GBH Fishing in the rain: Taken out vehicle window as always hand held. R5, 800mm+1.4 extender. 1/400 f/16 ISO 640. It was totally overcast and low light. 1- does the grass create...

clickety

Taken out vehicle window as always hand held. R5, 800mm+1.4 extender. 1/400 f/16 ISO 640. It was totally overcast and low light. 1- does the grass create interest or distract? 2- and Did I over-process in Lightroom (it was quite dark SOOC)?
Any advice or comments will be appreciated.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

On the plus side I think the composition is good. The grass color looks right and having it in the picture adds to the environment. I think it is a good shot, just not a “wow” shot. The overcast weather maybe contribute to my ho hum feeling.
I am not sure a different PP process would change anything for me.

clickety

clickety wrote:

Taken out vehicle window as always hand held. R5, 800mm+1.4 extender. 1/400 f/16 ISO 640. It was totally overcast and low light. 1- does the grass create interest or distract? 2- and Did I over-process in Lightroom (it was quite dark SOOC)?
Any advice or comments will be appreciated.

Thank you Frank. I also feel it lacks the Wow factor but first attributed that to it being the “standard classic pose” of a shore bird. Yes the lighting was horrible in the rain as well. I should have moved on to process another at that point. However I get so absorbed in the technical and find myself so challenged to overcome (obvious only to me) obstacles that I just slog on, not remembering that the viewer is only interested in the results. Thus while this satisfied my technical cravings, it failed artistically. I appreciate your comments.

Here’s another of the same bird on the same day. Does this achieve wow?

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

I think the process, you described is something most of go through. At least that is true for me. I find your second shot more interesting. The lighting at least for me doesn't distract from the very fluffy featherily bird. Nice and sharp. There is detail in the feathers and i like the tonal range.

clickety

NJFrank wrote:

I think the process, you described is something most of go through. At least that is true for me. I find your second shot more interesting. The lighting at least for me doesn't distract from the very fluffy featherily bird. Nice and sharp. There is detail in the feathers and i like the tonal range.

Thank you for responding and affirming my instincts. I may ‘get’ it someday, but progress seems to come so slowly.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I agree with Frank on the composition; I think the grass works great. I would be trying either more contrast overall, or texture, or clarity, or two or three of these. I cannot be sure, but I do suspect you could get a good bit more pop out of such things.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I agree with Frank, the second is more engaging. I suspect it is because what we really want as a wow factor is the bird engaging with it's intended meal. The first image ducks the question because we all know the GBH is not interested in the grasses. In the second we at least have an implied mystery lurking below the waters. In addition the plumage is very different that the usual pose.

clickety

cbtsam wrote:

I agree with Frank on the composition; I think the grass works great. I would be trying either more contrast overall, or texture, or clarity, or two or three of these. I cannot be sure, but I do suspect you could get a good bit more pop out of such things.

Thank you, my absorption with overcoming the odds coupled with being too concerned with what I saw in the moment And preserving that feeling probably prevented me from maximizing the first one.

clickety

Orphoto wrote:

I agree with Frank, the second is more engaging. I suspect it is because what we really want as a wow factor is the bird engaging with it's intended meal. The first image ducks the question because we all know the GBH is not interested in the grasses. In the second we at least have an implied mystery lurking below the waters. In addition the plumage is very different that the usual pose.

Thank you. I’m beginning to understand that an image needs a ‘hook’ to hold your gaze long enough for you to actually absorb my intent and in the second it undoubtedly was the feathers. In retrospect I wasted time with the first, but it was a good lesson for me.

Hip Coyote

It is a good photo of the bird. But, as you noted, there has to be a hook to catch the eye. A pro photog giving a lecture to my photo club said (and I agree) that for the photos to have the "it" factor, the animal has to be doing something such as hunting, mating, moving, something that is in its nature or habit. Which is why animal photography is so darned hard..one has to sit for a long time to get the right shot.