Dieter Schaefer

David, I have seen quite a few images of this place (many seem to be taken from the other side) - though I have never been there in person. I don't think the building on the right adds much to the image at all - the "eye"catching part is what counts. Going wider was only one of my considerations - which, as you point out, may not be possible due to constraints imposed by the location. Zooming in closer certainly is an option though. Doing so makes it mandatory to not cut off that section on the left.

One issue with critiquing an image of a location one hasn't visited oneself and can only get a feel for from other photographs is that one doesn't know whether it is possible to move a few steps to either side, closer or a bit farther away.

It seems to me that Pedro chose his POV quite carefully, hiding most of the four buildings in the background behind the structure. From this image, which seems to be taken quite close from where Pedro took his (farther to the left), there doesn't appear to be anything on the left that would prevent proper framing (of course, moving right, there could be another building coming into view from the left): https://www.flickr.com/photos/albireo2006/8504152492/in/photolist-faaYes-6Dzn6G-p6MfnC-5v77HP-eapB2-i8j9DV-aD6sUK-5wiQqF-jWjuon-65kjBQ-wmHQ5W-cJqogo-dXu1fQ-cZ6uEG-9ZKbXU-Bo1Hnb-6yvvh2-7am4bV-rhqHD8-pHXJjp-9qaiep-dPeRiz-5DKqtf-p2Jfab-fpqa4m-rgmAX1-dVUqL7-71Tn4t-byhnY8-8nirPb-amuSEC-BM1pfg-6t1Fc6-bYL7MQ-7547cx-4qMpgZ-aLGPkn-gB7r5c-62KgWh-814yry-cXq4ib-7d7Ega-oqzTZD-65fQ1t-anXfhc-aDw26L-891ESi-a7u6Sg-dC7wyd-fAfJDN
Doesn't appear to be any building on the left that would interfere with Pedro framing a bit more on the left: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jorgetorre2/4388427758/in/photolist-7peTRW-ubaH5-8x5C5c-6sd4BY-c8cchW-jgSLnM-rwuaS1-bXt6sC-iPbpA2-91gWm2-5V7Znj-ceCJ8A-Dkuq-5RQeqY-5tWYTY-pqPLQ4-iPbpJP-GjUdd-8qwxqL-7uFf5z-f9NA7-8rsvE7-7FMQFy-e1717A-3i3cwM-48ec6t-B6qt71-7dAH7y-94jKvk-5FWdPS-g2aL7C-8fkhZd-P91N1-3VL2ag-2V1Gfy-47kdkW-5gRegf-27GnQu-5RNYYY-6SeUkN-8PsMS8-7MPPhF-e9aTNy-hJy2eW-5udJJv-8chbeW-cuv4hQ-5oWyyv-pQpRKd-cXPMDj
From this side, the structure seems to be photographed more obliquely usually - which brings the background building in more and makes a more compelling composition. The issue then is some of the buildings in the left background become more visible - how inconsiderate to build there at all!

Striking architecture. Lovely reflection. The composition doesn't work well for me though - I'd rather either see the "eye" by itself without the distraction on the right (and the full eye please, cutting off a portion on the left is unforgivable). Or a wide view - the above image lacks space both on the right and the left.

Can't say if this was a panorama created from more than one image (in which case the question again arises as to why cut it so close left and right) or from a wide-angle shot (my guess would be 28mm at the most) and then heavily cropped top and bottom. So in summary - go wider or narrower.

To me the composition feels off balance - with the model positioned too far to the right. I would also place the model a bit lower in the frame - eliminating the continuation of background lines into the foreground. The dark triangular shapes in the background are distracting elements breaking the flow of the image. The shadows on the models face are just slightly too deep - another components that adds to the off-balance feel of the image.

Giangiorgio is a member since December 2005.

Steve, the image is not an HDR - but five bracketed exposures were used to create it in a process that's called Exposure Fusion.  It's not HDR since it does not necessitate the calculating of the intermediate HDR image and hence does not involve a tone-mapping step; it's a blending of the five images using the "best" bits of each to created an image with an extended dynamic range.

Sunset time at Sproat Lake, B.C. on July 4 was 9:28PM - so the image is taken a full hour earlier (assuming, of course, that the camera time was set properly for the location - given the latitude (Vancouver), it should have still been quite bright out (sun about 10 degrees above horizon; though if there are mountains, that would change).

How much the fire and smoke influence the lighting conditions is everyone's guess - I was just going by the fact that - except for the yellow on the right side - the colors look dull and the white on the planes back is rendered quite gray - but that could just be caused by the smoke. Looking at the histogram now, I see that the red channel is blown all to smithereens already. IMHO, the plane could use another 2/3 to 1 stop exposure - but that's not knowing the real conditions at the time the picture was taken.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether the image is desired to reflect actual conditions or is tweaked for the sake of having more impact. At least for me, I'd boost things a bit - and could easily overdo it because I haven't witnessed the actual conditions.

Lots of unrealized potential in the image. Colors are a bit dull - due to the image being underexposed. Agree with Robin that the image is bottom heavy - and wish the plane was higher up in the image; all quite likely due to focusing with the central AF area on the plane's nose and not recomposing afterwards. Cropping alone doesn't help much - the image needs to be extended to the left (and possibly to the bottom as well, but that's a tall order to do in post processing if the trees in the bottom right are to be preserved). Much easier to do it right in camera.
A slower shutter speed would have blurred the props more - but would have required panning with the plane which is quite difficult given the approach angle.

From a technical point of view IMHO, the image is a disaster that would consign it to the trash bin right away: apparently, the bird is a major part of the image's message and the bird's head is not in focus. And a bright area in the background that draws the eye in with nothing to see (except bokeh). End of story. Not so fast - there must be more to this - there must be art involved.

It quite obviously isn't a photo of a bird, it's something else, something more - taking the title into account. Now I could wax poetically about the artistic merit, the sense of longing for the light (and a nice light it is), being abandoned as the light leaves the poor bird behind (as if it could spread its wings and take off after it), it being confined to the shadows (of imminent death giving it's haggard appearance). I might even find some reason to justify the out-of-focus head with some artistic intent augmenting the image's message. I could do all that and perhaps right a page or even two - but I can't seem to be able to. So it's just me feeling "left behind" by seeing nothing more than technical imperfections that ruin the photo for me.

Superb!

The duck (whether in or out of focus), the rocks on the left, and some rocks etc are distractions in this image and should be removed. When I look at the image, my eye wanders to the duck, then the rocks - and then I start wondering why am I looking at those to begin with? And don't spend the time to investigate the hippo - which clearly is the center of attention in the image. There is no interaction between the hippo and the duck - none whatsoever. And the pile of rocks just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (as is the duck). If this was my image, I would clean this up to the point were there are no features left except on the hippo.

Focused on the perch the bird was resting on and the panning with the bird when it took off.  All in all, a rather lucky shot - none of my lenses have fast enough AF to acquire focus on a small bird in flight - no matter if there is a D200 or a D300 behind them.

While I am convinced that the camera and the lens choice have an impact on the chances to get a good small bird in flight shot, practice and technique are far more important. Here is someone who mastered the art of bird in flight photography - 452 different species, all in flight:

great timing

Good comment by Steve - here is what this might look like - can do better with more care and time.

The color cast is odd - and partially due to the fact that the wrong color space is used for this upload - the image is in ProPhotoRGB - and for web display needs to be converted to sRGB as most browsers are not color-profile aware and assume something close to sRGB.

Here is the image after conversion and a bit of color correction.

Beautiful capture, great tones and nice bokeh - love the dried-up perch too. Image appears a tad dark and low contrast on my monitor, how does this one look on yours?

Thanks for your comments.

Here is the original shot without the added sky for comparison.

Gerry, the one thing I had been debating in the above composite was whether I needed to blur the background clouds more - apparently, I should have.

Added sky in post-processing - shot was taken on an overcast day

rendering the background plain white.

Would crop the sun out - and intensify the colors a little.

superb detail. I notice a bit of a magenta cast and maybe a bit too much saturation on the bird's feathers.