gessman Loc: Colorado

Hey folks, if I'm over-working ya and need to slow down or give it a break, please let me know. I have wrestled with these two shots and whether I should like 'em or not. this first shot is a little less complicated than the other one, I think, so I'll get it out of the way first.

This female common Merganser is coming in for a landing and has just skidded a little on the surface of the water and then slowed down but hasn't yet settled onto the water's surface. Is this a case where it is prudent and acceptable to show a moving subject as moving out of the image rather than into it?

The Canada Goose is in a extraordinarily colorful state in some surreal looking water. Digital sometimes does some real goofy stuff like this when the light is hitting it just right. Is this "too" much or can it get away with being called "natural?"

Do I have to give up showing how they land and obey composition rules?


Do I have to obey the rule of 3rds here and lose my beautiful blue water trail?

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

the rule of thirds is a guideline, not a hard and fast law. most images look better when the composition makes use of those guidelines, but there are certainly viable exceptions and reasons to ignore the rule of thirds.

that said, i'm not sure the merganser shot shouldn't have more in front for the bird to move into. you can still show the wake behind, perhaps not as much, and you might need to take a wider crop to do it, but this one's just a bit too cramped on the right.

the goose shot is okay as it is. you've got some nice colors, including that blue wake, but it could benefit from a bit less contrast and some judicious toning down of the bright spots... the whites on the goose are a bit too hot.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you. I can already tell that I'm going to enjoy this thread. The merganser is an in camera crop. I didn't take anything off and shot it that way on purpose. I'd have to clone in more water in front and above her which will what, change the perspective and push back and diminish my attempt to get as much of the action in the frame as possible. I guess enough to back her up. How far? ...to the rule of 3rds point on the still short side of the pic? If you have the time, please pull it in and show me what you have in mind and put it back out here. I would sincerely appreciate it. There's violence connected with their landing and I was hoping to convey that they pretty much land out of control and nearly run off the end of the landing strip. I guess I missed.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

You know the old adage about rules? "They were made to be broken" Who's gonna serve the warrant on you? To heck with rules. The color,composition,exposure, & everything looks fine to me. The blue water trail makes it interesting, especially if you didn't use any PS magic to get it. The PP (photo Police) aren't here. They went to bed about 2 hours ago.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Well then, they'll awaken to a nice surprise in the morning. Something to get their day started. I'm not all that unhappy with the shots but wanted to get other reactions. If I were out there on those same spots I wouldn't do anything different. I've was in burst mode on the merganser so I've got the before shots and the after ones when she's out of the frame and this is my pick. Those things are quick and not easy for an old man to capture. I want it to look as tough as it was. The goose is another matter. I may have to tone down the settings in my camera some but I only own Elements 2 and don't really know it well enough to use it. I think I'm going the way of the PP. Thanks and good evening to you.

mommy115 Loc: California

Bob, the Merganser is not obeying the rule of thirds but I love that shot. It would be nice if there was a little more space in front of her but there is no way I wouldn't keep that photo if it was mine. It shows such movement and personality!

tilde531 Loc: Seaford Delaware

I should think I would pack it up and walk away from photography forever if YOU decided to follow the rules!!

These are terrific and you've captured the spirit of the moment perfectly in each photo, imho.

"Just because one CAN... doesn't mean one SHOULD", right!?
At least...not always.

I DO think the goose is a bit overly-sharp (forgive me please, for not having the formal training and sufficient technical communication skills) but I suspect that was to bring out the wake more? If it sacrifices the crispness and color of the wake; I wouldn't tone it down any... it only needs a teensy weensy bit as it is.

And the Merganser(?) is it (?) ... that's a cool-lookin' bird!

"Violence upon landing"? Do you mean they're clumsy and go rolling head-over-webbed-feet before righting themselves to save whatever dignity they might have left, in HOPES no photographer is around to catch it!?
*snickers softly*

If so: I HOPE you're there for THAT shot!

:) I'm enjoying your posts, both for the photo-sharing AND the interesting things I'm learning about the subject matter AND photography.

A bird called a "Merganser" was my first "something new" today...
(at least that I could digest early in the a.m. I was over at the other forum reading about HDR techniques and my eyes glazed over LOL)

Thanks for that :)

gessman Loc: Colorado

1. Things might be better if I were to always follow the rules but my problem with that is that I tend to shoot things that move and moving things don't always understand "the rules." When I morph into Dr. Doolittle, maybe things'll change for the good.

2. Thank you, profusely!

3. "Can...should," that's right. No reason to start now. :-)

4. Over-cooked goose. Never a fav of mine. As I said earlier, I don't recall cooking this one at all. I don't cook every shot. Some actually stand alone as created. I do have the "highest quality" settings on my camera cranked way up an now and then on occasion everything comes together, light, angle, exposure, etc., and causes an overkill. I don't shoot raw generally, simply .jpg and don't spend a lot of time post processing. I have a version of PS Elements Ver 2, that came with my last camera several years ago, and it doesn't have all the tools the current ver has, what ver 9 we're up to now so I can't do some things and don't want to do others. Haven't, for instance, done "layers" as of yet. I'm just a loose cannon out there firing away and trying to remember everything I've read while my goose is floating out of range. Spontaneous, I think they call that.

5. I love Mergansers, especially the female and that red head.

6. They're not tumblers as such but they have extremely short wings, comparatively, and bigger bodies and fly very fast with a high wing flap rev. They're far from graceful and it would seem as though it is an extreme effort for them to even fly in the first place. When they come in to land they toss their bodies into a controlled slide. I would bet that if they did the same on land they would tumble but I've never seen one of them on land. I don't think they spend much time out of the water. I've included a couple of shots of three males taking off, not for critique but to show the other half. They're really fast and hard to catch. I've yet to get a male taking off, flying, or landing that I'm happy with. These were shot with my older EOS 20D, 8 mpx, and 400 non IS lens, hand held. The last of these three pics is the redhead landing again. I was in burst mode and as she slid through the frame I got several shots. I just happen to prefer the first one I posted because I thought it best represented the action of the bird landing.

7. I like your profile pic, a lot. Let's see, I'm in here to critique and be critiqued, right. Your profile pic, I don't think a little more skin would be offensive, at all, and... :twisted:

Actually, I got these first two reversed in true time sequence...


This should have been first, just lifting off after a running assist...


The redheaded lady understands the rule of 3rds but simply seems to be stretching and flappin' her wings, not landing + the head is dark...

va1940 Loc: Oklahoma

The photography POLICE are dead ;-) sort of. I use rule of thirds most of the time. What I did here was crop a tiny bit from behind and added some to the front...just a little.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Looks good va1940. You did a good job. I had more or less deduced that if I tried to clone in that "disturbed" water surface pattern that I would have to blur anything I changed and you seem to have substantiated that point for me. I think the lady could sit anywhere in the frame but I chose the one I did because I thought it best typified the way they look when they land and the long trail, which was, incidentally, severely truncated, demonstrates that than any of the other shots in the sequence. As someone said in a post yesterday, it helps to know what I was trying to say with the photo. I meant to induce a feeling of tension and thought the best way to do that was put her too close to the leading edge. I guess we can't always convey what we desire without causing an imbalance somewhere. I appreciate your edit and figure you did it about as good as it could be done. Thank you.

FuzMuz Loc: Southern Utah

In regards to the Merganser photo. There are two rules you could "bend" slightly to achieve a great effect. First is Open Space the other is Room To Move. People assume these rules apply to the space in front of the subject, but in your photo apply them to behind the bird. If you can recrop so the bird is in the lower right third leaving "open space" behind the bird thus giving the opportunity to include where the bird first hit the water. Seeing the whole wake of the bird should greatly enhance the "feel" of motion. If you have the time and notion I would love to see the change.

betsout06 Loc: Pound Ridge, NY

I love this shot....especially the water tail....what do you think?

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks for the information. I don't recall cropping that image. What I do have is a sequence because I was shooting burst mode and this is the last in the sequence. I'll have to dig out all of those images and see if I can achieve what you're suggesting. I see what you're saying and it makes perfect sense. Thanks again.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks. FuzMuz just before you made a very good point in that he/she felt it would be even better if I could re-crop to show the entire trail from the time the bird first hit the water and then draw her back to the lower right junction of the 3rds rule. As I told FuzMuz, I don't recall cropping this shot but it was part of a sequence and I may have gotten the whole slide in zone or not. I also don't remember panning but I may have. I'm going to try to dig out my other shots in the sequence and see if I have that. I like your crop and the way you brought the bird closer even if it is an unconventional dimension. Thanks again.

FuzMuz Loc: Southern Utah

Your very welcome - If you have Elements 9 you could try stitching the sequence togther in a sudo panoramic. Then play with the result. I am retired and tend to forget that others don't have my kind of free time to play with their photos.