I've no idea what the environment is like around this venue ... but, unsurprisingly, I'd suggest at least trying to get down to their eye level - if you don't like the results, fine - no problem - but at least give it a go?
If you like the (potential) results, but the surroundings of this particular pond are less than ideal from a background aspect ... then, imo - if you intend to continue taking (half decent) pics of waterfowl - it's probably time to start looking for a different location that offers such.
You'd probably need an angle finder (unfamiliar with a 610, but suspect no tilting lcd?) ... to get reasonably low down ... and some means of support - eg a bean bag is an inexpensive and reliable start.
Whilst my main support rig for the beanbag is a home-made turntable, I've recently added a glass microwave platter as an alternative item to place between the beanbag and the ground, since it offers a nice smooth surface when rotating the beanbag and cam if tracking a subject - as it was removed from a defunct MW, the price was right too
Any similar item would probably suffice, but others rarely have the three equispaced 'pips' on the underside, which help to stop it rocking on some surfaces.
pp
Edit - forgot to mention
You can't get much lower than placing your gear on the ice (bit of insulation between it and ice) btw, if the ice is thick enough. I've done this whenever opportunity (and targets) allow.
I've no idea what the environment is like around this venue ... but, unsurprisingly, I'd suggest at least trying to get down to their eye level - if you don't like the results, fine - no problem - but at least give it a go?
If you like the (potential) results, but the surroundings of this particular pond are less than ideal from a background aspect ... then, imo - if you intend to continue taking (half decent) pics of waterfowl - it's probably time to start looking for a different location that offers such.
You'd probably need an angle finder (unfamiliar with a 610, but suspect no tilting lcd?) ... to get reasonably low down ... and some means of support - eg a bean bag is an inexpensive and reliable start.
Whilst my main support rig for the beanbag is a home-made turntable, I've recently added a glass microwave platter as an alternative item to place between the beanbag and the ground, since it offers a nice smooth surface when rotating the beanbag and cam if tracking a subject - as it was removed from a defunct MW, the price was right too
Any similar item would probably suffice, but others rarely have the three equispaced 'pips' on the underside, which help to stop it rocking on some surfaces.
pp
Edit - forgot to mention
You can't get much lower than placing your gear on the ice (bit of insulation between it and ice) btw, if the ice is thick enough. I've done this whenever opportunity (and targets) allow.
Thanks for the ideas, this little pond was surrounded by mud and I was just stopping on my way home. so I didn't want to get on the ground just yet You're correct that the D610 has no tilting LCD so it does make it a bit more difficult, oh how I wish it did though. This little pond is in the middle of a housing development so the background is not all that appealing but we do have a wildlife refuge close to us and we are thinking of heading out there for a wider variety and better scenery too. I only had a couple that I was able to get lower and I agree that angle looks so much better.
I'm not the greatest with waterfowl angles but I do appreciate light and I love the colors in the first shot. Having seen lots of wildlife shots taken by P.Paul, I would certainly try to follow his lead/advice.
"Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53
I'm not the greatest with waterfowl angles but I do appreciate light and I love the colors in the first shot. Having seen lots of wildlife shots taken by P.Paul, I would certainly try to follow his lead/advice.
Thank you, I agree his work is top notch and a great study for me as far as what to strive towards.
Don't think mrs pp would necessarily agree with this, especially if I'm coming out with some convoluted 'reasons' for not doing the dishes / housework / cleaning up the mud from snapping trips etc ...
Disagree - in these days of the net, the world is awash with bods offering advice / spouting off about every topic under the sun - w/life photography is no different.
Every book / mag article / blog post etc I've seen / read - that's been written by people who know one end of a camera from t'other stress the importance / benefits of getting down to the subject's eye level, if at all possible if you're trying to get a particular type of shot.
Being at this (low, generally) level doesn't automatically make any shot taken at such a pov a good one, obviously - there's the usual plethora of photographic considerations to take into account.
Other than the home-made gear I've made to let me get down to water level in a convenient (and for me, comfortable) manner, I don't bring anything new to any of this - it's all been done before.
From a subject aspect, as I've said before, I'd prefer a decent shot of a common subject, rather than the opposite - especially as travelling is invariably involved to see / take pics of the rarer - and supposedly more photogenic - species.
It'd also be somewhat arrogant of me to think that if I traipsed out to (insert place) for a few days, I could take better pics of whatever lived there - than a local guy(ette) who lived there and is totally familiar with the environment etc.
After all, we all know what a polar bear / whale / puffin / albatross etc looks like ... don't we?
I'm lazy - and lucky that there's a reasonable, council run (therefore free) venue only 15mins bike ride away.
Potentially decent shots are invariably available - lack of getting something is almost always down to my inability to get them.
Once you remove the 'I must have a pic of (insert species)' from a 'bucket list' ... and concentrate on getting a decent pic ... rather than a(ny) pic of a particular species ... then, for me, anyway ... it's a start.
I do have a 'bucket list' - to use your phraseology ... but it's a list of images / compositions / pictures - based on the behaviour of the couple of dozen or so common species that inhabit my local venue.
Whether I'll be able to achieve / get any of these pics is another matter, of course, but being out there and trying (as S says) is what it's all about, innit?
To quote 'Zoomer's mantra' - yet again
Light
Background
Composition
Pose
Get these right, and you're off to a good start, imo - irrespective of the fact that the subject may be - as I've seen mentioned - a 'dirt' one.
And, guys ... enough with the 'words', eh ... I'm running out of whitewash to cover my blushes ... let alone the cost of a chainsaw to enlarge tops of doorways ...
pp
Edit
I've also posted this before - which I think is a fair summary.
Thanks for the ideas, this little pond was surrounded by mud and I was just stopping on my way home. so I didn't want to get on the ground just yet You're correct that the D610 has no tilting LCD so it does make it a bit more difficult, oh how I wish it did though. This little pond is in the middle of a housing development so the background is not all that appealing but we do have a wildlife refuge close to us and we are thinking of heading out there for a wider variety and better scenery too. I only had a couple that I was able to get lower and I agree that angle looks so much better.
I've had a brief try with a tilt lcd equipped cam body - I much prefer the more intimate contact / view offered by an angle finder. The lcd approach I find somewhat 'disconnected' - especially if tracking moving subjects (across the water, in my case)
A fellow local snapper uses a 70D which has the lcd option - but he also uses an angle finder for taking pics.
Rubbish backgrounds can sometimes be 'dealt' with by changes in weather / lighting etc. I've obviously no idea about yours, but my post #7 here shows some of the stuff we have to deal with .. and the local soccer pitch has just had new floodlights too, adding to the pita factor with reflections in the water ...
Btw, the 'dancing grebe ' shot which is currently the first pic on my flickr page, was taken in a less than ideal (normally) environment ... it's standing on a tarmac path, covered by a couple of inches of water because the two lakes (one either side of the path) had flooded after much rain.
Fog got rid of the rest of the background.
Being aware that such things can happen - and treating the situation as 'offering different potential' - and exploiting it - is one of the advantages - imo - of being familiar with a local venue?
Btw, the 'dancing grebe ' shot which is currently the first pic on my flickr page, was taken in a less than ideal (normally) environment ... it's standing on a tarmac path, covered by a couple of inches of water because the two lakes (one either side of the path) had flooded after much rain.
pp
Don't think mrs pp would necessarily agree with this, especially if I'm coming out with some convoluted 'reasons' for not doing the dishes / housework / cleaning up the mud from snapping trips etc ...
Disagree - in these days of the net, the world is awash with bods offering advice / spouting off about every topic under the sun - w/life photography is no different.
Every book / mag article / blog post etc I've seen / read - that's been written by people who know one end of a camera from t'other stress the importance / benefits of getting down to the subject's eye level, if at all possible if you're trying to get a particular type of shot.
Being at this (low, generally) level doesn't automatically make any shot taken at such a pov a good one, obviously - there's the usual plethora of photographic considerations to take into account.
Other than the home-made gear I've made to let me get down to water level in a convenient (and for me, comfortable) manner, I don't bring anything new to any of this - it's all been done before.
From a subject aspect, as I've said before, I'd prefer a decent shot of a common subject, rather than the opposite - especially as travelling is invariably involved to see / take pics of the rarer - and supposedly more photogenic - species.
It'd also be somewhat arrogant of me to think that if I traipsed out to (insert place) for a few days, I could take better pics of whatever lived there - than a local guy(ette) who lived there and is totally familiar with the environment etc.
After all, we all know what a polar bear / whale / puffin / albatross etc looks like ... don't we?
I'm lazy - and lucky that there's a reasonable, council run (therefore free) venue only 15mins bike ride away.
Potentially decent shots are invariably available - lack of getting something is almost always down to my inability to get them.
Once you remove the 'I must have a pic of (insert species)' from a 'bucket list' ... and concentrate on getting a decent pic ... rather than a(ny) pic of a particular species ... then, for me, anyway ... it's a start.
I do have a 'bucket list' - to use your phraseology ... but it's a list of images / compositions / pictures - based on the behaviour of the couple of dozen or so common species that inhabit my local venue.
Whether I'll be able to achieve / get any of these pics is another matter, of course, but being out there and trying (as S says) is what it's all about, innit?
To quote 'Zoomer's mantra' - yet again
Light
Background
Composition
Pose
Get these right, and you're off to a good start, imo - irrespective of the fact that the subject may be - as I've seen mentioned - a 'dirt' one.
And, guys ... enough with the 'words', eh ... I'm running out of whitewash to cover my blushes ... let alone the cost of a chainsaw to enlarge tops of doorways ...
pp
Edit
I've also posted this before - which I think is a fair summary.
PP I have learned tons from you, and yes if one looks around on the web they can find a lot, but few places get to the point quicker than you do. Most of the time I find that authors are trying to show off their knowledge instead of crystallizing something useful.
I myself preach these teachings to others as much as I can, with mixed results.
For average person, subject is still the king......I think.....
However, for a good photographer that should not be the case......and they are easier to convince....
With a given light and opportunity, I always ask what I can do with it. Where in this view is my best light (not where is the subject). Then in that view, what is most appealing....that is my new subject. Then how should I frame it that background or surroundings actually help to set-up or bring attention to my new subject (what appealed to me most). Then by default, I hit it with some different angles and focal lengths. Often when I load things up on computer, whatever appealed to me on tiny LCD screen ends up in garbage bin and what I didn't think much of, starts to look appealing.
So my message to all would be that - follow the light, find drama, create drama with light and dark play, everything evenly lit is good for exposure, but not that good for drama, find most appealing aspect, and forget the rest and give it prominence, then look for background, hopefully simplicity, hopefully not busy, use other elements to create mystery and make them point to the subject, and then hit it with different angles, near and far.
Then process it well, and walk away from your station for few hours. Because little bit later something you did, may not appeal as much (or vice versa). Get rid of distractions and other flaws.
Then give it one last view, with no emotional attachment, as if it was someone else's picture.
If there is nothing that appeals to you right away.....with multiple viewing......be QUICK TO HIT THE DELETE button.
Then hope you get critique and absorb it, and take that into account next time.....and try again!
Thanks for the ideas, this little pond was surrounded by mud and I was just stopping on my way home. so I didn't want to get on the ground just yet You're correct that the D610 has no tilting LCD so it does make it a bit more difficult, oh how I wish it did though. This little pond is in the middle of a housing development so the background is not all that appealing but we do have a wildlife refuge close to us and we are thinking of heading out there for a wider variety and better scenery too. I only had a couple that I was able to get lower and I agree that angle looks so much better.
First shot in this sequence is a winner Dan in my book!
The second one, nice, but background gets bit busy and distracting and anlge is not ideal.
Just sharing because that is how I learned!
Cheers!
First shot in this sequence is a winner Dan in my book!
The second one, nice, but background gets bit busy and distracting and anlge is not ideal.
Just sharing because that is how I learned!
Cheers!
Thank you for sharing with me and for being gentle in your critique, it is the only way to get better
Thanks ... it's ok, (which is why I put it on my Flickr), but, like any w/life shot - from anyone, not just me, there are invariably aspects that could be 'improved' ... this is certainly no exception.
As previously mentioned, I pointed to it because it's an example of how different weather conditions can affect an environment and offer different / better? shooting opportunities from 'the norm'.
// ...If there is nothing that appeals to you right away.....with multiple viewing......be QUICK TO HIT THE DELETE button.
Then hope you get critique and absorb it, and take that into account next time.....and try again!
Cheers!
S - apart from the first bit - 'cos I mainly rattle on about the (limited amount of) same old stuff ad nauseum the rest makes sense as an approach, especially if it seems to work - as it does for you.
In my case I rarely 'hit' things from different (higher, in my case) angles, 'cos I I've tried it - and for my limited subject range, I prefer the results from low level.
Different focal lengths I do use - very occasionally, since I can easily carry an extra lens or two on the bike - but I like the discipline that is forced on the gig by using a fixed prime - yes, I'll lose some shots - but that's always the case - as now, sitting here, writing this
So what, it's not a life n death scenario ... it's just a different arrangement of pixels ...
Jester - Re the two more recent pics, the Mallard's head is the better, also imo - but I'm curious about the background in it ... and, in fact the 'low' angle it was taken.
I'm probably wrong, but it looks like the subject was lower down a hill / slope, with you higher up said slope .. and the bg way behind the bird.
The fact that the horizon line in the reflection in its eye is curved - rather than a straight line - suggests this + the white ruff at the base of its neck is oof, whereas its eye + surrounding plumage isn't.
You've certainly got a good degree of subject isolation in this shot, but I can't help but wonder what it'd look like with a bit more canvas above head and in front, and less behind its head + maybe a bit less 'in your face' coloured bg
For average person, subject is still the king......I think.....
Probably correct ... but re wildlife shots ... and that's what I'm talking about here - would it make *that* much difference to a decent shot of whatever ... if that 'whatever' was replaced by another subject?
... or is the supposed 'awesomeness' (and how I detest the widespread and invariably mis-used use of the 'A' word ) of a photo almost solely reliant on the fact that the subject is something cute / rare / colourful / photogenic etc rather than - to use a phrase from your side of the pond - some sort of 'dirt' subject?
pp
Edit
eg .. and I don't particularly like doing this ... but would it have made much difference to my recently uploaded 'scooting swan' swan pic, if the subject was something other than a swan (which itself is probably a 'dirt' bird? ) ... eg, Canada goose, grebe, mallard ... or even, dare I suggest - that really boring (to some people) - a coot?
Probably correct ... but re wildlife shots ... and that's what I'm talking about here - would it make *that* much difference to a decent shot of whatever ... if that 'whatever' was replaced by another subject?
... or is the supposed 'awesomeness' (and how I detest the widespread and invariably mis-used use of the 'A' word ) of a photo almost solely reliant on the fact that the subject is something cute / rare / colourful / photogenic etc rather than - to use a phrase from your side of the pond - some sort of 'dirt' subject?
pp
Edit
eg .. and I don't particularly like doing this ... but would it have made much difference to my recently uploaded 'scooting swan' swan pic, if the subject was something other than a swan (which itself is probably a 'dirt' bird? ) ... eg, Canada goose, grebe, mallard ... or even, dare I suggest - that really boring (to some people) - a coot?
That's a trick question PP. A Coot will never fly at you!:D
Comments
Thank you, is there anything you would have done differently with it?
www.cathausphotography.com
Indeed.
I've no idea what the environment is like around this venue ... but, unsurprisingly, I'd suggest at least trying to get down to their eye level - if you don't like the results, fine - no problem - but at least give it a go?
If you like the (potential) results, but the surroundings of this particular pond are less than ideal from a background aspect ... then, imo - if you intend to continue taking (half decent) pics of waterfowl - it's probably time to start looking for a different location that offers such.
You'd probably need an angle finder (unfamiliar with a 610, but suspect no tilting lcd?) ... to get reasonably low down ... and some means of support - eg a bean bag is an inexpensive and reliable start.
Whilst my main support rig for the beanbag is a home-made turntable, I've recently added a glass microwave platter as an alternative item to place between the beanbag and the ground, since it offers a nice smooth surface when rotating the beanbag and cam if tracking a subject - as it was removed from a defunct MW, the price was right too
Any similar item would probably suffice, but others rarely have the three equispaced 'pips' on the underside, which help to stop it rocking on some surfaces.
pp
Edit - forgot to mention
You can't get much lower than placing your gear on the ice (bit of insulation between it and ice) btw, if the ice is thick enough. I've done this whenever opportunity (and targets) allow.
Flickr
Thanks for the ideas, this little pond was surrounded by mud and I was just stopping on my way home. so I didn't want to get on the ground just yet You're correct that the D610 has no tilting LCD so it does make it a bit more difficult, oh how I wish it did though. This little pond is in the middle of a housing development so the background is not all that appealing but we do have a wildlife refuge close to us and we are thinking of heading out there for a wider variety and better scenery too. I only had a couple that I was able to get lower and I agree that angle looks so much better.
www.cathausphotography.com
Thank you, I agree his work is top notch and a great study for me as far as what to strive towards.
www.cathausphotography.com
Listen to PP!
Free education we will not get elsewhere!
Keep shooting and keep posting!
Cheers!
Don't think mrs pp would necessarily agree with this, especially if I'm coming out with some convoluted 'reasons' for not doing the dishes / housework / cleaning up the mud from snapping trips etc ...
Disagree - in these days of the net, the world is awash with bods offering advice / spouting off about every topic under the sun - w/life photography is no different.
Every book / mag article / blog post etc I've seen / read - that's been written by people who know one end of a camera from t'other stress the importance / benefits of getting down to the subject's eye level, if at all possible if you're trying to get a particular type of shot.
Being at this (low, generally) level doesn't automatically make any shot taken at such a pov a good one, obviously - there's the usual plethora of photographic considerations to take into account.
Other than the home-made gear I've made to let me get down to water level in a convenient (and for me, comfortable) manner, I don't bring anything new to any of this - it's all been done before.
From a subject aspect, as I've said before, I'd prefer a decent shot of a common subject, rather than the opposite - especially as travelling is invariably involved to see / take pics of the rarer - and supposedly more photogenic - species.
It'd also be somewhat arrogant of me to think that if I traipsed out to (insert place) for a few days, I could take better pics of whatever lived there - than a local guy(ette) who lived there and is totally familiar with the environment etc.
After all, we all know what a polar bear / whale / puffin / albatross etc looks like ... don't we?
I'm lazy - and lucky that there's a reasonable, council run (therefore free) venue only 15mins bike ride away.
Potentially decent shots are invariably available - lack of getting something is almost always down to my inability to get them.
Once you remove the 'I must have a pic of (insert species)' from a 'bucket list' ... and concentrate on getting a decent pic ... rather than a(ny) pic of a particular species ... then, for me, anyway ... it's a start.
I do have a 'bucket list' - to use your phraseology ... but it's a list of images / compositions / pictures - based on the behaviour of the couple of dozen or so common species that inhabit my local venue.
Whether I'll be able to achieve / get any of these pics is another matter, of course, but being out there and trying (as S says) is what it's all about, innit?
To quote 'Zoomer's mantra' - yet again
Light
Background
Composition
Pose
Get these right, and you're off to a good start, imo - irrespective of the fact that the subject may be - as I've seen mentioned - a 'dirt' one.
And, guys ... enough with the 'words', eh ... I'm running out of whitewash to cover my blushes ... let alone the cost of a chainsaw to enlarge tops of doorways ...
pp
Edit
I've also posted this before - which I think is a fair summary.
http://blog.northshots.com/2013/12/20-nature-wildlife-photography-tips/
Flickr
I've had a brief try with a tilt lcd equipped cam body - I much prefer the more intimate contact / view offered by an angle finder. The lcd approach I find somewhat 'disconnected' - especially if tracking moving subjects (across the water, in my case)
A fellow local snapper uses a 70D which has the lcd option - but he also uses an angle finder for taking pics.
Rubbish backgrounds can sometimes be 'dealt' with by changes in weather / lighting etc. I've obviously no idea about yours, but my post #7 here shows some of the stuff we have to deal with .. and the local soccer pitch has just had new floodlights too, adding to the pita factor with reflections in the water ...
Btw, the 'dancing grebe
Fog got rid of the rest of the background.
Being aware that such things can happen - and treating the situation as 'offering different potential' - and exploiting it - is one of the advantages - imo - of being familiar with a local venue?
pp
Flickr
That is an absolutely fantastic shot
www.cathausphotography.com
PP I have learned tons from you, and yes if one looks around on the web they can find a lot, but few places get to the point quicker than you do. Most of the time I find that authors are trying to show off their knowledge instead of crystallizing something useful.
I myself preach these teachings to others as much as I can, with mixed results.
For average person, subject is still the king......I think.....
However, for a good photographer that should not be the case......and they are easier to convince....
With a given light and opportunity, I always ask what I can do with it. Where in this view is my best light (not where is the subject). Then in that view, what is most appealing....that is my new subject. Then how should I frame it that background or surroundings actually help to set-up or bring attention to my new subject (what appealed to me most). Then by default, I hit it with some different angles and focal lengths. Often when I load things up on computer, whatever appealed to me on tiny LCD screen ends up in garbage bin and what I didn't think much of, starts to look appealing.
So my message to all would be that - follow the light, find drama, create drama with light and dark play, everything evenly lit is good for exposure, but not that good for drama, find most appealing aspect, and forget the rest and give it prominence, then look for background, hopefully simplicity, hopefully not busy, use other elements to create mystery and make them point to the subject, and then hit it with different angles, near and far.
Then process it well, and walk away from your station for few hours. Because little bit later something you did, may not appeal as much (or vice versa). Get rid of distractions and other flaws.
Then give it one last view, with no emotional attachment, as if it was someone else's picture.
If there is nothing that appeals to you right away.....with multiple viewing......be QUICK TO HIT THE DELETE button.
Then hope you get critique and absorb it, and take that into account next time.....and try again!
Cheers!
First shot in this sequence is a winner Dan in my book!
The second one, nice, but background gets bit busy and distracting and anlge is not ideal.
Just sharing because that is how I learned!
Cheers!
Thank you for sharing with me and for being gentle in your critique, it is the only way to get better
www.cathausphotography.com
Thanks ... it's ok, (which is why I put it on my Flickr), but, like any w/life shot - from anyone, not just me, there are invariably aspects that could be 'improved' ... this is certainly no exception.
As previously mentioned, I pointed to it because it's an example of how different weather conditions can affect an environment and offer different / better? shooting opportunities from 'the norm'.
S - apart from the first bit - 'cos I mainly rattle on about the (limited amount of) same old stuff ad nauseum the rest makes sense as an approach, especially if it seems to work - as it does for you.
In my case I rarely 'hit' things from different (higher, in my case) angles, 'cos I I've tried it - and for my limited subject range, I prefer the results from low level.
Different focal lengths I do use - very occasionally, since I can easily carry an extra lens or two on the bike - but I like the discipline that is forced on the gig by using a fixed prime - yes, I'll lose some shots - but that's always the case - as now, sitting here, writing this
So what, it's not a life n death scenario ... it's just a different arrangement of pixels ...
Jester - Re the two more recent pics, the Mallard's head is the better, also imo - but I'm curious about the background in it ... and, in fact the 'low' angle it was taken.
I'm probably wrong, but it looks like the subject was lower down a hill / slope, with you higher up said slope .. and the bg way behind the bird.
The fact that the horizon line in the reflection in its eye is curved - rather than a straight line - suggests this + the white ruff at the base of its neck is oof, whereas its eye + surrounding plumage isn't.
You've certainly got a good degree of subject isolation in this shot, but I can't help but wonder what it'd look like with a bit more canvas above head and in front, and less behind its head + maybe a bit less 'in your face' coloured bg
pp
Flickr
Probably correct ... but re wildlife shots ... and that's what I'm talking about here - would it make *that* much difference to a decent shot of whatever ... if that 'whatever' was replaced by another subject?
... or is the supposed 'awesomeness' (and how I detest the widespread and invariably mis-used use of the 'A' word
pp
Edit
eg .. and I don't particularly like doing this ... but would it have made much difference to my recently uploaded 'scooting swan' swan pic, if the subject was something other than a swan (which itself is probably a 'dirt' bird? ) ... eg, Canada goose, grebe, mallard ... or even, dare I suggest - that really boring (to some people) - a coot?
Flickr
That's a trick question PP. A Coot will never fly at you!:D
Yep, looks like I've been caught out yet again ... it just goes to show you shouldn't take any notice of anything that I say / write, dunnit ?
Well, what do you expect when dealing with some uninformed, random limey, huh?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/94838450@N06/24977201172/in/faves-122385257@N08/
Flickr
Cheers PP!