Birds 2013

[Birma]

That's a fine Robin shot Mick

[MickH]

Mick,
It looks fine to me. Out of curiosity, I want to know why you think this is short of desirable.
I am trying to know your perspective more than anything else.

With best regards,
Sury

Hi Sury,

I've never been asked to criticize one of my own pictures in public before so this should be fun! First some background. I am a dedicated Natural History photographer and I do almost nothing else. I see hundreds of top notch NH photos every month and I do some judging as well. I've also been criticized in the past for being a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to my own pictures. That should be enough background.

Now the Robin. I posted it because the feather detail (In parts) is pretty good and I was happy that a lens of mine that was recently repaired seems to be giving the proper definition. As it was handheld (not an easy business with a lens so heavy) I wasn't unhappy with the definition.

The first reason that I said that it wasn't the best in the world was particularly because the legs and tail are out of focus. in 'my' world it's expected that the whole bird would be sharp (unless there are special circumstances).

The second reason . My shot is an adequate record of this bird searching for food. It would have been better if the Robin had actually had some morsel in its beak. That would have added interest and driven home the point that it was looking for something to eat.

Thirdly (and much harder to describe) it's not a 'pretty shot'. To quote words used by the Royal Photographic Society here in the UK - the best NH shots have an "overlay of pictorialism". This one doesn't. As I said it's a straightforward record.

Thanks for asking and giving me the excuse to write about my own work.

RGDS
MickH

[mvanrheenen]

I agree sury, but I'm not skilled enough to follow up on your suggestions.

Mark

Mark,
With your permission I would like to give it a try. Please let me know.

With best regards,
Sury

Permission granted!

[sury]

Mark,
Thank you. It took me about 2 minutes in PS7 to do this using the low res image downloaded from the forum.
I had another version where the background is blurred too much compared to the bird and did not look
very natural.

With best regards,
Sury

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
MarkChaffinchpsblur copy by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

[sury]

Mick,
It looks fine to me. Out of curiosity, I want to know why you think this is short of desirable.
I am trying to know your perspective more than anything else.

With best regards,
Sury

Hi Sury,

I've never been asked to criticize one of my own pictures in public before so this should be fun! First some background. I am a dedicated Natural History photographer and I do almost nothing else. I see hundreds of top notch NH photos every month and I do some judging as well. I've also been criticized in the past for being a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to my own pictures. That should be enough background.

Now the Robin. I posted it because the feather detail (In parts) is pretty good and I was happy that a lens of mine that was recently repaired seems to be giving the proper definition. As it was handheld (not an easy business with a lens so heavy) I wasn't unhappy with the definition.

The first reason that I said that it wasn't the best in the world was particularly because the legs and tail are out of focus. in 'my' world it's expected that the whole bird would be sharp (unless there are special circumstances).

The second reason . My shot is an adequate record of this bird searching for food. It would have been better if the Robin had actually had some morsel in its beak. That would have added interest and driven home the point that it was looking for something to eat.

Thirdly (and much harder to describe) it's not a 'pretty shot'. To quote words used by the Royal Photographic Society here in the UK - the best NH shots have an "overlay of pictorialism". This one doesn't. As I said it's a straightforward record.

Thanks for asking and giving me the excuse to write about my own work.

RGDS
MickH

Mick,
Thank you. I did notice the legs and tail being soft. I was not sure that was intended or not. I heard about pictorialism for the second time in as many weeks. I heard about it last week and has been reading up on it and even looked for some PS actions and techniques. The context was the landscapes and I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that it was primarily applicable to landscape.

I appreciate you taking time in elaborating your thought process. My interest albeit self serving, to know different perspectives is to have an understanding that helps me discover and define my own and have it evolve over time with additional overlays of perspectives. The concept Pictorialism may very well be a good way to describe it.

With best regards,
Sury

[MickH]

Mick,
Thank you. I did notice the legs and tail being soft. I was not sure that was intended or not. I heard about pictorialism for the second time in as many weeks. I heard about it last week and has been reading up on it and even looked for some PS actions and techniques. The context was the landscapes and I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that it was primarily applicable to landscape.

I appreciate you taking time in elaborating your thought process. My interest albeit self serving, to know different perspectives is to have an understanding that helps me discover and define my own and have it evolve over time with additional overlays of perspectives. The concept Pictorialism may very well be a good way to describe it.

With best regards,
Sury

Hi again,

Sury I may have accidentally misled you with my use of the word pictorialism. I looked it up in order to answer your post and was amazed to discover a Pictorialism 'movement' (have a look at Wikipedia!).

What I meant wasn't dignified with a 'movement' and especially I did not mean anything like the techniques described in Wiki. . All I meant was the attractive arrangement of the components of a picture (attractive composition), attractive use of light and achieving a harmonious colour palette.

You might think that all of the above should be a given in any form of photography but in Natural History it's not. Most of the time the subject will be bang in the middle of the frame (usually just about the worst place for a good composition) and no thought is given to the 'lines' of a picture.

Now lighting. Most NH photographers will tell you that a bright overcast is the best lighting and so it is for ease of exposure and even lighting but there are some of us who are trying to go a bit further and use light just as a landscape or portrait photographer would do. It makes exposure and control of light that much more difficult because blocked shadows and burned highlights are still not accepted. However ,when it works, it adds that 'prettiness that I meant.

Achieving a harmony of colour is easy in one sense because natural subjects tend to use colour as camouflage and therefore harmony is usual. However the subject must be 'wild and free' (another NH rule) and so it chooses to be where it will and if that doesn't lead to harmonious colours then so be it .

Sorry to have misled you with my use of the word pictorialism and sorry to have gone on at length with my explanation. I hope that you are not too bored.

Finally here's something that moves a little way towards my meaning. Note the backlight (very unusual in NH photography) and the limited colour palette. Not much input from me on the composition I'm afraid!! Although a version of this picture has done very well for me in exhibitions (not this version) this one is my favourite. This version gets criticism for the small burnt out areas and, sometimes, for the very light patch in the b/ground.

I hope that it puts some flesh onto the bones of my words.

MickH

[Dr. Harout]

That's a fine Robin shot Mick

+1

[sury]

Mick,
Au contraire. Your posts have been very edifying to me. Thank you for the clarification on Pictorialism as well.
Not from the movement per se, but from the effect itself, I guess Pictorialism is anti-thesis to NH. NH, I take
it says, capture the nature, where as Pictorialism says manipulate it to convey your intent. I am, I think, clearer
about what you meant in your post in terms of the composition speak for itself. I am glad I asked the question.

With best regards,
Sury

[david antony]

Heron on new foot bridge.

[Birma]

Very nice heron DA. Also, a very substantial looking hand-rail on that footbridge

[Greg Beetham]

Good work DA you’ve captured a Heron studiously standing one footed on the hand rail of the footbridge, an unusual tern of events you might say.
Greg

[mvanrheenen]

Mark,
Thank you. It took me about 2 minutes in PS7 to do this using the low res image downloaded from the forum.
I had another version where the background is blurred too much compared to the bird and did not look
very natural.

With best regards,
Sury

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
MarkChaffinchpsblur copy by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

Hi sury,

My apologies for the late reply. I see what you have done and it works indeed. Blurring distractions didn't cross my mind when I PPed the image. I was focused on getting those elements out entirely. That didn't go very well.

Thank you!

Mark

[sury]

Mark,
No issues. You are welcome.

Sury

[sury]

[quote="david antony"]Heron on new foot bridge

Nice Shot, David. I see why eyes should be in sharp focus. By the way, is that a
characteristic of Heron or quite few birds do stand on one leg? Why do they do that?
Just curious.
Sury

[david antony]

Thanks Birma.

Very well put Greg. ;^)