gregscott

I cannot really critique this, since it's just so good, I can only ask questions regarding technique:

Since you have a digital camera, it should record shutter speed, aperture, focal length of lens, actual focus distance, etc. It would be good to have that info along with info on any flash, etc.

I do some birds in flight photographs, and have most success with birds with very predictable feeding patterns. Birds which will come to a feeder, or a nest, or a favorite perch in a predictable manner are the easiest to get. There you can pre-focus on the spot where the bird will approach. Hummingbirds are easiest, as you can precisely pre-focus on the flower or the point a few inches away where the bird hovers to "rest" between sips.

In the case of bug eating birds, it's very difficult. My guess here is that perhaps the shot was taken near a perch in customary use by this bird. (I don't know it's habits.) I also know that dragonflies will use a favored perch to rest between it's hunts. If these were sufficiently close, it's "predictable" that the bird might swoop down on the bug. Setting up the tripod, prefocusing on the spot just beyond the bug, and waiting very patiently might produce this shot. In essence, was it planned, or was it just the result of hundreds of patient exposures? I'm guessing the 2nd, based on your comments, so the question already asked is really important:

How DO you get one in focus? Autofocus will almost never lock on a flying bird for me. Did you use autofocus, or focus manually. Do you play video games, or have some exercises you perform for fast focus?

 

Why do the bird's wingtips appear so dark? Is there some digital editing involved? What kinds of alterations were performed, if any?

 

A wonderful, rare photo. Thanks for posting with us. It's particularly enjoyable to see birds I'm less familiar with from a more international clientelle on PN. 7/7

If you took off the skirt, you might do a "girl being poured through a funnel" concept! Very unique photo. Very funny.

Looks like your model may be a real character.

I like the color combo. I wonder if the railing detracts. A big arrow through your head.

Actually, that's just my perverse sense of humor. It's certainly sharp enough for the photo. I like it just fine the way it is. Sometimes my humor is too subtle. I think that the whole impressionist movement began when somebody, perhaps Monet, had his vision go blurry, perhaps from cataracts, and he continued to paint, but as he saw it. Thus the soft pastels. Indeed, it's the contrast of the hard focus on the people, and the soft focus on the painting that makes the "conceptual" interest in this photo for me.

Hey, it's a Monet! What could I say? Perhaps it's a little blurry... }:-D

Seriously, it's a good photo I'd like to see larger to appreciate properly.

You could also title it "7" perhaps. But the French draw a line through the middle. But it even has seriphs! (The points at the tips of the letter's form. IE, foot and Torso/Head.

 

I even like the title, which often just annoys me. It is a humorous photo.

Particularly interesting is the strong vertical line. It might be dynamic equilibrium, not static, IE I'm not sure you could stand this way for any period of time.

It's a wonderful photo. Since you commented on noise reduction software, here's my attempt using the "reduce noise" filter in photoshop CS2. Settings were near the shring-wrap default, but I kickded up the color noise suppression to a higher value. I also tried and liked, but did not include in this example, using a gaussian blur to de-emphasize the branch on the upper left. This removes far more noise, so mixing the technics can be good or bad...

 

I also use an option to "select similar" so that I was reducing noise on almost the whole photo, except for parts of the bird. On the bird, the top of the head was selected, the black spots, the yellow tail.

 

All the noise isn't reduced. I hope the difference shows up in my repost. I've never reposted somebody's photo, so I hope all this is ok. Maybe more experienced photoshoppers will suggest better methods.

Maybe we should ask for a "members only" attribute for photos, so that only members could see and critique certain photos. I'm quite disturbed, actually about the inclusion of the digital postcard option on this website, in spite of the statement that copyright is to be honored. I wish the default for that option were NOT to allow the digital postcard option.

A beautiful photograph, wonderful location, wonderful composition. My only nit is a personal reaction: Where's Eve? The tree's in the background, but This looks like it might almost be a favorite spot in eden. It lacks some of the mosses and ferns to form bed and bower for the prototypical lovers, but that's what I'd like to see: Eve, and slightly "richer" environment. But this is fantastic.

Give the poor girl a coat! Great Goosebumps.

Good action and pose, don't like the horizon.

The huge proof mark "destroys" the impact as a photo.

I'd rate it higher without the proof mark.

I understand, it's just unfortunate we can't publish in a photographer's forum without defacing our photos to protect them.

I'm disturbed by the red curves. These may be the path that some eyes follow, but the water is not really following that path.

The lower s is correct, but the upper curve, as far as water flow is concerned is entirely left to right.

Perhaps as a whitewater canoeist, I "read" water differently than the regular viewer. However, If you follow the dark lines instead of the light, you may get a more useful map. I wonder when the eye follows shadows or midtones rather than highligths? Seeing this at a higher resolution might change the perception...

 

What I see when I look at the photographs is an eddy behind the smaller rock, a "pillow" of water in front of the larger rock, and a standing wave behind the larger rock. Looks like a great surfing spot. To me the primary interest is in the large rock and the "pillow" of water in front of it. It's classic. The smaller rock gives scale and diagonal structure.

 

Perhaps there are rules about how the eye must roam a photograph, but I doubt that they're invariant.

The sword is sharp enough. I think that you need more DOF. Careful with that edge!

I recently commented elsewhere that PN has very few good male nudes. This is one of he few. A very powerful pose, great light, a complex photo.

Is it a wish, or a prayer? Are they the same thing?

Sometimes, some folks seem to be able to run to the base of the alter and cry out to God, and rise satisfied. Others do the same, and rise empty. Most of us proceed by degrees, moving a few pews closer, a few back, and hope that God is hearing us. Meanwhile, God is sitting beside us, whispering encouragement to our hearts.

 

That's the story in me, evoked by your image. I'm sure others see other stories, and that's part of the power of images like these.

I like the simple elements of this photo. The perspective, the rhythm, the variation. Our prayers are not all the same. Some burn brightly, others flicker, and some sputter and die. But who is to say which prayers pleased God? He acts as he pleases. It's an ancient and worthy metaphor, and worthy imagery.

I've been reviewing my top rated photos. I think that the "tension" in the pose, particularly in the hand makes it feel almost "structural", like a suspension bridge. There are many other elements as well, but nobody's mentioned this aspect of the photo.

Judging by the size of the feet, this ain't no maiden...

Still, it's a funny photo.

I like the atmosphere in this shot. The models may be "overacting" just a bit, or maybe not. That's a very subjective question. But the expression and pose is very evocative and dynamic, yet the tableau is static. An interesting photo.

Her tan line makes me think perhaps, along with the humor in this shot if she's trying to correct a little posterior paleness... A very unique photo!

I canoed many times on the whitewater river/canal when I was a kid, but usually on the "wilder" areas north of town. Still, this shot brings back all sorts of nostalgia. As a critique, I'd like to see more of the left side of the lock. Bringing out the historical meaning of the photo might add to its percieved value. It's not a waterfall, exactly, but spillover from a closed lock in a canal system. The canal is one of many built after the success of the Erie Canal. I don't recall how much economic importance it gained, but like all such canals, it was soon overtaken by the economic efficiencies of railroads, which aren't constrained to follow topographical lines so closely.

 

One of my personal stories is that these locks are just slightly under 15 feet wide. I know because we turned our 15 ft Grumman canoe (which I still have) broadside in a rapids in an unrestored lock. It jammed nearly perfecly perpendicular, and it took us hours of prying with logs to get that canoe out of there. So I'm pretty sure that the width of the lock is about 15 feet!

Teacher put away for summer vacation?

Well, I'll critique, but my thoughts are untrained personal, and subjective.

With that caveat, maybe somebody else will jump in and offer a more educated opinion.

To me, the light is a little contrasty. Often overcast or even rainy ways work well with waterfalls. The main problem is that you can get the shadows right, which is most of the base of the waterfall, but then the highlights of the "whitewater" and the upper part of the falls is overexposed. Here, that doesn't detract as much as normal, but you can see what I'm talking about...

The long pano crop, and the (girl?)'s legs add some interest and scale, but the grass alone can give the same scale and perspective. I'd either want to see the whole person, none of the person, or see some reason for the specific crop. Here, I don't see it. That's my main complaint: the crop. I like it from the composition of the rocks, perhaps, but if the waterfall were the primary subject, then that would be different.

 

To leave the legs in, with this exact crop, a nice bright yellow sunlit parabola of urine would be funny, but then you'd need a male subject, probably.

I really like the combination of artificial and natural light. In my perception, it's symbolic of the descent from the environment we know, to the hidden and alien one below. This give the photograph a powerful mystique.