animals RWBB on flower

I'm sure I am not alone when I say that I am often disheartened by the

ratings I receive; but I am not above correction and instruction. So

if this image is just average, would you take a moment to tell me why?

Ratings alone are not very helpful in improving a craft, and I want

to be better. What is the weak link here? Composition? Exposure?

Lighting?

Beautiful a 7 in my book!

I applaud your questioning of the ratings you receive. I stopped asking for ratings years ago, because most of the raters are "armchair" photographers with liitle or no images in their portfolios..... so who are they? and what is their claim to fame?

So, what is wrong with the above image?....... nothing, absolutely nothing.

What is right with it?......... everything.

The larger view shows great DoF of a light nature, so as to isolate the bird beautifully. The subject matter is crisp and clean with a perfect eye and I would be very happy to have it in my portfolio.

As a personal preference, I might have considered cropping a little off the top and the right side...... but as a personal preference only.

This is a great capture and you would do well to refrain from requesting ratings..... rather interact with real photographers here on PN and get their written critiques on which you can invoke dialogue from which to learn (should you so wish).

Well done here

Regards

Hi Kristin,

I commiserate with you on the low ratings from users on this site.  I am mystified that sometimes photos that I think are just average (out of focus, too dark or too light, bad composition, blown highlights or muddy shadows) get very high ratings, and others that I know were top notch and difficult to obtain (like yours) get middling or low ratings. 

In fact, sometimes I start thinking along the lines that the same people who are rating others' photos very low are the ones that are trying to elevate their own ratings by comparison.  But of course, then I have a couple of cups of java and take a pill or two and I'm fine after that :>))  

Surely, in many cases it's a matter of taste.  De gustibus non est disputandum.  The message is: don't get disheartened.  The ratings from this site are not the be all and end all of photographic criticism.  Just look at the very frequent comments such as "Gorgeous", "Terrific", "Well seen" which are toss-offs that mean nothing to anyone, especially the photographer.  

Try putting a few of your photos up on other sites (I may just try that myself).  One site I can recommend is: www.birdphotographers.net.  It's a paid site (very low cost, I think it's about $20/year), but the forums are very good when it comes to education and "real criticism done gently".  They have forums on most photographic subjects, not just avian, such as post-processing, travel, landscapes, macro, wildlife, even a DSLR video critique forum.

As far as this photograph goes:  The subject (the bird) is extremely sharp and well exposed.  The light is soft, with no hotspots and no muddy shadows.  The composition is near perfect, with the bird at the right 1/3 of the frame and more space in the direction in which the bird is looking.  The bird's head position is very good (not perfect - it could be a little more parallel to the camera back), and there is a catchlight.  The perch is very good and the background is out of focus and near monotonic.  So far, very good. 

The only things I would suggest with this photo are: 1) that the crop could be a bit tighter.  When I look at the enlarged photo, the detail is very impressive, so it could be cropped further.  I would suggest trying a vertical format, again with the bird near the right side of the frame; and 2) the upper left quadrant of the background is lighter (more luminous) than the subject and to some extent distracts the eye from the subject.  I would try using an adjustment brush or other post processing to darken those parts of the background.  OR: a tighter vertical crop as suggested above would largely eliminate that issue.

One more comment:  it seems that people on this site who rate avian photographs prefer action shots, i.e. something interesting is happening in the photograph.  Myself, I consider those cliche' shots.  If I see one more grossly over-sharpened photograph of an osprey with a fish in its claws, I am going to...to...take another pill, I guess.

Thank you each for taking time to respond with such terrific comments.  Dennis, the feedback you gave is the sort of feedback that I am always interested in hearing--and your post was very funny.

The background was actually overblown in the original, which is here:  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15989452

I played around with the crop and I came up with something more square than rectangular.   Here:  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16010353&size=md

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/16010353-md.jpg

The comment from Dennis makes for interesting reading. I have had a "play around" myself and whilst I have tried to emulate your squaring up of the image I have tried to darken the background as well.

Sorry for the spot of greenery at bottom left.

I hope this hasn't messed with your photo too much.

Best regards

Much better Kristin.  I like Grayham's crop a bit better, although yours is a nice improvement too.  However, Grayham's edit seems to have left the bird a bit darker than the original, and it was better than the edit in that regard.   Very well done Kristin (and Grayham too for the suggested crop). 

It occurred to me that your original would be great as a magazine cover, with the space to the left -- so don't delete the original crop.  You never know!  There are lots of birding magazines out there which would love to have such a beautiful photo on its cover.

Best regards,

Dennis

Thanks for the feedback, both of you.  Dennis, were you saying that the edit by Grayham with the darker exposure on the bird was an improvement?  I was thinking I had the exposure on the bird and the flower correct and was selectively darkening the background, which when it is as soft as this is pretty simple.  I use the wand selector to get the background, then contract by say, 40 pixels and then feather by 35.  At that point most adjustments will not be very apparent.  But did you like the bird darker?  I'm still training my eye to see proper exposure.

Re: ratings, I first participated here on Photo.net about 10 years ago. The feedback helped me get better, but the comments felt pretty brutal sometimes and while I did sometimes receive high ratings on some of my photos, many were rated average or below average and sometimes photos I thought were very good were rated poorly.  Conversely, some photos I didn't think were that great were rated highly.

All that helped me made some judgements about what people like.

Now after three or four years of inactivity on this site, I have come back and I've been shocked (and pleased) by what seems to be a change in culture. The comments I see are very kind, almost to the point that I think they need to be firmer to really help people. Most comments seem to be the Paula Abdul American Idol: "That was great," rather than the more pointed Simon Cowell comments that are harsh but often more insightful.

Here's my take on your photo: 1) The subject may be boring to some viewers. It would be unusual for a photo of a bird to get a great rating.  To do that, it would have to be unusual bird, rather than the common blackbird you have here,and probably caught in a dramatic action.  A sitting bird is going to score lower than a bird in flight. If it had a worm in its mouth, people would find it more interesting. 2) The viewpoint is very expected. If you had an unusual angle that told us something more about the bird than we already know, viewers might find it more interesting. Your composition isn't centered and is somewhat harmonious, but it is very standard. a vertical crop might help. 3) The colors are muted. Sometimes bold colors is enough to get us all excited, but the ones in the photo are a bit dull. 4) Technically, the photo is good, but not great. The flowers are overexposed and the chest feathers are a touch blurry. That wouldn't be a problem with a dramatic hawk swooping down on a squirrel, but since all we are looking at here is the bird, it needs to be uber sharp.

Hope this helps and that you take it as intended. My own viewpoint is that this image is fact, average to above average. Take a look at some of my photos if you like; I would love to read an opinion or two.

Thanks for your response and perspective.  I appreciate hearing what for you and perhaps for most of this particular site, is what makes a strong image, being boldly colored action shots; but I take exception to the idea that this is the criteria for a "great" image.  That would be so limiting.  Now I appreciate that if this site is full of members who think similarly, then maybe its not the best place for someone outside of that genre.  I selected the muted, soft palette on purpose.

Point taken on the breast feathers, I could have benefited from a smaller av setting. 

I will challenge the statement that the flower and the breast is over exposed.  Here is the histogram for this image.

Sorry Kristin, no I thought your exposure on the bird was correct and that Grayham's edit seemed to darken the bird, to the detriment of the photo, I thought (at least on my monitor).  I did like Grayham's crop better though, although that is a minor thing and a matter of taste.   I apologize for not being clearer.  I guess I must have not had my coffee yet.

Best regards,

Dennis

Kristin,

I believe Mr. Hayward has some good points, but is being a bit harsh with your photo.  Here are my further thoughts:

M. Hayward Says:

Well, here's where M. Hayward and I strongly differ.  Perhaps, Mr. Hayward, would a breast or two Photoshopped into the photo help the ratings?  Perhaps birds are not your thing?  A lot of people, me included, are passionate about our avian friends.

Not necessarily.  I find many of the action shots here to be boring too, rather like cliches.  We need more OOB (Out of the Box) thinking here.  A sitting bird can be very interesting if done properly.  Take a look at Alan Murphy's shots over on www.BirdPhotographers.net. 

The muted colors are what makes this shot better than the ordinary, in my opinion.  I have seen one too many shots where the contrasty light and over-saturated colors ruined the photograph, making it look unreal.  Mr. Hayward is correct that these tend to get higher ratings though, although unfairly in my opinion.

I disagree that the flowers are overexposed.  they appear to be properly exposed on my monitor (which is calibrated).  I also don't have a problem with  the breast feathers - they seem very sharp on my monitor, as large as I can blow it up here.

Kristin, I would suggest you try to get some feedback over on www.birdphotographers.net.  They are a friendly bunch in general, and have helped me a lot.

Best regards,

Dennis

The reaction to my comments is interesting.

The photographer wrote a lengthy question asking why this photograph is receiving "average" ratings. I took the request as an honest question from someone who seemed to want an honest answer without meaningless platitudes. I took some time considering the photo and answering the question as best I could.

It has been interpreted as "harsh" and possibly attacking the photographer. Not so. Certainly not my intention. I tried to relate the aspects of a bird photo that seem to be well received by others, from my own experience. I regret doing so. It feels like I tried to help someone at her request and am now attacked for it.

One should note that immediately upon critiquing this photo, I critiqued another photo in this portfolio -- one that I thought would rate higher. That critique was more positive, focusing on the aspects of that photo that would produce higher ratings. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15752071

The photoshopping breast comment is particulary silly. I said nothing like that and anyone taking the time to look at my own portfolio would see what I think about birds. Hint: lots of birds and no breasts.

Well, I certainly didn't intend my additional comments as an attack.  I realize you were trying to help the original poster.  But I do stand by my comment that you were too harsh on this photo. 

Best regards,

Dennis

Whoa, you started a carpet bomb of a subject there. And all of us regular's agree. Ratings are very tough. I've seen shots (including mine) that I felt were 5+, but the rating come back 4's with zero reasoning. It is very, very, frustrating. I still do the ratings, but have learned not to be tied to them... at all. IMHO, rating should be delegated to those who explain, and have proven they are critiquers! I have 55+ helpful critiques, because I want to help, but no icon to show others that I do it. There are just too many inexperienced raters looking for the crazy in flight shot, and give no true ratings for solid technical shots. Ticks a lot of us off, as you can see. Keep going though, it's our passion!

Kristin,

Wonderful contrasting colours against that fantastic background!

Very nice!

Regards always,

Jim j.

Hi Kristin; an interesting question and some very well considered answers.  I agree fully with the contributor who thinks that ratings should be explained by a critique.  In that case one could learn what it is that the rater liked or disliked about the picture, but I fear many would be disinclined to explain themselves. It is really hard to have a high rating and be knocked back by a couple of anonymous  critics.  This little bird, (which actually looks like a sparrow to me :?), is enchanting on his flower head, and whilst I agree that the crop is an improvement, I think the colours and detail extremely good.  You can't please everyone, and it is amusing to note that the pictures which get thousands of views are birds of a very different feather, and usually not wearing them! Gillie

No Kristin you are not alone in being disheartened by the ratings here!

And, I must say that seeing a photograph such as yours here that has received 17 ratings, and still remains below a 5 rating is very discouraging to say the least!

I was not aware of the discussion going on at the time I left my comment and rated.  I was doing my rating/commenting utilizing the "Rate Category" feature which does not show the other comments. My bust I guess! I have limited time to comment/rate and it seems to be the most time efficient.

I found the discussion when doing the follow-up on my comments and it stirs my blood a bit too!

Like the other posters before me have indicated, it's very hard to understand why some "not so good" attempts can get such high ratings, and obviously good photographs get low ratings overall. And yes I am very aware of those that indicate "Ratings don't mean anything" which seems to be the general opinion in those forum threads when the ratings are brought up. However, I totally disagree that the "ratings don't mean anything!"

How many of those photographs that scroll across the front page of PN or, are found in the Random Image Generator of the front page do you see that don't have ratings! The ratings are all about a photograph getting public exposure, . . . the more exposure on PN the more ratings.

I submit nearly all my photographs for ratings, although I have never known of any of mine making the front page, but they will appear at the bottom of a forum thread that I have joined in the discussion. Again, only for the "trickle down" public exposure do I personally submit for ratings.

But I sincerely do understand the frustration of ratings without comment either good or bad! Thus, I at least try to make some comment on nearly all the photographs that I rate, although those comments may not always be of the "technical nature," because I personally don't shoot "technical photo's!"

It's all opinionated dependent upon the rater's preferences, . . . thus, I find the low rater's prefer stuff without anything on. So, I often wonder why they are rating in the other categories? To me, those are just the "hate raters" but they are very hard to ignore.

Just the other day, I submitted an image, it had 5 ratings and had obtained a rating of 5.60. The 6th rating dropped it to a 5.17. Those type of rater's have absolutely no clue of the effort that goes into obtaining a photograph such as yours here!

Maybe I'm no good at rating, but I do take into consideration the effort and challenges that are required to produce an above average photograph. After reading this discussion, I went back to look at how I had rated this photograph, . . . I am pleased to admit that I rated it at a 6 because I liked the composition, details, background & lighting, but would have personally preferred a little tighter crop.

I keep tabs on your photographs as much as I can because I know that we both use the same lens, and shoot many similiar subjects, in hopes that we can learn from each other.

Sincere regards always,

Jim j. 

I want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to this image with a critique.  My experience in the past 2 year on this site has been that my images generally receive ratings in the 4.5 - 5.0 range, and very little critique comments are added.  So, naturally, I start to scratch my head and wonder if I am actually going backwards.  I am not afraid to receive constructive criticism and negative comments.  The ones that are valid I take in and learn from them. 

There were a couple of critiques on this image that I did not agree with.  For instance, I did not agree that this image was improperly exposed.  There are no blown out highlights in this image.  However, what I do see is that the bird visually appears a bit dark against that background, while perched on a white flower.  While the "exposure" is pretty good here, there is an optical illusion that makes the eye feel slightly underexposed.  Something I'll need to consider as I photograph birds against a sunlit background. 

I fully agree with the crop recommendation.  I'm trying to learn to crop properly on the camera so I am not throwing away quite so much in post processing.  Composition seems to be my weakest link.

For the poster who asked about the species, wondering if it were a Sparrow, here is how I identified this bird.  The female RWBB is a bit larger than a sparrow and less stocky--though in my image, she is fanning her breast plumage, making her look stockier.  RWBB females and young have an orange patch beneath the beak, and eye lines are redish-orange.  The RWBB has a longer pointier beak and their feathers are a bit darker than the Sparrow.  The other give away is the breast which is streaked throughout where as the Sparrow's breast is streaked above and buff below.  You can't tell from this image, but the tail shape is also different.  A Sparrow's tail has a distinctive V-shaped pattern.

Thanks again to everyone who took the time to post.  This was a very useful conversation. 

Here is the final crop.

Kristin,

That "final crop" works very well, I also like that you've darkened the background a bit too! Still, I liked the original posting too, but the new crop is definately an improvement in my honest opinion.

All versions are very good images with exceptional details!

Regards always,

Jim j.