Pelican

All I see is a small dot...

I know that the "subject" is rather small and needs a second look to

be seen, but is the bird really TOO small? Is this pic really as

mediocre as the comments/ratings suggest?

 

The idea behind was an "environmental portrait" (environmental

primarily meant as surroundings and to a lesser degree as ecologic) of

an animal that is usually portraited full frame in color with longer

lenses and blured background (tried this too, I'm not good enough for

that).

Or I should say, one just like it. I would prefer the image without the bird, or at least the bird positioned in a brighter area of the water. That said, I still like the shot.

I love it and am facinated by the texture. J.

Hardly "mediocre" Bernhard! I love the feel of the water -- the wave is perfectly positioned and the texture reminds me of a closeup of unironed cotton fabric.

 

My take is that the Pelican is absolutely necessary to make this picture work. Without it (as an abstract), the photo doesn't hold as much interest. Maybe I am being too conventional here, but I'd prefer the bird to be slightly more prominent. Either in size or with some color. Of colorizing it now will be tacky :-)

... colorizing it now will be tacky ...

I agree, especially as the bird is B&W in real life :)

 

This shot graces the walls of Banana Republic...

I'm not sure what that means, but I take it as a compliment.

 

this shot could work better if the pelican didn't clash with that high-contrast line

That's a very good point. If I have a chance to redo the shot I'll watch this.

 

Thanks a lot for your helpful comments

>> ... colorizing it now will be tacky ...

 

> I agree, especially as the bird is B&W in real life :)

 

Really? Oh boy, is my face red! I think I confused pelicans with flamingoes. Now I am not sure that flamingoes hang around in the ocean like this one, so I shouldn't have been confused. I should stop talking now.

I must say that the bird is TOO small. If this was blown up to say an 11x14 it might appear (seem) as a more integral part of the photo but a little more size would be better.

 

Love the textured water.

Late arrival... Andrew obviously didn't take enough time to properly evaluate this at all and has disqualified his comment through his attached rating.

As far as I'm concerned, it works very nicely as an abstract kind of environmental image. The structure in the surface of the sea is really great. Has anyone bothered to notice the diagonal ripples that are visible (running from below the dark wave to the bottom right...)?The bird might be better positioned slightly above that darker part, as Sean suggested. But, I like this all the same. Your pelican is not too small. Just one more opinion...

Gazing into water is a very restful experience for me, and this captures some of that feeling.. The lines of light and dark suggest the movement of the water very nicely.

 

As an abstract piece, it is pleasant to look at. But if I am supposed to know it is a pelican and have some relation to the bird, then I suppose it is too small. You titled this Pelican; if I came upon it in a museum, I would glance at it, look for the Pelican, shake my head and walk away. But if you titled it "The Sea at Rest", or some such, I would spend some time looking at it, and when I discovered the Pelican, I might enjoy it.

The textures and tonality are excellent. At this distance the bird does seem more graceful than when closer up, I consider them rather clumsy on the wing - almost as if they're too big to fly.

Yes, to have the pelican contrasting against a lighter part of the ocean would have been an improvement. The title should emphasise the swell of the ocean rather than the bird : then none would go looking.

Was Niranjan really that wrong about the colour? They're drab, and so right for mono but : think bill - it has a black or white bill? I thought they were flesh-toned (not that this would show given its portion of the frame.)

Bernhard, I haven't read the rest of this thread and I apologize if this has already been said 10 times, but isn't it obvious that this bird is waaaaaaaaaay TOO....... BIG !?

A smaller bird would have been more subtle, as it would emphasize your intent even further and allow the rating to drop a lot lower than that.

Of course, you are welcome to joke on photo.net, but at least, joke in a subtle way !! :-)) Cheers.

How small this pretty big bird seems over this immense body of water. It's not just a speck, and, anyway, who ever said that birds HAVE to be photographed in one way and one way only? Besides the fact that very few folks can afford such expensive lenses, aesthetically speaking, environmental bird photography has as much merit as close-up, full frame, narrow DOF, count-every-feather stuff.

 

This is a beatiful photo. The scope and heaviness of this body of water is emphasized by the pelican, dwarfed here by the sheer scale of the image. Great job!

 

By the way, this is the very first time that I was really impressed by the B&W/bird photography combo.

I dind't see the bird at the first place so yes, he's far to small.