bri

Haven't seen this subject matter taken before, nor do I see many pictures executed so cleanly to give this type of effect. It has about as much character as an elderly woman who has some secrets she won't tell.

Standards are described at:

http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/standards/. When clicking on the ratings tab for this image, a drop down select box allows updates to the scoring even though selecting rated image list from "My Workspace" says that it has been disabled. Changed ratings based off of other bird photographs I've been exposed to.

Terrence,

 

I wish there was a technical rating for photographs as well as Aesthetics and Originality - and I wish the definition of "Very-Bad" or "Very-Good" "Originality" was given somewhere on this site (if you know where that is, please let me know).

 

It would have also been nice if photo.net provided an explanation of the gallery functionality or at least had a better interface (once you score, you can't comment without going to your workspace and finding that picture you scored).

 

Technically, your photo is outstanding. Very sharp, nice differentiation between the background contrast and the subject (which I have difficulty with even with an open shutter). You may want to lower the compression (raise the resulting quality in photoshop to around a 7 or 8). JPEG is so nasty with contrast and its lossy compression tears up the appeal of so many images. In this case the halos around the tailfeathers and the green background are clearly evident on even the smaller views of your photos.

 

Thanks for your comments on your own photo - it peaked an interest that prompted a look out on the internet to see what others had done and what makes birds such a popular subject for wildlife. While out there, I saw some photos that were spectacular and some that were downright ugly. In nearly all cases the photographer conveyed some type of passion. It appears that bird photography is a subset of photography that participants of become highly passionate about... something I was ignorant of before.

 

On a micro-comparative basis from the other bird photographs out there, you do have a great photo that's worth much higher marks (like the original pose and head angle) than I gave. In a much broader context of the sea of diverse subject matter and presentation on photo.net - a bird felt ordinary since there are quite a few other photographers on photo.net who also take slews of bird photographs.

 

Had I understood the nature of bird photography, I would have graded it based off of the smaller detailed scale of other bird pictures.

 

Nevertheless, I'm not one to change my own opinion of a movie or a photo based off of what others say about it - I don't care for mainstream (as James Thurber would call it - "Civilized") or politically correct comments. It's easy to listen to other peoples' comments first then just nod a head in agreement. If a good comment is made I try to dig deeper, but I prefer learning over appearing to be agreeable... and you've taught me a good start on the bird photography genre that I didn't know before.

 

It stinks that I can change comments, but can't change scores - so much has been learned and more has been appreciated in our dialogue than a score off of a half minute stare at a good bird photo could convey.

You sure are defensive. If you really think this is a great photograph why do you even care about my opinion so much that you go around in areas that don't even involve your pictures slamming me about? You haven't even critiqued my photo - you just went to that space to blurb out your frustrations.

 

If I'm as insignificant as you have stated then stop wasting your time harassing me and consider yourself flattered that I don't consider you the ass you make me out to be.

 

As far as commonplace - it appears that bird photography is one of, if not the leading, wildlife subject in photography.

 

You demonstrate good skill in these photos which is not being doubted. The only animals I can think of more common in photography than birds are family pets, and I've seen several of those with just as much if not more appeal.

 

I personally found a photograph of clothespins more interesting (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1670564). Clothespins are just as commonplace as birds, but there aren't very many good and interesting photos of clothespins out there while there are plenty of technically good photos of birds.

 

I know that it typically takes expensive equipment (who can afford a 500mm lense until they've retired!?) and patience. If only you could show as much patience for your fellow mankind that you show to silly birds.

 

Yes - my pictures suck - but I can take the criticism. I know I suck. But what makes you think you're so great that you have a right to go around beating on people who say anything negative about your photos?

 

The shot appears to have a crisper focus on the leaves just under the left wing than on the butterfly itself. Bug shots are common and centering the subject generally causes the image to lose more interest than it could have had. I think that a deeper zoom - such as on the scale pattern on the butterfly's wings or the details of its ridges - would add much more creativity and feel to macro/close-up photos.

Head-on grill shots seem commonplace, though I appreciate you closing in on the texture instead of just showing the whole front of the car.

I rated a 1 on originality because anyone can open a nature magazine or the audubon or National Geographic and see a picture of a bird. If it had an unusual camera angle or some type of twist to the perspective I would have gladly rated it higher. For example, you may have closed in on the face and upper wing instead of capturing the entire bird.

 

You seem rather edgy as soon as anyone comes by with a less than average critique. Please don't take it that way. Originality = 1 means it's common ground and something I've seen most photographers attempt - it doesn't mean I'm getting cocky with you or that I think I can do any better than a 1 myself.

Very interesting shot of what appears to be Echinacea. It appears that you took an already digital image and boosted contrast then desaturated it. Is that correct? By the way - the title makes this picture more interesting.

I really enjoyed seeing a photo of death valley where death valley itself wasn't the cinemascape postcard photo. Those mile markers really give a good depth to the location and is nice way to keep the photo from being another touristy cliché.

It isn't very pretty to look at, and is actually rather harsh - but that door full of greenery feels so much against the grain that the photo becomes appealing. Even though I want to peer around the white column to see out the door - and possibly even because of the tease - I rank this one much higher than another one you took like it. The green door to the right while all the angles shoot to the left seems to make a statement of what "progress" can do (from the natural to the unnatural).