I really do appreciate your honenesty Christian. What is vallue of critique without honesty? And nay sayers makes me analise my own emotions and the photos better. That's definately a good thing.
But in this case I do disagree with you. It is not a perfect bird photo, but it is not a bird photo. It is a photo that is about a a shore and the birds there. And it is also about my emotions, in that moment. I want the photo to reflect my moods. Ok. That's the short version. Now I'm going to do a foolish thing. I'm going to argue against a critique. But, who said I'm wise? <Rant mode> First: I realise I'm not objective on this. Not at all. I do agree on the first two points, that the oyster cather takes to much attention. It does, and that is what I hope to change by altering the rendering. There are two reasons for this. It has a better pose than the lapwing (that I can't change), and because of the stronger colours in this bird (this is what I hope to change. The third part of your critique I can't agree on. You say it is out of fokus. Sorry pal, I don't agree. It is blurred because of the extreme weather conditions at that exact moment. I can see your point, no problem with that. But I was there, and I could see the state of blurriness changing from one moment to another. In one moment the weather cooled off a few seconds, then there were little blurrines, the next moment the wind started again, and that affected the amount of blurrynes dramatically. I can't claim 100% fokus at the moment of this shot, but I know the conditions changed constantly, back and forth. Think about shooting in drifting fog Christian. Imagine seting up at a tripod, fokusing at a moment where there is little fog in the air. A few moments later, what you see in the viewfinder, will make you doubth that you where right. Right? So why didn't I wait for a moment where the birds where in "fokus"? Because that was not what I was going for. I broke some of the predescribed conventions of bird shooting on intention. Why did I do that? Because I was looking for something outside the box of regular bird shooting. I was trying to communicate something else. I'm not claiming it as stunning photography. The shots is far from perfect. But the mixed response tells me that I may be on to something. I seem to be communicating something, to SOME viewers. And their response tells me that the pictures sets them in the mood that I was in. <Rant mode/> <semi rant mode> I'm a bit curious: Let us say that this was a street photography. Some guys lighting a sigarette, at a rainy windy evening. Would you then have responded saying this is not good photography because it is out of fokus? I can imagine you saying you don't like it. But that's another thing. BTW. For the first time I got off list response from lurkers. And that was positive response. Thats odd. Why do they response on this series, and not at other photographs? I don't know. But I did appreciate it. It helped me hold on to my odd ideas. Another odd thing is that from the regulars, the positive comments tend to come from people shooting mainly other genres than birds. You are among those who does not like the photo. I can live happily with that. Because you already are a bird lover ;-) It is those who don't care about birds I want to influense with my project. That's why I try to sneak under their skin, making them a bit sympathitic towards the poor creatures who live there under those weather conditions. Because this project is partly a political project. . One more thing. I can't go back to reshoot. At least not until next year. It is very unlikely I will have similar weather condition and the same birds there until next march. And if those who wants to "devellop the area" gets their way. Then the birds will not be there at all. This windy shore will be history. So I can't just sit on my ass waiting for the right moment. I have to use what I already have. Crap or not. <semi rant mode/> Don't get me wrong Christian. There is nothing wrong about regular bird photography. And so far I can only dream about making something similar to your bird shots. I'm reaching for that too, so I know how hard it is. If I work hard, I may get there in ten years. BTW. I've got some off list advices on how to alter the photo. I'm analysing them now. But I'm very open to more suggestions. Tim Typo Mostly Harless ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:22 AM Subject: Re: How to improve this shot? (Heavy Weather 2) Tim Øsleby wrote: > > And now, the PHOTO: > You may remember this > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=308716 > > But I'm open to most suggestions. > Unless they means to go back to reshoot. Havent got time for that. It > ain't > snowing all year here ;-) > I refrained from commenting on the "Heavy Weather" series originally, because, personally, I found nothing too appealing in the shots. I understand the concept and the idea for the series and I truly understand adverse shooting conditions. But since you seem to be really fond of this shot, I'll tell you what I don't like about it and offer a suggestion or two. First, the oyster catcher (middle bird), drags my attention straight to its bright, red beak. This is unfortunate since it is out of focus. I know it's not meant to be in focus for the layering effect (see below) but it's just bad luck that it's the brightest thing in the frame and I'm distracted by bright, shiny objects. Second, I don't like the pose of the lapwing (foreground bird). It's a nice bird, but its rear end is not that interesting and conflicts with the profiles of the other two birds. Third, nothing is really in critical focus. I think for this layering effect to work, you need one bird in super-sharp focus. Just as an example and with entirely different weather conditions (overcast, no snow) check out: http://tinyurl.com/2emxee The shooting angle is similar (slightly above) and the idea was the same. I wish my birds weren't intersecting and for that I missed THE shot too (again, in my opinion). With static birds (perched, standing, etc) I REALLY think critical focus is the key. Seriously, if I miss focus, especially on the eye, by more than a hair, I delete the image. So, MY suggestion; what I would do with this image; I would go back and try again another day. You say you "don't have time" but really, as a hobbyist, all you have is time. It'll snow again, the birds will be there again and you can use other images for your display in the meantime. I guess I don't "push" my images to fill a gap or try to make them into something they can't be. Perhaps it's an experience thing. I go back and look at old slides and wonder why I kept them. I've improved a ton in the past 6 or so years as my shooting increased (and still have a lot more to go!). Maybe that's why I am so critical of my own work, because I KNOW I'm capable of better. It's just a matter of going back and doing it again and learning from my errors. Instead of fixing a current image, I'll shoot another of the same subject/location/style, remembering why I didn't like the original. Sometimes, for example Australian birds (the parrots there are amazing), I might have to wait several years to re-shoot. Any way, my 2 Kroner. Only meant to help you since you seem to have an interest in something I have a real passion for. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 23.05.2007 15:59 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
