Feeding Fantail

[Bambi]

just to weigh in here- a critique can be blunt and honest but it needs to be helpful. IMHO it's okay to point out what's wrong as long as you can point the person in the direction to do what's right.

So here I go:
I like the comp and the translucent quality to the wings and tail. I think the focus was missed, probably because getting a good shot of a bird in flight is damn hard. a faster shutter speed may have helped if that's the reason. Some exif data would help a lot in giving you advice for next time.

[Andrew]

Maybe not rude but definitely short on tact or empathy for an unknown audience. I would have seen more benefit had the first critique offered any sense of knowledgeable methods to improve the photograph. The original poster would have been able to take away constructive comments, applied the concepts and possibly learned a bit. I doubt that happened in this case. Just as the antique guy has found, I too learned not to be too pointed on this forum because there is no tone of voice or appearance transferred with the comments and in some cases the abruptness can be taken as being harsher than intended. As a result I no longer offer input on photographs that don't appeal to me and only do so on a few that reach out and grab me. There is more than enough good input from others here that I can select only the ones that I can possibly add positive suggestions or reinforcement.

[mellowinman]

Here is my critique. IMO, the shot shows nothing, it looks like dead bird lying on it's back on concrete. The bird is too far off the focal point of the shot and the insects just look like specks. I know the bird doesn't have to be center of the frame, but I feel it is not placed well.

The shot does nothing for me. Maybe just concentrating on the bird, using a little faster speed for better definition of the bird. The sky is lost as well. I am guessing it is a very cloudy day.

I don't know about rude or harsh, but I do think this critique is WRONG. I like the photo. I think better definition would be good, but the shot works as is. I have seen a LOT of dead birds, and this photo does not look like that at all. It looks fairly interesting, and it works on a more abstract level. I don't gauge shots of animals by whether or not they belong in National Geographic.

[Wicked Dark]

oh no, an opinion is wrong! well that settles it.

[Marko]

Our forum is simply growing. No forum on earth can please all members at all times.

Given that every forum has an Admin, and Admins/Mods shape the pulse of the forum, this forum has a pulse as well......and I as the Admin work hard to maintain that pulse and that pulse will not change for the foreseeable future.

Be honest with shots you find crap, just be nicer about it is all I ask.

[Anuj]

Hi

i think its got a rather different perspective especially for wings...Not seen many pics with such nicely fanned out wings and tail..Reminds of Egyptian hylographics (sorry if i spelled it wrong!)

Anuj

[tbond]

Thanks to ALL contributors. I value the range of comments.
The NZ Fantail is a highly manouverable small bird (about 4-5 inches long including tail). It flits around catching and eating insects on the wing.
I had huge problems capturing the bird in viewfinder, and with a narrow depth of field gaining precise focus at the same time was more than difficult. I agaree that the focus has missed the mark. I wish it hadn't, would have been a wodnerful shot if the focus was spot on!
It was a dull grey day and I hadn't edited any colour into the sky as I understood that extensive editing was acceptable in Nature category shots.
The camera settings for the shot were... ISO: 320, F/stop: f6.3, Exposure: 1:2000 sec.
Given that the focus is not fixable... I do have leeway with the original to alter the cropping.
So my questions would be...
What could I have done better with the camera settings to better capture such a shot?
How could it be better cropped to make a more engaging shot?
Thanks again.

[Iguanasan]

Well, I'm a little late to the game on this one. Based on your description, tbond, I would have closed down to f9 to f11 or so and manually focused to give yourself a larger depth of field thereby allowing more "focus room" for the shot. 1/2000 sounds like it would have given you lots of room to play.

The problem, for me, and possibly others, is that I cannot see the bird's head. All I see are wings and a tail so it's hard to identify it as anything more than just a bunch of feathers. Possibly, since the background is quite plain you could consider moving the composition around a bit. I can't put my finger on it but there's some thing just missing for me and I think it may be that a different composition might improve it.

And last, since the file on the site is 31KB I am assuming you uploaded a very small image or the image was compressed by the board which may have made it much softer than the original. Try making the largest size image you can make that is less than 1025 pixels and 275KB before uploading.

[AL.T]

Hi, just browsing
The photos and found yours,I'm also trying to get a good shot of "small bird "in flight,big birds are easier ,although I haven't a shot of one of those either.Have you tried setting your camera to 3 or 6 frames per.sec.for several shots, If you can?,. I'm guessing when you fired the shot the bird moved it's head to get an insect,the next shot you might have got him right where you want him with his head in view?.
But nice try of shooting something that's moving all over the place,I like the shot, artsy .

[tbond]

I took 6 shots rapid fire, and the bird was only in one of them, completely missed him with the other 5!!!!!