Birds in a bush #88

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Status
Not open for further replies.
garygruber

garygruber

Member
Member's gallery
birds in a bush #88 (small).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
garygruber said:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...
Nice shot, Gary. What he's saying is your f/stop is very small and letting in very little light which in turn increased your ISO to 10k. A smaller aperture of say around f/5.6 would've let in more light and reduced your ISO and noise. Some generous NR (noise reduction) would've helped this nice shot a lot, also. Good looking bird, btw, is it a mockingbird?
 
Member's gallery
K9Kirk said:
Nice shot, Gary. What he's saying is your f/stop is very small and letting in very little light which in turn increased your ISO to 10k. A smaller aperture of say around f/5.6 would've let in more light and reduced your ISO and noise. Some generous NR (noise reduction) would've helped this nice shot a lot, also. Good looking bird, btw, is it a mockingbird?
Click to expand...
I don't care about the noise. I like the noise. I shoot under extreme conditions with birds quiet and birds moving at the same time. My camera settings are appropriate to my needs. It is a mockingbird.
 
Member's gallery
K9Kirk said:
I understand, I felt the same way with my first point and shoot, polaroid camera. 🍻
Click to expand...
If you have any problems with the way I photograph, why don't you take it up with CODA Gallery in Palm Desert, Ca. They have represented me for over 7 years now, and my bird photography is on display there right now. My work, going back to the early 70's, sells really well. I do not subscribe to the sometimes inane comments on photography on the internet.

codagallery.com

Artists Detail - Gary Gruber - CODA Gallery

Recognized by American Art Awards as one of the nation's 25 best galleries and museums, CODA has been representing contemporary artists for more than 30 years
codagallery.com
 
Member's gallery
garygruber said:
If you have any problems with the way I photograph, why don't you take it up with CODA Gallery in Palm Desert, Ca. They have represented me for over 7 years now, and my bird photography is on display there right now. My work, going back to the early 70's, sells really well. I do not subscribe to the sometimes inane comments on photography on the internet.

codagallery.com

Artists Detail - Gary Gruber - CODA Gallery

Recognized by American Art Awards as one of the nation's 25 best galleries and museums, CODA has been representing contemporary artists for more than 30 years
codagallery.com
Click to expand...
I checked your link. I don't have a problem with your pictures, now that I understand you were purposely making them dark, fuzzy, and noisy to achieve a certain artistic effect. (Impressionism, is it???) In case you haven't noticed, most people in here, including the "inane" professionals, tend to produce sharp/clear pictures so you threw us a curve ball, so to speak. Maybe it would be a good idea to mention the effect you're trying to achieve in the future, people usually aren't mind readers. Happy New Year!
 
Member's gallery
K9Kirk said:
I checked your link. I don't have a problem with your pictures, now that I understand you were purposely making them dark, fuzzy, and noisy to achieve a certain artistic effect. (Impressionism, is it???) In case you haven't noticed, most people in here, including the "inane" professionals, tend to produce sharp/clear pictures so you threw us a curve ball, so to speak. Maybe it would be a good idea to mention the effect you're trying to achieve in the future, people usually aren't mind readers. Happy New Year!
Click to expand...
me explaining my intent is corrosive. It's ok if you don't like my photos, I have no problem with that. It is painfully obvious that photography is a visual art. If you have to explain your intentions, the photo is dead. While not everyone sees the same thing in each photo (I've had women tell me that some of my flower photos were quite erotic), steering them in this or that direction undercuts their ability to see something unique in the image, unaided.

I do not have any intent with my bird photos. Sometimes I am working under extreme conditions. I routinely have hummingbirds, finches, wrens, and even pigeons strolling through our yard. While there is no one size fits all aperture / shutter speed / ISO setting, and while it may be preferable to use the lowest ISO coupled with the slowest shutter speed to achieve an image worthy of a 30 x 40 print, it is not realistic for me to try to work under those conditions. Catching a semi-clear image of a hummingbird in flight requires around 1/1750. When you are pushing the limits by using a 300 with a 2X doubler on it, stopping down is almost always required to get sufficient depth of field. I have had too many images ruined by attempting to meet some imaginary standards. I err on the side of coming-back-with-the-photo, always.

Even if I find myself in a quieter surrounding, taking my eye off the image to switch settings most of the time results in losing a good photo. I'm not one of those guys who shotguns at 20fps hoping 'something' might be good. I am classically trained (Henri Cartier- Bresson, Brassai, Walker Evans, etc.). I was taught that developing an 'eye' is the most important characteristic of a good photographer. Having a background in photojournalism, getting the image overwhelms all other considerations. Take a look at the magnificent work done during WW II and Vietnam. Even being sharply in focus was a nice-to-have back then.

Happy New Year to you as well.
 
Member's gallery
garygruber said:
me explaining my intent is corrosive. It's ok if you don't like my photos, I have no problem with that. It is painfully obvious that photography is a visual art. If you have to explain your intentions, the photo is dead. While not everyone sees the same thing in each photo (I've had women tell me that some of my flower photos were quite erotic), steering them in this or that direction undercuts their ability to see something unique in the image, unaided.

I do not have any intent with my bird photos. Sometimes I am working under extreme conditions. I routinely have hummingbirds, finches, wrens, and even pigeons strolling through our yard. While there is no one size fits all aperture / shutter speed / ISO setting, and while it may be preferable to use the lowest ISO coupled with the slowest shutter speed to achieve an image worthy of a 30 x 40 print, it is not realistic for me to try to work under those conditions. Catching a semi-clear image of a hummingbird in flight requires around 1/1750. When you are pushing the limits by using a 300 with a 2X doubler on it, stopping down is almost always required to get sufficient depth of field. I have had too many images ruined by attempting to meet some imaginary standards. I err on the side of coming-back-with-the-photo, always.

Even if I find myself in a quieter surrounding, taking my eye off the image to switch settings most of the time results in losing a good photo. I'm not one of those guys who shotguns at 20fps hoping 'something' might be good. I am classically trained (Henri Cartier- Bresson, Brassai, Walker Evans, etc.). I was taught that developing an 'eye' is the most important characteristic of a good photographer. Having a background in photojournalism, getting the image overwhelms all other considerations. Take a look at the magnificent work done during WW II and Vietnam. Even being sharply in focus was a nice-to-have back then.

Happy New Year to you as well.
Click to expand...
I like your photo, except for the composition, it is a bit off. I would like it better if there were more space to the left of the bird, in the direction it's facing. Pictures usually look better that way. Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top