First time in this forum

Critiques please?

 

 

Autumn splendor by Tom Yin, on Flickr

I just realized that the original post is smaller than intended. Use this one.

 

Autumn splendor by Tom Yin, on Flickr

Fantastic shot, nicely back lit, well timed and in sharp focus. There's a distinct feeling the eagle has it's eyes on some prey. Whether that's true or not doesn't really matter, the pic portrays that to the viewer and gives it realism as a wildlife shot. Well done

Very well taken, Tom! I've viewed your ISO info on Flickr.

 

The photo is outstanding as it is. But I humbly suggest that it could have even more 'visual impact' by bringing out more detail/color in the eagle's right wing. And by reducing the shadow on the eagle's white feathers. I completely understand the dilemma between 'reality' and 'ímage'. I leave the choice entirely to you.

Great shot, but as a photograph I find it a bit busy. I followed the photo to the page where you wrote you took it while canoeing, and that's an excellent catch by you. As a photographer I like my photos to show patterns, and often colors or lighting can interfere with that objective, so I try to approach the composition from different angles and try to adjust the DOF to isolate or contextualize and control the shutter speed to convey motion or to freeze the moment; obviously none of that was available to you when you got this shot, but something else I will do along with burning and dodging and manipulating tones is play with WB and maybe with a B&W conversion, but I think those would detract from what you have done here. Anyway, like I said, I followed the photograph to your gallery, and as looked through it some I found it refreshing to see your enthusiasm and your good eye at work, so keep it up.

That's a great shot of the eagle - he's sharp, he's flying, and he's got a dramatic quality about him, like he's intent on catching something. The branches/tree trunk even frame the eagle nicely.

 

The only thing I didn't care for was that I find the background leaves distracting... there are just so many of them! I think if there were blue skies visible, it would enhance the pure "naturalness" of the scene. That's because when I see an eagle fly, I expect to see him soaring in the wild blue yonder LOL.

My first thought on seeing this images was 'Ker-WoW !!' Others may comment on the technical aspects of the shot, but for pure visual impact I find it amazing.

Amazing shot. Congratulations

Thanks to all for the kind words!

 

@mike I did use the adjustment brush to burn and dodge the right wing and feathers on the chest just a bit but didn't want to overdo it.

 

@VincentI and tonybeach Admittedly the background is quite 'busy' but to my eye that's what makes this photo unique. It would have just been an ordinary BIF photo if the background were blue sky. It's unusual to see an eagle against the leaves like this.

unusual

Keep looking for the unusual and keep looking in unusual ways. You won't please those looking for comfort and clichés, but you'll develop a personal vision that's far more important.

 

There's a whole lot of dynamic energy in this shot and I could imagine the background overwhelming the bird even more, which would give me glee if it turned the right people off! :)

 

Here, I'm not so much looking at subject and background as much as I'm looking at an energized whole of nature.

The shot is so freaking good at first I didn't know if it was a real bird captured in flight, or something 'shopped in! The bird is perfect. The branches not only frame it, but enhance and define its path. I don't find the background to busy or distracting because the bird stands out so well. Just a great job.

Ditto what everybody else said!

... at first I didn't know if it was a real bird captured in flight, or something 'shopped in!

One way to lessen that feeling would be to work with the sharpness (most likely a digital effect or artifact), especially around the edges of the bird and tree branches. There's almost a sense of outlining. Obviously, the focus itself should be maintained but the starkness offered by the sharpening gives a sense of something not quite natural to the eye.

The shot is so freaking good at first I didn't know if it was a real bird captured in flight, or something 'shopped in! The bird is perfect. The branches not only frame it, but enhance and define its path. I don't find the background to busy or distracting because the bird stands out so well. Just a great job.

 

I took many pictures in burst mode (on my Sony RX10 mirrorless camera it can take up to 24 fps) so I had a lot of photos to choose from. On my Flickr page you can see an animated GIF that I made from all of the frames. This is one big advantage of the mirrorless cameras over DSLRs, which can typically only take 4-6 fps since the mirror has to go up and down. I rarely see any discussion of this downside of DSLRs.

Wow, this is a great photo of a flying bird, caught in real life. I like everything about it. Everyone else has pretty much said anything I might have said by way of compliments. I don't find the background too busy, personally. I find it fitting, considering the environment in which the bird was photographed. I feel like (having read your description of how the shot was made- as one of a series of burst shots) perhaps there's some serendipity in this but when all is said and done, your capture of the eagle in flight really is pretty great. You were clearly paying attention otherwise you'd have missed it. Well done, Tom!

On my Flickr page you can see an animated GIF that I made from all of the frames.

Doesn't work, "original size" not visible under "view all sizes".

Doesn't work, "original size" not visible under "view all sizes".

Dieter, It appears that I've got my Flickr account set up so that only 'friends and family' can download photos at original size. I believe I have now reset it so any Flickr member can download it.. Please give it a try and let me know if there's still a problem

I love the image and will critique from the POV of another wildlife photographer. I'm surprised that you shot at only 79mm when you had 600mm available and then you cropped it a good bit. I don't know the pixel count on your 1" sensor, but I think it's a good bit higher than the 1920p that I see in the EXIF. The advantage of the short focal length is that you got all the leaves in focus, the disadvantage to short FL is that you got all the leaves in focus, rather than throwing them into a pleasant bokeh and isolating the eagle in this great pose.

 

I fully understand that this was probably shot in the heat of battle and you had no time to optimize settings or even zoom; however, the best way to overcome such limitations is to be constantly adapting as you move through a changing environment. EXIF says that you had Max Aperture at 4.0 and EV at +.3, which tells me that you were in some sort of auto exposure mode. If bird-in-flight is a priority in your shooting, then you need to move to Manual mode. The exposure worked here, but if it'd been against a blue sky, then the bird's brown feathers would have been under exposed. Open shade is actually the best shooting situation for bald eagles, because of the huge exposure difference between the white head and the brown body.

 

Great shot. Way to be ready!

David, Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to critique. This is what makes this site worthwhile especially coming from an expert. The focal length listed on the EXIF information does not account for the crop factor, which for this sensor is 2.72 so the 35 mm equivalent focal length is more like 213 mm. I agree that it would have been better at a longer focal length. If you look at the photos on my Flickr page, you can see that when the eagle was resting, I shot at 220 mm (600 mm 35 equiv) but when the bird looked like it might be ready to depart I changed to a shorter focal length because I was worried about keeping the bird in the frame when it was in the air. Hand holding a long lens while rocking back and forth in a canoe is the not textbook situation, so the 1/2000 exposure was intended to mitigate the unsteadiness.

 

BTW, I very much enjoy your contributions. You must be based in the Denver area? i grew up in Aurora many years ago.

David, Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to critique. This is what makes this site worthwhile especially coming from an expert. The focal length listed on the EXIF information does not account for the crop factor, which for this sensor is 2.72 so the 35 mm equivalent focal length is more like 213 mm. I agree that it would have been better at a longer focal length. If you look at the photos on my Flickr page, you can see that when the eagle was resting, I shot at 220 mm (600 mm 35 equiv) but when the bird looked like it might be ready to depart I changed to a shorter focal length because I was worried about keeping the bird in the frame when it was in the air. Hand holding a long lens while rocking back and forth in a canoe is the not textbook situation, so the 1/2000 exposure was intended to mitigate the unsteadiness.

 

BTW, I very much enjoy your contributions. You must be based in the Denver area? i grew up in Aurora many years ago.

 

I no longer put the location of bucks on my images, but most of the white-tail bucks that you see from me on Flickr are in Cherry Creek State Park. I live on the Greenwood Village side of CCSP and drive through Aurora constantly on I-225. Of course, part of CCSP is in Aurora. I'm on the board of a church planting way out in East Aurora. You can see Kansas from there. ;-)

 

Tom, you're very welcome.

 

The RX-10 is the camera that I recommend to anyone wanting to dip their toe into wildlife photography. It's incredibly competent for the cost of a good lens. With all the options you had in that picture, I think that the most important decision was to use 1/2000-sec. I try to get up above 1/1000-sec. for all my bird-in-flight shots and 1/2000 to 1/3200-sec. is even better, before I start lowering ISO

Magnificent shot! The only change I would consider is to crop out the lower branch which is a tad distracting.

This is fantastic and much better than any wildlife shot I have taken.

 

One critique though is that the eye (the consciousness of the subject) is not as bright as some other parts of the composition. This other shot is not as skilful as yours, but it does have a bright eye.

 

Would it be unethical edit a little and "unsharp mask" the eye?

@glen Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what 'other shot' you are referring to. In any case, I actually did slightly brighten the eye and white chest of the bird but didn't want to overdo it.

The words "other shot" mask a link selected only because it shows a bright eye, and that was probably also enhanced in some way.

...

 

One critique though is that the eye (the consciousness of the subject) is not as bright as some other parts of the composition. This other shot is not as skilful as yours, but it does have a bright eye.

 

Would it be unethical edit a little and "unsharp mask" the eye?

 

As a serious wildlife photographer, I don't think it's unethical to "adjust" any lighting or color issue. I shoot in RAW and "expose to the right", so the in-camera image will usually look washed out. I'll pull down EV and add Contrast in RAW conversion. Then I'll adjust the comparative level of the eye(s) up just a touch and even Saturate the eye color a bit, but within the limits of what's believable and close to what I saw. Here's an example:

 

I See You by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

In DxO PhotoLab 4, I did a small selective color adjustment to the eyes, pulled EV down and raise Contrast and Fine Contrast (which I always do on hair and feathers) from the RAW file level EXCEPT I didn't pull the eyes down quite as much as overall. These are all small adjustments, but they make a big difference in how an image "Pops."

 

I DO know wildlife photographers that consider what I do unethical, but I think that they don't understand how sensors work and actually believe that the in-camera JPEG is an accurate representation of reality, when it's just an option chosen by a committee of Japanese engineers. The RAW file is simply data, which the photographer interprets.