DUCKS

[httpwww.photo.netdman]

[httpwww.photo.netdman]

[httpwww.photo.netdman]

[JDMvW]

Isolating and then focusing on a subject is usually preferred to a medley of OOF birds and branches.

[samstevens]

Isolating and then focusing on a subject is usually preferred to a medley of OOF birds and branches.

Your avoiding that approach is one reason I’m drawn to these photos, especially the first ... because they provide the texture of a medley instead of the predictability of an isolated and more focused subject. Keep seeing individually and don’t make things so easy and reliable for your viewers. Make them challenging. I think each of the three photos has a kind of orchestration which goes a bit deeper than “duck on pond.” You’ve used movement, layering, surface perspective, and depth of field expressively and holistically.

[JDMvW]

Your avoiding that approach is one reason I’m drawn to these photos,

 

As I said, "usually"

 

Pretty much anything goes, so long as it is intentional.

[samstevens]

Pretty much anything goes, so long as it is intentional.

What about happy, unintentional accidents?

[JDMvW]

What about happy, unintentional accidents?

 

What about them?

 

Is an accident "art"? Maybe so, but that path is pretty well beaten, so let's not beat a dead path.

[samstevens]

What about them? [happy, unintentional accidents]

You said, “pretty much anything goes, as long as it’s intentional.” I’m saying, pretty much anything goes, including sometimes what’s not intentional. Photographic accidents happen with some regularity, often adding a lot to photos that are very much worthwhile.

 

While we’re at it, I did think your first response about isolating and focusing on a subject, which was a response to a request for critique of a specific photo, was your commenting that you would have preferred a more isolated and focused subject. If you were speaking in more general terms and just pointing out what’s done more typically, then I misunderstood you and am sorry I did.

[JDMvW]

If you were speaking in more general terms and just pointing out what’s done more typically, then I misunderstood you and am sorry I did.

 

 

That was certainly my intent, but no matter:cool:

[Ricochetrider]

Hello, and first off- thanks for posting! It does take some fortitude to put stuff out here for critique, and I appreciate your doing so.

 

Of the 3 shots, I like the 1st. The subject of the photo is nicely centered and enough of the duck is in focus to draw the eye right into the image. All the other elements combine to make an interesting shot of a wild beast in its environment, but the duck itself is strong enough here to dominate the other aspects of the shot. I like the sense of motion as well in this one,

 

Numbers 2 and 3 don't do much for me.

 

In shot 2, the colors reflected? on the water sort of drown out the colors of the ducks (same or similar color tones), making them difficult to see well. None of the other elements distinguish themselves well enough to provide any real interest. To my eye, this is just one big muddy puddle of a photo.

 

Shot number 3 is pretty dark- in and of itself not horrible, but none of the 3 ducks really pop out of the darkness, so to my eye, there isn't really anything in this shot that catches my eye or sparks my imagination. Maybe if just one of them was dead center, or more clearly in focus, this could work. All of the ducks are partially behind something- a branch, twig, something is semi obstructing every duck here- by my way of seeing it, this goes a long way towards killing this particular shot.

 

I sort of see that in real-world actuality, there was probably plenty of light and you likely had a pretty clear view of these ducks. Unfortunately, the camera doesn't always translate what the eye sees very well. Maybe it's a limitation of the lens, or maybe the sensor, the auto-focus could be the limitation here- especially with all the surrounding brush and stuff in your shots. Perhaps your timing was a little bit off. Maybe if you had super-duper post processing skills, you could have overcome some of this. That said, I encourage you to absolutely keep shooting and keep trying! Shoot with the idea of actually capturing what your mind's eye sees. In time, with some effort, you'll eventually learn what works and what does not work. You'll figure out what your camera and your lens(es) are capable of and learn how to make the most of them.

[samstevens]

Shoot with the idea of actually capturing what your mind's eye sees

I got the feeling that’s just what was done here. It’s what the Impressionists did ... painted what their mind’s eye saw and didn’t limit that inner eye to highlighted subjects and focused imagery.

 

I’ve found it good practice as a viewer sometimes not to look for a subject in a photo but to see the photo as the subject.

 

I do agree with your description of the second photo, where the surface reflections and colors are so dominant and I like it for that very reason and for the unusualness of such a view. I’ve certainly experienced ducks vying for attention in an overwhelming environment, though a photo, for me, doesn’t always capture experience so much as create it.

[dcstep]

I see no redeeming features here. Nothing important is in focus. You show nothing but duck butts and the light is ordinary and generally a bit underexposed.

 

Our friend Sam tries to see the abstract in every image. I understand that, but I see no intentional abstraction here. I think, "lazy" when I see this. If the subject is light, then why isn't the light more interesting and why are the ducks even in the shot? If the subject is "ducks butts" then why can't we see a good looking butt.

 

The OP may not know that I'm a certified, long-lens wielding, feather-detail hunter, that normally isolates my feathered subjects, but not always. I work hard to get a positive head angle, eye-light and stunning feather detail. I like to think that I'm open to alternative views of nature, but I just don't get these images.

 

For reference, here's what I do:

Interestingness 2019

[samstevens]

Our friend Sam tries to see the abstract in every image.

That needs a bit of explaining. I do often look at photos abstractly, for forms, shapes, light, dynamics, etc. but, unless something is meant as an abstract in the sense of Klee or Mondrian, that's rarely the extent to which I view them. As my comments above suggest, these photos have more than abstraction going on as they are clearly tied to things recognizable in nature and are more representative than abstract of those things.

 

What I often do, however, and what I hoped to do in my comments is look for the individual vision and support that vision, even if I feel the vision needs work. You've impressively honed a certain very deliberate, clear, picturesque style of photographing these creatures. They are done in the tradition of the best nature work and National Geographic approach in quality and view. They are almost ideal in their presentation. They are accessible and what one expects from a really good photographer when opening this sort of picture.

 

Those kinds of pictures impress me but don't hold that much interest for me. I'd prefer to be exposed to a more eccentric, less expected, even less likable (or at least more rough around the edges) view of nature. That's what challenges me. So I tend to encourage rather than discourage work that's not typically focused or composed, work that may not make clear what the subject is and what the background is, work that comes from a perspective that tends to throw me off rather than a perspective that confirms what I already know and what nature photography has been imagining and re-imagining for decades.

[cameragary]

well i like the second shot the best.it draws into the left / right duck butt center of the pic.i look at them as enjoyment and i put that into my own perspective and the way i see an image.call me strange or old fashioned but i like the feel of the pic.

[dcstep]

Longing for feedback from the OP.

[httpwww.photo.netdman]

I see no redeeming features here. Nothing important is in focus. You show nothing but duck butts and the light is ordinary and generally a bit underexposed.

 

Our friend Sam tries to see the abstract in every image. I understand that, but I see no intentional abstraction here. I think, "lazy" when I see this. If the subject is light, then why isn't the light more interesting and why are the ducks even in the shot? If the subject is "ducks butts" then why can't we see a good looking butt.

 

The OP may not know that I'm a certified, long-lens wielding, feather-detail hunter, that normally isolates my feathered subjects, but not always. I work hard to get a positive head angle, eye-light and stunning feather detail. I like to think that I'm open to alternative views of nature, but I just don't get these images.

 

For reference, here's what I do:

Interestingness 2019

Hey DC...Thanks for your input...I did look at your photos...and I do have to say that they are quite impressive. On this day when I took these photos I was walking a small nature trail late afternoon...I snapped these photos...really there wasn't nothing worth while out, but these ducks...and they sure as hell did not turn around for a photo shoot...(just kidding), while looking at the pictures after getting home...it appeared to me that the photos were showing how quiet it was on this nature trail...everyone who doesn't take photos really did not give me any critique and really wanted to hear from others. After reading all the input from everyone, I am thinking that I will slow down, take the time and get everything into focus (A LOT BETTER), and wait to get other angles for better images...and this is why I have posted these 3 photos was to get feedback (which I have, and I appreciate )....

[dcstep]

Hey DC...Thanks for your input...I did look at your photos...and I do have to say that they are quite impressive. On this day when I took these photos I was walking a small nature trail late afternoon...I snapped these photos...really there wasn't nothing worth while out, but these ducks...and they sure as hell did not turn around for a photo shoot...(just kidding), while looking at the pictures after getting home...it appeared to me that the photos were showing how quiet it was on this nature trail...everyone who doesn't take photos really did not give me any critique and really wanted to hear from others. After reading all the input from everyone, I am thinking that I will slow down, take the time and get everything into focus (A LOT BETTER), and wait to get other angles for better images...and this is why I have posted these 3 photos was to get feedback (which I have, and I appreciate )....

 

Being more intentional is something that I was searching for as I first looked at your images. In focus or out of focus, either may tell your story, but you need to explore those options. Take a few dozen with your theme in mind, intentionally exploring options with the light and focus and then select THE ONE that best met your objective. Self-critique, did it meet your objective. Maybe ask for help here again. Don't force your viewer to choose for you. You be the judge and then ask for reaction.

 

BTW, getting the ducks at neutral angles to you, or even headed toward you requires waiting. We call it the "fifteen-minute rule" in bird photography. When you come into the scene, they all put some distance between you and them. Wait fifteen-minutes, being still, and they'll start to meander back to you. What you captured was what happens when you first mosey up. You captured fleeing ducks, not relaxed, tranquil, stress free ducks.