What Are Your Tastes

[K9Kirk]

I like the overall feel of the shot. You bird photographers really like to get dirty. But I got to say, that low angle is really nice.

Thx, same here! I usually lay in the sand and it brushed off quick but if I lay close to the water on the beach, I occasionally get soaked by a wave that comes in further than the others. The wet sand sort of cakes to you but there are showers by the parking lot to rinse it off. Summertime, not a problem in FL.

 

[Jack Dawe]

I couldn't care less about the cropped legs. Worry too much about that and you'll never shoot a wader standing in water. Here I think the low angle justifies the loss. I like the colours in the last of Jan's edits, though perhaps the overall crop is a little too much - the loss of resolution is evident. The main problem, as already mentioned, is that the head is facing away from the lens.

 

[K9Kirk]

The angle of the bird towards the camera is not the favorable position. The large negative space, although it does add to the overall look and feel of the image, does make the position of the bird more relevant for the photo, and that position isn't the strong point...
So if we don't burn it, I think a panoramic crop can make it a bit more pleasing. Losing part of the top and bottom negative space, but keeping the feel intact. I would put the bird on the left, so it has space to move right which would fit more by the position of the bird in the photo. I think I would crop the highlights of on the left or clone them out. Due to its position the main subject is not super attractive in the photo, leaving room for the viewer's eye to look around for other subjects. The highlights on the left, being so bright than draw attention, although they are not really interesting enough to aid the photo.
Maybe a selective adjustment to the bird to make it a little warmer temperature might make the photo more appealing, but I'm not sure about that.

Here is the sort of crop I have in mind. I could not see if you approve edits on your photos here on the forum or not, but given this thread I guess it is OK here. If you do not approve on it, let me know and I will edit the post and remove the cropped version. I did not do a selective adjustment on the bird color temperature as I'm not sure about it and the photo might not be 'worth' it.
View attachment 1079

I feel the same way with most of what you said, and your pic looks good but what I didn't mention is I like the soft dreaminess of the shot. For me, the tiny sparkles of light on the left and the barely noticeable bokeh circles toward the top add to the 'dreamy' aspect. I think that's what I like most about it, I just wish the bird was position differently, as you mention. I think we can agree it's a hard pic to deal with. Next opportunity like that and I'll wait around longer for the frontal shot. Thanks for commenting and sharing your view! I won't be afraid of using a little stronger color in the future. If that's what people like, I'll give it to them.

 

[Jan1977]

I feel the same way with most of what you said, and your pic looks good but what I didn't mention is I like the soft dreaminess of the shot. For me, the tiny sparkles of light on the left and the barely noticeable bokeh circles toward the top add to the 'dreamy' aspect. I think that's what I like most about it, I just wish the bird was position differently, as you mention. I think we can agree it's a hard pic to deal with. Next opportunity like that and I'll wait around longer for the frontal shot. Thanks for commenting and sharing your view! I won't be afraid of using a little stronger color in the future. If that's what people like, I'll give it to them.

Always nice to take a look at the less obvious or photos that are no wallhangers. I think it will help developing one's skills and insights.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Thanks, Lavina, I feel the same way about the head. I've received mixed reviews on it and I'm pretty sure the head is what spoils it. I remember one person telling me that they didn't like that the feet were chopped off. Understood, but I was trying to get a level shot on level ground but since the bird was on the slope going into the water, it's feet couldn't be seen. I guess that's comparable to someone posting a pic of say, a bird in flight with half a wing clipped from the pic. I guess it comes down to standards, some people are more understanding and will accept more errors than others.

The feet missing is a result of being low and having shallow depth of field. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion and most definitely not an error.

BTW, I see and talk with ol' Arthur Morris from time to time, quick chit chats, he's always with a group of students on North Beach @ Ft. De Sto. He lives nearby and he's told me it's his favorite place. I bet he loves it for the reddish egrets, like how I do. they really put on a show when they're very active, usually hunting.

Here's a couple of 'sneak shots' I got the first time I met him, unfortunately no frontal shots. Next time I see im I'll ask him if I can get a portrait shot for the record. I've noticed he can be a bit grouchy if you rub him the wrong way, one student of his walked up behind him when he was sitting and taking pictures and asked him a question and Arthur snapped at him about walking up on someone and making noise when they're shooting, so I'm a little apprehensive to ask him.

View attachment 3362

View attachment 3363

Cool! He quit his forum a few months ago. Sold it and said his goodbyes on the board. He must be getting on in years now. Was already advanced in years when I joined his forum, some 14 years ago. Although, when you are relatively young yourself anyone over 60 is old of course. I wonder what he shoots with these days. After a lifetime of shooting with Canon, he switched to Nikon after Canon laid him off as a Canon ambassador I think he was. Although he said that the switch to Nikon had nothing to do with that. And I think he also shot with Sony after a while. Looking at your shots though he seems to have a big white again?

 

[PhotoNut]

Thanks, Lavina, I feel the same way about the head. I've received mixed reviews on it and I'm pretty sure the head is what spoils it. I remember one person telling me that they didn't like that the feet were chopped off. Understood, but I was trying to get a level shot on level ground but since the bird was on the slope going into the water, it's feet couldn't be seen. I guess that's comparable to someone posting a pic of say, a bird in flight with half a wing clipped from the pic. I guess it comes down to standards, some people are more understanding and will accept more errors than others.

BTW, I see and talk with ol' Arthur Morris from time to time, quick chit chats, he's always with a group of students on North Beach @ Ft. De Sto. He lives nearby and he's told me it's his favorite place. I bet he loves it for the reddish egrets, like how I do. they really put on a show when they're very active, usually hunting.

Here's a couple of 'sneak shots' I got the first time I met him, unfortunately no frontal shots. Next time I see im I'll ask him if I can get a portrait shot for the record. I've noticed he can be a bit grouchy if you rub him the wrong way, one student of his walked up behind him when he was sitting and taking pictures and asked him a question and Arthur snapped at him about walking up on someone and making noise when they're shooting, so I'm a little apprehensive to ask him.

View attachment 3362

View attachment 3363

What’s with the head covering? Protection from bugs? Camouflage?

 

[greatgrandma]

If I wanted a photo of the bird specifically, then I think I would just do the crops suggested and leave it. If I had no reason to want a photo of this particular bird, I would concentrate on his beautiful feathers, and make them into a close cropped pattern. I think it would make lovely wallpaper or fabric

 

[K9Kirk]

The feet missing is a result of being low and having shallow depth of field. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion and most definitely not an error.


Cool! He quit his forum a few months ago. Sold it and said his goodbyes on the board. He must be getting on in years now. Was already advanced in years when I joined his forum, some 14 years ago. Although, when you are relatively young yourself anyone over 60 is old of course. I wonder what he shoots with these days. After a lifetime of shooting with Canon, he switched to Nikon after Canon laid him off as a Canon ambassador I think he was. Although he said that the switch to Nikon had nothing to do with that. And I think he also shot with Sony after a while. Looking at your shots though he seems to have a big white again?

Sorry I took so long to reply, I get sidetracked easily. I think he's shooting with a Sony now, and yes, he's up there in age, alright.

 

[K9Kirk]

What’s with the head covering? Protection from bugs? Camouflage?

Sorry I took so long. I never asked him but with his long sleeves and long pants also, it's my guess that he's protecting from the sun or the "No see um" bugs. They sting hard, worse than mosquitoes.