- This topic has 45 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12y ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
My first time in the tank… A sunrise shot at a nearby pond.
-
-
Thanks, David. Point well taken. In this particular instance, pulling back I think would make the subject (the three ducks) so small that they would get lost in the image. After reading your comment I tried cropping down, but the reflections of the reeds without the context of the reeds themselves seems even most of a distraction. I’ll keep the background “noise” in mind in future compositions.
-
-
This is interesting. I can’t count how many times I’ve read a criticism of a picture mentioning only the backside of the subject as a negative. If the image is interesting I’m not sure why that particular point of view is seen as unpleasant of negative. This particular image, while out of focus (unintended I imagine) is pleasing, peaceful in both content and color, nicely composed and generally well done. Why, @aarongeiss, do you find the duck butt so offensive.
-
It is interesting @caimi, I wouldn’t say that I’m offended by the duck butts exactly, just that I’m confident that a significant number of viewers will think ‘this would be better if I could see their faces’.
It gets to the core of critiquing in a way. Partly I’m giving my own opinion and partly I’m predicting what will have broad appeal.
There are pleasant colors going on here and I like the balance of where the ducks are in the frame against where the bases of the reeds are but the first thing I think when I look at the image is ‘ducks facing away – whoops’.
I have spent a lot of time putting my images in front of instructors, art directors, and other photographers so I guess I have an instinct for ‘if a photo is like this then people will say that’ and the challenge becomes how to move past those predictable responses and get to the point where no one feels like they’ve seen a thousand images like the one I’m showing.
As a sometimes photo instructor I would admit to a certain prejudice against all photographs of ducks and cats as the first six months of many young photographers output is weighted heavily to those two subjects.
That said I’ve seen great duck photos and great cat photos so I do recognize that it’s just a bias that has developed from seeing so many early efforts where the students are working out the basics on whatever subject they come across first.
Cats hold still, dogs tend to rush the camera. Ducks stay in the pond while many other birds fly away.
-
You’ve hit on an interesting subject @aarongeis. What is expected as opposed to what is a unique way of looking at a subject. I applaud any photographer or artist who breaks free of the mold and sees something differently. Maybe too many beginning photographers take pictures of ducks and cats but if one is wired to think “beginning photographer” when they see a duck or a cat photo, they might be missing something special in the picture. Not that this picture is bound for the Louvre. But it is a nice job and I’m just reacting to what I perceive as somewhat of a kneejerk negative reaction to a butt in a photo. If a significant number of viewers want to see the ducks’ faces, they should get out their smartphones and have at it.
-
@aarongeis has read my mind on this one. The only time an animal’s backside does not bother me is when there’s a predator chasing it.
@caimi breaking the mold only works when the result is still appealing to the human eye. A few rules of photography (like the thirds rule) are purely based on what naturally works for the human eye & human brain and in general an animal facing away does not tickle my strings. It works with humans in cases where they’re facing a nice sunset (or other interesting object) because then the background shares the interest. If the mallards had chicks with them which can’t fly and they were on their way to a 300m drop down a steep waterfall it might have worked, but reeds don’t do it for me… 😉
@jerryj13 this is not a photo that will appeal to the average viewer, for reasons discussed. Sometimes one has to be ruthless in deleting defect (for whatever reason) shots after a shoot and had this one been mine I would have filed it in file 13 without thinking about it twice. Sorry mate… 🙁 -
Thanks, all, for the discussion. For what it’s worth…
Yes, @aarongeis, I’m fairly new to photography as a serious pastime (not as a profession), but no cats or dogs. Even these ducks were happenstance. I was actually at the pond to photograph some willow silhouettes against the rising sun, and their reflections in the pond. The only times I’ve purposely set out to photograph wildlife has either been 10 meters under water, or some pelicans I recently photographed (I’ll post an image from that shoot some time for your critique).
The ducks (and yes, @tobiepsg, there WAS a mother with a half dozen ducklings that I chased round and round the pond) just happened to be there. I liked this shot mainly for the colors, but also for the fact that those three mallards were swimming in formation the entire time I was there. Given the time of day, they looked to me like commuters on their way to work; hence the title of the image (which is a play on words because a “rush” is also a type of reed). I was looking to tell their story, not take their portrait.
Thanks, @caimi, for catching the lack of focus. I honestly hadn’t picked up on that. Yes, it was unintentional. As I said above, I’d gone to shoot something different with a wider lens and hadn’t brought my tripod. When I spotted the ducklings I attached the 300mm (600mm equivalent). A 1/100 sec. exposure with a long lens, even with the Olympus’s in body IS, is probably a factor. I should have cranked up the ISO another stop. Lesson learned. But learning lessons is what this is all about for me.
-
Hi @jerryj13, I do apologize, some of us regulars have on-going banter and I forgot to properly welcome you to Light Stalking and the Shark Tank.
One of my regular gigs is writing camera reviews and as part of that job I have to supply example photos.
So I need to get some decent looking shots with several pieces of equipment quickly and consistently.
When a long lens is involved what do I do?
I head for the local duck pond (I live in England so it’s actually a moat).
Ducks, and other waterfowl, are perfectly good subjects and offer a great opportunity for practicing long lens skills.
It’s just the jaded perspective of a photo instructor that colors my experience of duck photos.
My assumption is that most photographers who post in the ST are looking for advice that will help them produce photographs that make their intended audience say ‘That’s a really good photo! Did you take that?’
To that end I try to predict what the responses of ‘most viewers’ will be.
Even @caimi, who seems to be quite taken with this photo, is aware that there is some sort of cultural prejudice against duck butts.
As much as that may be unfair I think it would be doing you a disservice not to point out that if you showed this photo to a group of people you could expect at least one of them to say ‘why duck butts?’
For me it leads to the ‘Van Gogh Conundrum’.
When he showed paintings of haystacks and peasants the critics of the time said ‘why haystacks and peasants?’
Of course now the received wisdom is that Van Gogh was very right and the critics of that time were very wrong.
But Van Gogh wasn’t able to sell a painting for love nor money.
So while we’re all very glad that he remained true to his vision it was a painful experience of constant rejection for him.
Which is to say that I don’t think that I’m ‘right’ in saying that duck butts don’t make a good photo.
It’s just that I’m able to predict that you won’t gain the widest possible acceptance in the current cultural climate with a duck butt photo.
-
Hi Jerry…few tech points
1.out of focus
2.not straight…very important when water is involved
3.over saturated
4.distraction bottom l/h sideThat said how could you have took it better?……I don’t mind the ducks paddling away,but they do lead the eye up to the top of the frame,maybe had the ducks out of focus and the background sharp…there is some interest with another duck paddling across the top
Try getting lower to the subject….unusual angles usually make for stronger images.
Jump in and get the takeoff shot!!!…………just joking! 🙂I like that you have thought about the image
Hope that helps a little
-
@tobiepsg: Yes, and if there were a Ferrari parked on the shore, car nuts would have liked the picture better too. I am no more taken with the picture than I am taken with the style of criticism that goes: “It’s not to my taste. But if you had only placed something else in the picture it would have worked.” That is not constructive criticism. It’s yanking the camera from around the photographer’s neck and taking the picture you would have taken. This picture, taken by this photographer has some good points. It could be improved in focus and tone and possibly even composition to a degree, but it is this picture we are asked to review. Not the one we wish we would have taken.
@aarongeis: To which the photographer should respond, “Why not duck butts?” -
A quick check of the archives produced a duck butt photo of my own.
-
@caimi from experience I know that the two of us don’t share the same wavelengths in reasoning so I’m not going to respond on your remark(s).
@jerryj13, @falx has a valid point. Let’s say you went down a little lower and as a result the mallards ended up on the bottom horisontal thirds line and the reeds entered the water at the top horisontal thirds line, it would have been a little easier on the eye. But then a lack of sharpness would still have been a problem. If I understand you correctly, you’ve taken the pic at 300mm x 2 equivalent (600mm). The rule of thumb says that to play safe, you need a shutter speed of 1/600s to get a sharp handheld shot at that F/L so unfortunately your 1/100s was way too slow. In soft early morning light you would have had to open up your aperture as much as possible and support it with a raised ISO until your on-camera exposure ruler indicated spot-on exposure. Then you still would have had the butts to contend with. But ’nuff said about that one… 😉
-
@aarongeis: Nice Shot. But, why a duck butt?
“@caimi from experience I know that the two of us don’t share the same wavelengths in reasoning so I’m not going to respond on your remark(s).
You just did.
-
Thanks, I needed an example shot using a long lens and i didn’t have a lot of time to get it.
I tried making a duck call, I tried making a hawk whistle, damn duck wouldn’t turn around.
Eventually he turned his head at least and I snapped that shot.
-
Diving in late on the duck butt debate- With birds, it’s about the head turn, eyes, breast, and wing feathers. If it’s intended to be a bird photograph (apparently it is) then it won’t fly (pun intended) in the “bird crowd”. But if you like it, that’s cool. One thing that I’ve noticed about birds on the water- the second that they see a long lens they swim away and NEVER LOOK BACK… very irritating behavior :o)
If it’s a landscape with birds in it, it might work. The slight left rotation of the image bugs me more than the duck butts.
@faix I would throw a rock lol Artie Morris got busted one time for throwing gravel so the birds would swim back because they thought it was food. He didn’t care btw He got a great shot out of it :o)
When I’m being a wildlife and bird photographer… I don’t put any kind of animal butt in the image (on purpose) unless it’s an “omg I finally got a picture of a yetti, sasquatch, or whatever”.
I shoot handheld with a 600 f4 (and 800 f5.6) fairly often at lower than recommended shutter speeds. The 1/shutter speed thing is a recommendation and it’s valid most of the time but good technique will allow for sharp images outside of that criteria. However… I prefer to shoot from a Wimberley mount with long glass. The keeper ratio is higher… but sometimes… ya gotta take it off of the tripod…
@aarongeis Quick check or Quack check? -
Tooo many puns.
Throwaway photos are the sign of a rank beginner like myself I think. I tick off my wife when I shoot about 20 shots, come home and sometimes junk all but 1.
One thing I have to say is that Aaron raises an interesting point about what people WANT to see.
As soon as I add a person to an image – bam, more people are interested. It’s a little frustrating in that I’ve noticed it colors my photography with a need for appreciation, which results in a movement away from what I want to shoot and towards what I think people want to see… -
:o) You have to start to finish. Theres no way around it. Be glad it’s not film. Good lord the money that I wasted on film. It took digital for me to learn photography… make that begin to learn photography. I still haven’t learned when it’s not worth shooting and a few other details… maybe I never will. Big woop :o)
I have an image called Dead Horse Point. It’s on LS somewhere. I had it printed on aluminum 40″ x 60″ and had it in a small gallery for PhotoFest. It was pretty popular. The one guy that I wanted to hear comments from finally made over at the end of the day. He liked the image, etc, etc and then says, “you want to know what I think would improve this image?” I very happily said “YES of course”. He began to tell me to add an elk or mountain lion to the edge of the cliff that I was standing on when I made the image. ??? I said “but it’s Utah, there aren’t any elk or mountain lions in that part of Utah”. He said “ok, then add a mountain goat”. Mind you… the guy that was doing the talking could’ve done that and made it look real (not me)… but it was a big landscape… there aren’t anything but lizards in that part of Utah… I still value his opinion. He’s got a lifetime of photography in his head. He’s probably right about needing a foreground animal but none of the non-photographers mentioned anything about it. :o)
-
-
It’s a very good point. I’ve learned that just because something looks cool, doesn’t mean it will pop as a photo. Often you need that extra SOMETHING to push it up a notch and transform ‘huh that’s neat’ to ‘I enjoy taking in this image’.
I’ve only been shooting digital for about 10 months, and I’ve already learned to sometimes turn it off and say, there’s no shot for me here. At the same time I’m trying to learn to see the shot that MIGHT exist.
I do feel like I’m improving, but it seems to be at a snails pace, and sometimes I get annoyed when I don’t get anything usable for a week or so. -
Well… that’s a sure sign of being a photographer. I ride around almost every evening, looking for something to shoot. Sometimes that means 60 miles round trip. Sometimes only a few. The camera is always with me. I look back at my 2006 folder and there are about 5300 images in the folder and nearly every day of the year had a photograph.
Side note: I finally stopped using date folders this year. It’s so much nicer to organize by subject
By 2009 i was up to 15,062 images per year (I shot a lot of high school sports and wildlife that year).
I’d say that I had a keeper ratio of 0.25%. Not 25%… 1/4%…
2013 was my best year. Time lapse caused a high shot count (29941) but the best thing about 2013 is that there are at least 60 images that I have either printed or wouldn’t mind printing and hanging on the wall. 2013 was the year that I really focused in on photography and put effort into learning photography. It’s an ongoing process btw. I don’t think it will ever end. When I wasn’t working I was photographing and doing so with intent. I still shot a lot of crap but I’d say I got about 10% keepers? It’s hard to say because one time lapse sequence can be 600 – 1200 images and sometimes I ran more than one camera. Plus I shot sports for a friend of mine. That’s an easy 1000 frames per game
This year I slowed way down. Burnt out… but recovering and looking forward to being in Maine in 2 weeks
So… another long way of saying… hang in there. The internet is one hell of a resource (good and bad).
-
-
-
-
That’s a lot of riding every night. I don’t get that much in but I make sure that I have the camera with me at almost all times.
You may say that you’re learning still, but to most of us here, you’ve pretty much arrived haha.
@aarongeis Believe it or not, I actually got asked to shoot my first wedding by a friend. I replied word for word – ‘Oh. No. God no.’ And told them to get a pro. -
It can be. I put about 60,000 miles a year just on my work vehicle. My personal vehicles get about 1/2 that. Around here I have to drive 12 miles round trip just for groceries. A big city like Houston or San Antonio is 90 miles away. My photo trips are usually 5,000 mile trips and I do those twice a year. So a little run down to the coast (90 miles one way) is just a normal day lol If I drive west for one of my trips, it takes all day to get to the next state. If I drive east, it’s about 5 hours and that’s at 75 mph. If I go north it’s about 7 hours but the speed limits are lower.
:o) that’s just because you haven’t seen my worst lol. Its a lifelong process for me. I’ll probably be arriving from now on lol
-
-
You might consider offering to be a second shooter for the pro if you’d like to practice those skills.
It really kind of a crazy assignment – get a couple hundred good photos in the space a of a few hours, without much control over the situation and with a sizable audience.
A friend of mine’s uncle is a commercial photographer and an instructor at a university and he totally stuffed up her wedding photos.
Basically because he didn’t have the right temperament for that situation.
So for sure I wouldn’t undertake it lightly.
-
-
@driverv: You bring up a good point about more viewers showing an interest when there is a person in a photo. And it doesn’t even have to be a good photo. But I generally resist the temptation. I like to photograph the effects humans have on the landscape, on life, without adding them to the image. They are there and not there.
@tobiepsg: You have perfectly illustrated my point. Butts are not necessarily bad in a photo. And in this case, essential. -
-
-
No wounds, really. Okay, after the first couple posts I was feeling a bit dejected, but then the disagreements between commenters started and I realized, as I should have all along, that some things are a matter of personal taste. Ultimately, this is a retirement hobby. I only need to please myself. I won’t kid you, getting a couple hundred “likes” on Facebook from strangers does stroke the ego and provides some affirmation that I’m developing as a photographer/artist. But, in the end, I have ZERO aspirations to be a professional and to sell either my time or my images. I’m first and foremost an adventure traveler who wants to improve the memories I bring home on an SD card.
Thanks again for all the comments here and to my other post. I’ll be jumping in the pool again soon.
-
-
Aaron – other then the fact that I’m not particularly well versed in shooting portraits, I also lack the gear. The G11 is ok for nature and macro and landscapes, but it fails in non posed shots as it is not nearly snappy enough. Plus there’s almost no DoF.
It’ll be a long time before I make a run at a wedding. -
@jerryj13 The ST is a beautiful thing.
It’s always hard to hear something negative about something you put forward but the as the rule is ‘only negative comments’ (in practice this means at least one suggestion for improvement, can include some gushing) there’s no reason to feel put out.
Since everyone can expect to hear something negative there’s no element of being singled out.
There’s no shame in being new to a subject and the core group here are a polite bunch.
Every once in a while a rapscallion wanders through throwing firecrackers into the crowd but they are like terriers barking at the postman. As soon as you open the door they hide under the coffee table.
@driverv That may be wise.I sort of half agree with your point about equipment, or rather on the one hand I agree and on the other hand I don’t.
The occasional wedding or event that I shoot is the only time I’m really taxing the spec of my 5DII, most other times I’m sticking to the native ISO and working methodically but an event makes use of good performance at high ISO, good autofocus with lots of points, large viewfinder image, large LCD image, ect.
On the other hand people used to shoot weddings with ponderously slow medium format film systems (there are even still some doing that now).
So I think you could develop a style around just about any camera that produces a high quality file.
The G11 produces a high quality file and has decent performance at high(ish) ISO settings so I’d encourage you to try and get the best damn photos you can at that friend’s wedding (while keeping out of the pro’s way of course).
-
“But, in the end, I have ZERO aspirations to be a professional and to sell either my time or my images. I’m first and foremost an adventure traveler who wants to improve the memories I bring home on an SD card.”
The market is a tough place. I got whupped last year :o) not really… I was fine with the net result (one sale) because it’s not why I do this. Would I love to make sales every week and make a living at this? I don’t know. The successful photographers that do this for a living, that I know and admire, work hard. Very hard. As the state of the art progresses it gets harder and harder to make a living at it. Everybody has a camera these days.
A lot of the big names in the business supplement their income with workshops and dvd’s and actions for photoshop. Maybe all of them. I’d like to believe that it’s got something to do with helping their fellow photographers but really… that’s male bovine fecal matter. They do it because it can be a good income. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t there to help… but I don’t think they would do it if the market wasn’t so saturated.
@driverv
G11- Canon sells a speedlight for the G11 (I think). And I’m pretty sure it’ll work with a pocket wizard. I have a G12. I guess I should try to set something up and see what it’ll do. with some speedlights and triggers. I don’t think it does ETTL but that’s not a big deal. I know I can use it on a time lapse rail. I’ve done that before.I leave it in Auto mode because it does so well there. It’s the only camera that I have that sees auto. I used to have it set to manual and raw files but that’s not why I have it. Don’t ask me why I have it. I don’t know. It’s a camera. Why not?
I’d take Aaron’s advice and work the G11 until you’ve used every setting it has and used them well. As a platform for continuing education it’s pretty good.
-
-
-
Yes the G11 still has plenty of potential. Especially for a learner like me. I really like it because of the physical controls (ISO and exposure comp right on the top) and it handles well. It also sits on my belt really well; like you said when I shoot raw it has a lot of leniency and it produces nice quality images. I’ve got CHDK on a card that I am playing with as well.
And Michael, maybe it’s a good thing for you to not do it for a living. I mean, even some of the most excellent shooters are non-professional. Nothing wrong with doing something you love on the side…
I’m looking for another flash, leaning heavily towards the YongNuo. FYI David Hobby used the G11 with a few lights and seemed to like it, so it can’t be useless for flash.
-
Duncan @falx,
One strategy I use when I come across something that doesn’t interest me is I just don’t read it.
If I accidentally read something that failed to interest me then I have a little lie down and try to recover.
-
@jerryj13 keep in mind that ST is all about opinions & personal preferences. It’s not about who’s wrong or right or bad or good – it’s all about thinking aloud based on gut-feel and experience. Getting flack on one photo does not imply that you’re a bad photographer. It just means that you’re getting a lot of negative opinions on that particular photo. The good thing about it is that next time you go to that pond you’ll have a tripod with you and when you start dialing in your settings, those negative comments are going to help you tremendously and the affect thereof will be seen in your pics resulting from the shoot. It NEVER results in a negetave long term affect – unless you allow it to.
Now let me get going – got my granddaughter’s first hair cut to photograph… keep on snapping!
-
Thanks @tobiepsg. I get it. I jumped into the pool voluntarily. Just takes a bit to time to adjust to the temperature. And the fangs. 🙂
-
@jerryj13 the fangs are silicone-made and the temperatures are make-believe. The guys hanging around here are actually not too bad at all. 😉
I can introduce you to another forum where all submissions are seen as ‘Show tank’d’. The critique are way more stricter than here and your pic would have been torn to pieces… Ask me about it again when you view yourself as ‘competent’ or better… 🙂
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
