Gull Landing
#13020
02/02/08 12:20 AM
02/02/08 12:20 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Pennsylvania, USA
Troy Logan
OP
Wanderer
|
OP
Wanderer
Joined: Feb 2008
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Hello. This is my first post on NWP. These seagulls were in the Baltimore Inner Harbor on a windy day. I would appreciate any critique of this shot. Troy gull landing
|
|
|
Re: Gull Landing
[Re: Troy Logan]
#13021
02/02/08 09:37 AM
02/02/08 09:37 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Nashville Tennessee
Durwood Edwards
Old hand
|
Old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Nashville Tennessee
|
The mechanics of the shot are well controlled. The shutter and aperture are well selected. The image is quite sharp and the colors are very good.
One major problem is the fact that the bird is lit from the back and that puts a lot of the interesting details (especially the eye) are somewhat obscured by the shadows. We can't always control for such factors, but remember, that in avian photography the eye is generally the most important item.
The worst picture is the one you don't take because of less than perfect conditions.
Well done and keep shooting!
Durwood Edwards www.joelton.org"Never miss a good chance to shut-up!" - Will Rogers
|
|
|
Re: Gull Landing
[Re: Troy Logan]
#13024
02/02/08 12:41 PM
02/02/08 12:41 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Donner Summit, CA
glamson
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2006
Donner Summit, CA
|
Quote:
Hello. This is my first post on NWP.
These seagulls were in the Baltimore Inner Harbor on a windy day.
I would appreciate any critique of this shot.
Troy gull landing
Troy,
Welcome to the forum. Since you are asking for input on this image, here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
Because they are so common, gulls usually get short shrift with nature photographers. I guess they're just too easy.
I agree with Durwood and James that the composition and focus are OK. It's the lighting and high contrast that really give this image problems. And has already been said, the lack of definition in the eye is always a problem for head on shots of any bird. What this shot needed was a little fill flash just to pump some light into the shadowed parts of the bird (I think this can easily be added in PP).
I have a couple of other nits to pick with what I would consider distracting elements in the image. That little piece of orangy flotsam in the water behind the gull is distracting. More of a problem is the second gull sitting on the wall. This would have been OK if the highlights weren't completely blown on its right side. As it is, it is a very distracting blob of white to me, that distracts from the main subject. The crop you did, just reveals some of the brick in the wall which is just enough to be distracting to me. I would have either cropped more of the brick in or all of it out. And finally, with birds (especially gulls), there is always the issue of poop. I'm not saying you get rid of it entirely, but the wall is coated with just enough to make it look a little disgusting. Now I know this is subtle thing, but removing some of it, especially where the bird is going to land is just more pleasing to my eye.
So, having said all this, begging your pardon, here is a version of it that incorporates my thoughts. Working on the low res web pic is a little sloppy, but I think you get where I'm going. I lightend the underside of the wings and the head and eye. I also selectively sharpened the legs, tail and wing feathers, and the beak. Cloned out the flotsam, the sitting gull and the poop from the area where it is going to land. I also cropped it tighter and removed the brick.
Since you asked  .
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
2,354
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics636
Posts1,015
Members3,319
| |
Most Online3,525
Oct 24th, 2025
|
|
|
