In my experience American Avocets are difficult subjects to get in flight because of their speed and erratic flight patterns. I’ve tried often but I sure don’t have many flight shots of the species that are very good.
1/4000, f/6.3, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc, natural light
But I do like this one because of the sharpness of the bird, the position of the wings and feet, the nice eye contact, the pretty good exposure on a difficult subject and the somewhat unusual perspective with the viewer looking down on the bird that is flying mostly toward us.
However I don’t particularly appreciate those two twigs behind the head so I’ve never posted this image before. Much as I dislike significant cloning, getting rid of those twigs has sorely tempted me more than once but in the end I just couldn’t do it (though I’ll admit to playing with it a little bit…).
So I’m asking for critique on the image as presented. How much of a distraction do you think those two twigs are? Sometimes I become obsessed with imperfections (as several of you have pointed out on previous posts) and can’t see the forest for the trees. Perhaps the twigs aren’t as much of a problem as I think they might be.
But either way, please be brutally honest.
Thank you in advance for any thoughts on this you’d be willing to share.
Ron
Note: There are conflicting visual cues on this image for rotation. One would expect the twigs in the background to be vertical but when I rotate to make them so the water looks tilted. This orientation worked best overall for my eye. Perhaps the twigs really were leaning – it does happen.
Didn’t notice the twigs until you called attention to them.
One of my favorite water birds.
Jo
Ron, I think the twigs being slanted works well because the bird is slanted. I think we photographers can sometimes get too hung up on straightening photos and cloning things out and can go overboard but if it just doesn’t look right it begs for a little straightening out. Having this problem now with my duck and goose shots.As for the twigs some things I can’t clone out because it all gets blurry so best to leave in. It is nature so lets not mess with it.
I never seen one. I’ve never successfully located one. I think this is a fine flight shot!!
Charlotte
Hi Ron:
I echo what others have said: the twigs do not bother me, and if anything, I would simply darken and blur the most prominent of them. As always, I enjoy your images, and wish I had that kind of wildlife around me.
Whether the twigs should stay or go depends on what you want to do with the picture. If it’s documentary — keep them in. If it’s art — get rid of FIVE twigs. Howard
That’s certainly a succinct way to make the decision, Howard. Based on those criteria I’d leave them in. Thank you.
Ron, I like the image as is, as does my husband. The twigs are just part of the background. The fact that the bird image is so clear makes it stand out. The twigs just under the bird are in continuity with the other ones in the background, another reason they don’t stand out particularly. They just continue the lines of the other twigs, contributing to the directionality of the background. I like seeing the natural background as part of the image – it gives me a much better idea of the bird’s habitat, especially when it’s a bird I might never see. Based on what I’ve seen in nature, the twigs probably are slanted. You have captured the beauty of this bird.
“The fact that the bird image is so clear makes it stand out.”
Susan, that statement is what makes the image work for me, as is – the sharpness of the front half of the bird compared to the sticks in the background makes my eyes focus there rather than on the sticks. But as others have suggested I may tone down the brightest stick.
Lovely bird captured! At first, I imagined the image with the front two sticks removed, but then realized that the bird would look skewered on the remaining sticks. Uh-oh! I’d vote for Sharon’s idea of darkening, softening, reducing the contrast on those pesky sticks, forcing them into the background, repeating the other sticks farther back. Thank you for the image and also the mental exercise with the variety of opinions. I’ve learned about the bird and also how other people see things.
“but then I realized that the bird would look skewered on the remaining sticks.”
Another point I hadn’t thought of, Mikal – and a good one.
The twigs make me know for sure that the bird is real.
Nature’s perfection dwarfs mans attempts at perfection.
Thanks again
Thank you, Diana. I’m getting the impression that the twigs aren’t as big of a distraction for most folks as I thought they might be.
Hi Ron, I’m always amazed at the images you post. And the fact you don’t do any major post work on the images makes them that much more interesting. The sticks fall off to soft focus enough that they are not distracting, and because of the continued depth of field, it gives the shot a lot of dimension. Thanks for sharing your wonderful work.
Brett
Hey Brett – nice to see you here! Your observation about the continued DOF provided by the sticks is a good one – thank you. Hope your owls are still hanging around!
As An artist, and I think you are one ,you can do what ever you feel . Remove the sticks ,yes I would . You can note these things on this site. This well done web site of yours is your own Art Gallery. Each week or day you present a new solo show . When I go to Google images and pull up a bird, once the page lights up with 100 or more images of thst bird ,I can spot a Ron Dudley in a second or two. Now thats a complement you can take to the bank figurativly speaking .The camera is just a machine. Who is behind that trigger and the experiance one achieves through great perseverance will seperate you from the pack. Don’t let your scientific mind get in the way of your artist mind.Go for it free bird.
On a graphic note: take away the head of the Avocet and replace it with a Black Capped Skimmer,remove the big blue legs and you have a Skimmer in feeding flight pattern.
Eldridge, Your comment has caused me to once again reflect on something I’ve thought about often in the past. My primary goal with my photography is to be the best nature photographer I can be. If that puts me in the realm of art I’m fine with it but it’s just not my natural style or inclination to do much manipulation with my images. That of course means I often must discard images with aesthetic imperfections that I like otherwise. I appreciate your input – reflection is a good thing!
Hi Ron,
Nature is not perfect. You have captured the image perfectly. Please don’t tamper with a wonderful image.
Len
Doesn’t look like I’m going to be doing any tampering, Len. Thanks.
If the two twigs behind the head were the only twigs then, yes, they would be a distraction. But there are lots of twigs so they become part of the background and contribute texture to the image.
An interesting point, Carole – one I hadn’t considered. Thank you.
Wonderful Photo Ron. Love the composition and the swooping motion the Avocet displays, and the drops of water coming off the feet are an added bonus. I don’t feel the twigs are a distraction and give the photo a grounded feel and less ” free floating” appearance( if that made any sense…).
Well done !
Makes sense to me, John. Thanks for explaining your rationale.
This is a beautiful image, Ron. It’s difficult for me to critique one of your images since I have not ever been able to take a photograph as beautiful as one of yours, but that said, I tend to lean toward seconding Paul’s comment. There are things (compositionally) that I like about the two sticks behind the head. But if I were to be drawing or painting this subject with the sticks, I would darken the value of the lightest portion of second stick in (and possibly the third stick in just under the breast), thus reducing the contrast so it draws less attention to itself. I might even go so far as to soften the edges (ever-so-little) in a couple of places.
This is so beautiful–sticks or no sticks.
“I would darken the value of the lightest portion of second stick in (and possibly the third stick in just under the breast), thus reducing the contrast”.
Good idea, Sharon. I can do that in Photoshop and I think it might make the sticks a little less distracting. And I would have no ethical objections to doing so like I do with significant cloning.
Hi Ron
I see my role as being one of trying to appreciate what I’m seeing firstly, ..rather than to jump right in with a ‘nit picky’ critique based on some perceived imbalance. The truth is that as a nature lover of both wildlife and landscape, I’m usually very accepting of what’s there in front of me. Granted, if I take a macro shot of a flower that has a grass in the way I would move things to the side so I get the uninterrupted view, ..but if we are talking backgrounds, and let’s say there was a wire fence or a metal chair in view, I might remove it. When I first saw this photo, I liked it a lot, and the twigs didn’t leap out at me. If however you were an artist wanting to paint this on a canvas, ..you might choose to not place the twigs exactly where we see them here. So for me personally, I like the fact that you left them in.
I always enjoy your artistic perspective, Paul. Thanks very much.
Excellent job Ron, beautiful image, sharp, clear, perfect!!
Thank you, Dick.