Sand dunes in the late afternoon. Sossusvlei, Namibia

(Download)

Hi Dave,
You're right - as usual. This little lady had just spent about 30 minutes being groomed by her mother. I think some of her fur is still damp.
Don

Young leopard. Kruger NP, South Africa

(Download)

Breakfast interrupted. Spotted Hyena mother and cubs, Greater Kruger N.P, South Africa. Olympus EM1 MkII f5.6, 1/320 sec ISO200.

(Download)

The problem I had with Mike's post, and the reason I did not get into the discussion, is that he posted it in the wrong section. The critique section is not for opening discussions on how to improve your pictures. It is for receiving critique on your best effort finished images. The 'For Your Consideration' section is where this should have been posted. It would have received a much more sympathetic and helpful reception there.

I think it was Joel Sartori who said "If you want your photographs to be more interesting stand in front of more interesting stuff." This would have been more interesting if the entire image was pin sharp.

#1. Not sharp, over exposed, composition is clumsy (you need either more or less, but half a bird is not good.
#2 Poor lighting, poor composition, eye is not in focus.
#3 Depth of field could be wider to get more of the bird sharp, this one is crackling sharp. This is a good shot.
#4. The eye is not sharp, the focus is on the middle of the bird.
#5. The head is not sharp, again the focus is on the middle of the body.
#6. The best of the bunch! The eye is very sharp as is the rest of the important parts of the bird. The composition is good and the exposure is spot on. You were lucky to get the beak sharp at 1/320 sec when the bird was calling. ( But luck is one of the very best photography tools!) Boosting the vibrance was a good idea and not over done. Your noise reduction has removed any noise resulting from ISO1600. All in all a very nice job.
Hint: The only part of an animal or bird that HAS TO BE IN FOCUS is the eye. A crisp sharp eye will overshadow a lot of minor faults.

Northern Gannets at St. Mary's Eco Sanctuary, Newfoundland. Olympus EM1 MkII, Olympus 40-150mm @ f4, 1/1600sec.

(Download)


(Download)

I tried that R.G. but found that it lowered teh contrast and visual impact. As there is still lots of detail in the shadows I elected to leave it as is.
Don

I tried that R.G. but found that doing so lowered the contrast as well as the visual impact. As there is still lots of detail in the shadows, I elected to leave it at this stage.
Don

So far all of the critiques have addressed post processing and editing. I think the real problem with this photograph occurred before the shutter was pressed. You have a lovely subject here (I love flowers) but I question the camera position which conceals much of the beauty of the flower. A higher angle would have revealed the beautiful centre of the flower and allowed you to eliminate many of the vivid, and distracting, flowers in the background. Depending on how you positioned the camera, the yellow flower would be gone. But I have just done what I often object to - critiqued the picture you didn't take. To salvage this one I would radically crop until the pink blossom covered more than 50% of the image, then I would dodge those very dark flowers in the background until they cease to overpower the subject.

I posted this image in the Birds in Flight section a couple of months ago. Since then I've done some additional editing and I now think it's worthy of being posted here. Northern Gannet at the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland, Canada.

(Download)

Technically sound but perhaps a touch over sharpened. Good exposure and focus and depth of field are perfect. The main attraction here is the bear's head, and it is generally not good composition to place it in the centre of the frame. Everyone is interested in the close-up detail in wildlife shots, but often a wider view which includes key context, makes a better "hang it on the wall" print. I would like to see this with all of the bear in the image, if you have one.
Don

Both of your comments are misleading and wrong. Mirrorless cameras see through the lens for you and present the image in electronic format. In many ways the image it presents is better than the one you see through a DSLR lens. You won't see any unexpected fingers in images from mirrorless cameras. The old photos you are talking about were taken with twin lens reflex cameras or view cameras where the photographer looked through a different lens than the one used to take the picture.

Congratulations, Minnie, on getting the recognition you so richly deserve for your wonderful images as well as your conservation work. Your work on the 'Dam Birds' is an inspiration for bird and wildlife photographers to go beyond the accurate and interesting image to one which tells the larger story. Thank you for your contributions to UHH, and thank you for being a part of my journey.
Don