Do these work?

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).

Richard Stern

Richard Stern

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I took these 2 images (N. Cardinal and White-throated sparrow) looking into a rather complex patch of shrubbery, overgrown raspberries, thorns etc., cropped them to include some of the background but keep the bird as the main subject, and sharpened and noise-reduced in Topaz. But do either or both of them work as interesting and pleasing images, or are they too fussy and complex? Do the backgrounds take away from the birds? Thanks in advance or any critiques and comments. Exifs should be at the bottom of each image. R.

NOCA-7.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


WTSP-2637.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
It depends. If the goal is to create photos where the birds are the main focus, then the background and foregrounds are too busy. If the goal is to create a more environmental photo, then these are great. Sharpness and lighting is very nice.
 
Member's gallery
Hi Richard

They are colorful and sharp, but I agree with the comments about the background. In general, you want to avoid having a branch or stick intersecting the subject. If it is absolutely necessary, you still would not want it to be prominent or intersect the head and shoulders. The killer on the cardinal shot is the twig sticking up over the lower part of the body in front of the bird (between the bird and the camera).

The second image could be cropped tighter and would reduce the impact of the surrounding area. I also darken the background and reduce contrast and bright spots so the subject stands out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top