I was out shooting today...well testing a lens anyway...when I saw these Mourning Doves in the woods about 70 feet away. The image is uncropped.

My interest in showing it here is that I am interested in feedback on how forum members percieve certain images.

In nature photography, we do not always get it the way we want it. The question here is... does the natural capture of these doves in the woods lose its effectiveness because of the foreground branches or can you accept it as part of the overall effectiveness of the image? Or does the OOF foreground branches detract so much that the image is rendered useless?

Looking for perception feedback. Thanks.


Stephen

[NaClH2O]

Hi Stephen, being kinda "artsy" myself, I actually think the foreground branches enhance the photo. I'm sure there's lots of morning dove shots around, the semi transparent foreground twigs give it a nice ethereal feel.

NaCl(much more interesting this way)H2O

[Artymous]

I like the effect of the branches myself..

now all you need to work on is the exposure

[SCGushue]

I like the effect of the branches myself..

now all you need to work on is the exposure

Thanks for the feedback.

On the exposure. This was manual focus/manual metering on a huge lens (1000mm) and on an extremely overcast day. With roughly a one stop (compensating for meter bias underexposing due to bright gray sky) adjustment the current image reflects the capture conditions very closely. Gray and diffuse . The monochromatic nature of the image is, personally, my favorite part of the image.

The capture was 160/ f11(fixed) and handheld. As I learn to use this lens and get comfortable with it I'll make sure to hone in on the metering.

Stephen

[SCGushue]

Hi Stephen, being kinda "artsy" myself, I actually think the foreground branches enhance the photo. I'm sure there's lots of morning dove shots around, the semi transparent foreground twigs give it a nice ethereal feel.

NaCl(much more interesting this way)H2O

Salty,

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the comments. I hope that people that don't like it leave feedback too. I am hoping to get some understanding of people's perception on various elements within an image,


Stephen

[roentarre]

Hi Stephen, I like the way the branches interlacing each other before the doves.

However, if you ask me to post it in various competition sites or photo critic websites, I would be quite reluctant. Pentax gallery would definitely call the branches distracting and take away the focus from the doves.

In photography Laureates, a lot of nature photographers want things simple. Simple compositions and minimal elements within the frame. Apparently the message needs to be clear and images imprint in brain well with simple composition and complementary colours.

p.s. knowing that you are a pro landscape photographer with more photography experiences than me. Hope I am not doing outstepping my realm ...
p.s. the branches have this type of bokeh called linear tramtrack bokeh which can be a negative feature of the lens; artisticly the photo appeals to me as bokeh frames the dove well.

[little laker]

Stephen, I do like it, and the branches really work.

However I hope that you don't mind.

I loaded it in Picasa (free Google program) and just clicked on I Feel Lucky.
I think that it turned out a little better

What do you think?

If you want me to I'll delete my input.

[Heinrich Lohmann]

I don't mind the out of focus branches, sort of showes that the image was taking in the wild but I also believe that most editors would reject it. Personally I would have used a little more contrast.

Thanks for posting them,

Heinrich

[SCGushue]

Hi Stephen, I like the way the branches interlacing each other before the doves.



p.s. knowing that you are a pro landscape photographer with more photography experiences than me. Hope I am not doing outstepping my realm ...
p.s. the branches have this type of bokeh called linear tramtrack bokeh which can be a negative feature of the lens; artisticly the photo appeals to me as bokeh frames the dove well.

Roentarre,

Thanks for the compliment but when it comes to general photography I am just like the rest of the guys and gals posting on the forum. Struggling to develop an eye in disciplines not native to me. I am classically trained in photography but my expertise is only in medical, scientific and industrial photography. Back in the late 70's I did pro sports, fashion and advertising photography in NYC for several years but gravitated to specialized scientific and medical certifications in photography to better support my new family with a STEADY income.
There were parallel reasons for transitioning over to scientific photography. I shared some experiences and thoughts with Ben (benjikan) on my early experience in photography and he said to share those thoughts with the forum members and...perhaps I will...someday.

The landscape and macros are things I have only been doing since getting back into photography (personal) last summer after 20 years of not picking up a camera...except on very rare occasions. There isn't much more to do around here now.

With digital there is a big learning curve to get to the level of film knowledge and experiecnce that I have with film and print paper, and sometimes I wonder whether or not I have the time or strength to endure the process of learning digital. But, I am trying...and I do find the feedback of forum members really helpful.

Thanks,

Stephen.

[SCGushue]

Stephen, I do like it, and the branches really work.

However I hope that you don't mind.

I loaded it in Picasa (free Google program) and just clicked on I Feel Lucky.
I think that it turned out a little better

What do you think?

If you want me to I'll delete my input.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

The rework is very similar to one that I did in photoshop after listening to Artyste's comments yesterday evening. I think that there is a clear consensus that most would like more contrast. That is the type of evaluations and feedback that I wanted to hear.

The version I posted was one that tried to reflect the oppressive gray rainclouds taht were scudding by all day long and during those types of conditions there is generally a lack of contrast in images. Even my rendering inhanced contrast somwhat (10%) but I worried that more might look artificial. But, perhaps by consensus it will work even though the contrast here exceeds the light on the day of capture.

Greatly appreciate the image and time to comment.

Stephen

[carpents]

I agree that it needs a bump in contrast - although maybe not as much as the 'Lucky' one.

I also like what you're trying to do, which is focusing on the mood and feel of the shot rather than the technicals. I agree that it would be rejected out of hand by a 'nature' magazine or similar, and would be rejected by a technical 'photo' magazine. But the vast majority of 'nature' shots are very unnatural after all, and the majority of great 'photo' shots are really just technically sound.

I think yours is trying to be more than both of them.

(FWIW, I like the concept - but eh, it is just a couple of doves. Nothing really spectacular or outstanding - just an uninteresting subject captured in an interesting way.)

[Donald]

... I think that there is a clear consensus that most would like more contrast. ...

no. I've looked a few times and come back because of the low chroma, diffuse nature. It approaches Chinese brush painting, sort of. I thought first too about contrast increase but the sample someone posted takes away the small uniqueness of the low chroma, soft photograph.

I disagree about the out of focus twigs in front of the birds. I have similar shots of a very attractive red squirrel with out of focus twigs and and branches in front of her, consequently, as I do about my squirrel, I think you are rationalizing this disturbance to an otherwise nice shot.

[SCGushue]

no. I've looked a few times and come back because of the low chroma, diffuse nature. It approaches Chinese brush painting, sort of. I thought first too about contrast increase but the sample someone posted takes away the small uniqueness of the low chroma, soft photograph.

I disagree about the out of focus twigs in front of the birds. I have similar shots of a very attractive red squirrel with out of focus twigs and and branches in front of her, consequently, as I do about my squirrel, I think you are rationalizing this disturbance to an otherwise nice shot.

Don,

Wonderful comments. Thank you for taking the time to express them.

I have pondered several aspects of this image and that is the reason I posted it in the first place.

The picture itself, as Sean ponts out, is nothing spectacular in and of itself. However, there are factors that you point out that I must agree with.

While there seems to be a consistant call for contrast...in honest judgement... I am having a difficult time adding more than i did in the original. Why, because the atmospheric conditions and reality did not have additional contrast. This is kinda' like the reviews that fail to understand that Pentax has held back on the in camera contrast and sharpness in jpeg. This was done so that the image could be more natural and the photogapher could put the "final" touches on end product.

I am pleased that all who have responded appear to have no problems with the foreground branches. Hopefully, those that do not like it will express their opinions so that I can get a fair assessment. However, most people are gernerous in not passing negative comments...even when solicited

Thanks again for your opinions. Loved reading them.

Stephen

[little laker]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

The rework is very similar to one that I did in photoshop after listening to Artyste's comments yesterday evening. I think that there is a clear consensus that most would like more contrast. That is the type of evaluations and feedback that I wanted to hear.

The version I posted was one that tried to reflect the oppressive gray rainclouds taht were scudding by all day long and during those types of conditions there is generally a lack of contrast in images. Even my rendering inhanced contrast somwhat (10%) but I worried that more might look artificial. But, perhaps by consensus it will work even though the contrast here exceeds the light on the day of capture.

Greatly appreciate the image and time to comment.

Stephen

What I've done with this sort of picture is process the image twice. Once making the subject look the way that I wanted to and the next picture making the background look right.

Paste the background image on top and then erase the subject to revel the vibrant (birds).

It really doesn't take all that much time or energy, and you can really make an interesting picture.

This was a quickie, and took me about 2 min to do as an example.

I just combined both the above pictures