusy looking for a way to describe my first thoughts on your shot ..

Not a problem at all if it's not to your taste Den, I learn from all comments, positive and negative.

 

[pooley]

Wildlife is one of the most challenging subjects to photograph and, as you say, we cannot control the lighting and hence how it can limit our camera settings.

The 'golden rule' has always been to get the eyes sharp before anything else < Why? Simply because we all always look at eyes first [except perhaps when confronted with something which excites us sexually!]

Personally I find the ultra soft focus of the front ground area slightly unnatural. Has it been post-processed that way?

Hi robin,

Cheers for your views, appreciated.

The foreground is just a smooth beach compressed because of the telephoto effect and the low, lying on the beach shooting angle. No funny business in PP!

Mike