Landing in formation (Page 2): Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. I think they reflect your scientific background more than your inner artist. I was looking for a compositionally pleasing...

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Uuglypher wrote:

Hi, Don,

I like your second-posted view more than the closely cropped first one.... puts the landing birds in their larger context among their fellows!
...to me it says more about their community life at the moment.

Super image!

Dave

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. I think they reflect your scientific background more than your inner artist. I was looking for a compositionally pleasing layout rather than one reflective of the chaotic reality of a gannet colony. (Image for illustration purposes only. Not intended for critique)

(Download)

Nightski

Cropping is a hard decision to make. Personally I liked the tight crop because of the wonderful detail you have captured. After seeing the original, my opinion remains the same. The background in this instance does not add to the subject. It distracts. Perhaps a little more room, but honestly it's so much fun to see these gorgeous birds up close. Nice shot with adequate DOF.

Nightski

mcveed wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. I think they reflect your scientific background more than your inner artist. I was looking for a compositionally pleasing layout rather than one reflective of the chaotic reality of a gannet colony. (Image for illustration purposes only. Not intended for critique)

But .. there's a shot here too. I've seen them. I think just waiting until you get a couple of them doing something that grabs the eye.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I like the extra space, but I am not crazy about the extra birds that are in focus. If I had to rework I would go somewhere between the two. If I had to choose it would be the first because I believe it is more compositionally pleasing. It is a little tight for my taste, but you lose the composition with the second. The first just needs a little more room at the top and bottom to be perfect. :)

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Country's Mama wrote:

I like the extra space, but I am not crazy about the extra birds that are in focus. If I had to rework I would go somewhere between the two. If I had to choose it would be the first because I believe it is more compositionally pleasing. It is a little tight for my taste, but you lose the composition with the second. The first just needs a little more room at the top and bottom to be perfect. :)

Thanks, Judy. For 'perfect' I'll squeeze a little harder.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Nightski wrote:

But .. there's a shot here too. I've seen them. I think just waiting until you get a couple of them doing something that grabs the eye.

Thanks, Sandra. In photography, like all visual arts, the most difficult thing is not deciding what to put in, but deciding what to leave out. In photography we have the additional problem of figuring out just how to leave it out.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Much, much better. You can content-aware fill the bird on the lower left and upper right easily.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Sometimes we must admit that while we can always say how something could be better that we must be happy for what we've got. What we DID get was a great grouping of gannets without any further crop changes.