wildlife criticisim

<span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"]Hey everyone,


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]I am just now starting to get used to this website. It took me a while to download some of the wildlife photo's that I took (I didn't realize what the size limit was). The pictures I posted are on my profile page under wildlife and this message is basically meant for anyone willing to give constructive criticism on the photo's. As I mentioned before, I am an ameteur photographer so any suggestions/feedback that any of you have would be greatly appretiated! Thanks.


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]Kameron

Hi Kam, I just took a look at the files you have uploaded. I see many things that need improvement. It would be better for us if you pick out one or two for critiques.


For the two waxwing images in "post your nature shots" thread..the first one is a good one, you can improve it by brighten and sharpen it a bit. For the second one you need to expose the bird, it looks like your camera expose the bright background instead of the bird. Just a couple of things that need improvement.


For now the first step to better image is to understand basic exposure.


This is Bryant's article on Exposure http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Exposure-Basics.aspx, from luminous landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understandexposure.shtml, from


Don'tbe discouraged, instead be inspired. Keep practicing, learning your equipments, learning the technical stuff, asking a lot of questions and looking at others' work. [:)]Good luck

<span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"]Sinh Nhut Nguyen - thank you for your input! You are absolutely right, inspiration from constructive criticism is the way to go, that's how I go about it.


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]I've been doing some reading/research and I have pretty much jerry-riggin' all my wildlife photos. What I mean is that I don't use a UV protector, lens hood, don't know how to change the aperature, don't have a external flash, etc. I would say that I am lucky of how the pictures turned out so far. I also use Digital Photo Professional (Software that came with my camera) to edit the pictures. It seems like pretty basic software and I'm sure those professional-looking photo's use an editing system much more advanced (or at least have more features).


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]Currently I am debating on selling my 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens for an L series lens, specifically Canon's 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Overall ratings seemed to favor this lens for wildlife photography than the lens I currently own. Plus the L-series (from what I understand), is more "pro" lens than the EF lenses. Do you have any additional thoughts about the 100-400mm lens specifically for wildlife photography?


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]Quite unfortunate that I don't know much about my camera and yet my job this summer will be working with Spotted Owls and as you can imagine, I want to get the best shots possible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kam007

<span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"]constructive criticism is the way to go, that's how I go about it. <span style="font-family: Verdana;"]

---

Man, I hear that. I see a lot of photos here, and I wonder, How did they do that? Well, cool thing is, we can ask!


I think the first thing you need to do is get familiar with the Av, Tv, and Manual modes of your camera, adjusting ISO, aperture, and exposure time, and learning the histogram on the camera.


If you learn DPP inside and out, you can actually do a lot to bring out your photos. It may not do a lot of things as well as other software, but it definitely covers the basics. It's not really editing software, but if you think of it as a developer tool or whatever, I like it for what it is. I suppose if I had the time and such, I'd want to delve into photoshop and explore noise reduction software and HDR, etc., but for just getting pictures to come out, I think it's really quite powerful. Tone curves on the RGB tab can do wonders with an otherwise very bland image.


All the 'L' lenses are EF lenses. the 100-400 is a fine lens. If you can do without the versatility of the zoom, (i.e., you almost always want to get closer) I'd lean towards the 400 f/5.6L, even if it doesn't have the zoom range or image stabilization. Still, when something starts coming at you, it's nice to be able to back up without actually running [:)]


LEARN YOUR CAMERA! If you get the exposure right, in terms of total light captured within the dynamic range of the image, shutter speed, and depth of field, you can do a lot in post processing. But, if you blow that, it's gone. Auto mode might work fine sometimes, but it's not reliable. Oh, and raw files, always [:D]

Lenses are either EF or EF-S. There are two types of EF lenses - consumer and L series, there areno L series EF-S lenses. More about L-lenses http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kam007

don't know how to change the aperature

---

Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, metering and focusing are fundemental elements of photography,it is impossible to make better images if you don't understand1 out of those 5. Adding better gear won't help you much, in this case it willfrustrate you more because there's always a learning curve in every new equipment, more or less. So, I suggest you hold on to buying that 100-400 and start learning the fundemental of photography by using what you have right now (Trust me you have much better camera/lens than what I started out). I guaranty your result will be better once you get a hold of the basics. [:)]


One note regarding editing software. Always try to get it RIGHT the firsttime and in order to get it right the first time you need to know the basics of photography [:)]


The right approach to editing software is to use it to enhance your images, not to fix it. So before going out there and buying Adobe Photoshop CS4, you know what your first goal right nowis .....[:)][:)]


Best Regards,


Nhut (Nate)

Nhut is so wise.


I'd torture small animals to have a couple days with him at his secret lake shooting spot and a handful of sandwiches and juice boxes...[:)]


I'd have never have thought to shoot the 400 f/5.6 at f/7.1... I guess I'm just a victim of the action-stopping dogma [:D] Sometimes we might WANT more depth of field! Ever take it to f/11 with these birds ? (english accent)

Colin, I usually shoot at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reservein Huntington Beach, El Dorado Regional Park in Long Beach, andSan Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary in Irvine....all in Sol Cal, if you're in the area, shoot me an e-mail.


Lately I've stopped my lens down to f/7.1 to get more depth of field when shototing bird-in-flight. It's tought to get the small head and eye in focus, I find myself focusing on the wing more often than the birds' head. I've not tried f/11

The waxwings are certainly the best of the bunch. My only critique of those would be to sharpen the second a bit, and not have the first so centered. The background and colors are pleasing.


I'll rundown the rest with a few suggestions. Many will be applicable to only future shoots rather than fixing the current photo. Take all with a grain of salt since I'm no pro.


Humming Bird: A bit dark. The contrast between the leaf shadows and sunlight makes it difficult though.


Canada Goose: Good action. Might be better to have a side or front angle. Getting in close so the background is not to prominent might be better.


Rabbits: If you had the angle of the Cottontail on the photo of the Pygmy, then it would be perfect.


Squirrel: Nice background, just cropped a bit too tight. Try not to clip small parts unless you're zooming in for a detail shot. Backing up a bit would make this a very nice one.


Nuthatch: Nice photo, just avoid the center comp. Supress some of the highlights a bit in post.


Red-wing Blackbird: Nice background and focus. I'd crop a bit so the bird is more on the left, looking right. Boost the shadows a bit.


Rufus Hummingbird: Great photo. Get in a little closer or crop and get the bird off-center, and this will be a keeper. Love the colors, good eye for the combination of pink and blue.


Hawks: Good focus but the foreground elements distract a bit. Not a whole lot you can do in the field given the situation, but there may be some post-processing work that could clean it up.


Sora: Nice colors. I'd just get a bit lower on the ground.


Yellowheaded Blackbird: Another nice one, just a bit of cropping to move it off center and you're good.





I look forward to seeing some more shots. The others have given soem good tech advise. For comp just remember a few things:


- Get as low as you can, preferably eye-level. This will give a better vantage point as well as provide more distance between the subject and the background. Even at narrow apertures, you can still get good background separation.


- Move the subject of center and have them looking into the frame rather than out. Also try to make sure they are either at a side-profile, or facing you, not running away.


- Don't clip small things like wing tips or limbs. If you aren't getting the entire animal in the shot, then crop even deep and go for a detail shot of the face or similar.


- If possible, don't crop in post-processing. Practice framing the shot as you take it, and then you will get to use every pixel you paid for in the final shot.

<span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"]Thank you all for your input! It is very valuable information to me. For instance just the other day I learned that you want to take RAW pictures, I was taking JPG since I took my first shot. Stuff like this will definitely help for out in the field. This morning I got a call at 5am from a friend that was looking at a moose on campus when she was talking to me. Of course only seeing one moose in my life, I jumped out of bed and rushed out there. Didn't end up seeing it, the police pretty much kept curious people at bay. Instead we went to a Great Horned Owl nest to take photos.


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]I have wanted to take a photography class here at the University that I go to, but unfortunately next semester is about photography history, not how to work a camera and the basics, that is why I don't know very much about cameras. I've asked tons of questions and that is basically how I got to where I am today. I still have a lot of inprovement and still a ton of questions. The only thing is that I feel most of these questions are obvious or abstract. I should just make a word document of all the questions I have hah.


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]Best,


<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"]Kameron

If you're taking pictures of large animals, I would suggest also researching what Howard Hill has to say about photographinig animals. He's best known as a hunter via the longbow, but what he says about photographing large game is quite valuable.


The nutshell version is that moose, elephants, rhinos, bears, pigs, elk, lions, whatever... are all potentially lethal. Even if you think you know how a type of animal behaves, every individual is different and unpredictable. If you're not afraid of them, you have no business getting close to them, hunting or photographing. He pointed out the case of a missionary/elephant hunter he had met who was absolutely convinced, after killing scores of elephants, that an elephant would cease charging if you shot it in the head. A few months later than man was killed by an elephant who continued charging after being shot several times in the head.


I remember at a the top of a mountain in Wyoming, a woman chasing after a 'little' black bear with a camcorder. I could have taken that woman out with one leg, one arm, and a fork, and even with a couple of rambo knives I wouldn't get near a black bear. It'll probably run away, but you don't want to bet your life on that for a photograph.


Be careful dude. It doesn't take a stupid person to do stupid things. I've done far more than my share myself [:)]

And that's why I stick to macro.