Stepping into air

[[TQ]]

 

[mpcamer1220]

not too shabby

 

[Corvette]

I like it. Is it a young bird?

Vette

 

[HorsePunchKid]

Definitely an unusual capture, and quite sharp. Have you tried to clean up the noise? I don't personally have any experience with the various popular noise-reduction packages, but I hear they can work wonders.

By the way, it looks like a bunch of the links on your home page point to an old server. Just in case you weren't aware.

 

[[TQ]]

Definitely an unusual capture, and quite sharp. Have you tried to clean up the noise? I don't personally have any experience with the various popular noise-reduction packages, but I hear they can work wonders.

I dont like noise reduction software, i dont like the look it gives printed photos. Noise/grain is a bi-product of photography. You can either learn to accept it, or try and fix it thus hurt your images. Thats how i see it.

By the way, it looks like a bunch of the links on your home page point to an old server. Just in case you weren't aware.

Yeah i know, i was lazy and didnt pay for the domain when it expired, so now i have to wait a few days for it to get all set up again. Thanks though

 

[bromide]

i dont know...the shallow depth of field bothers me.

 

[[TQ]]

Fair enough, i guess some people cant apreciate a moment.

 

[ToiIetDuck]

or perhaps people appreciate being able to see an entire object in detail, rather than a nice sharp beak followed by a bird shaped blur (overexaggerated )
Still a nice interesting photo, what's that on the bird's left foot, a spider's web?

 

[[TQ]]

or perhaps people appreciate being able to see an entire object in detail, rather than a nice sharp beak followed by a bird shaped blur (overexaggerated )
Still a nice interesting photo, what's that on the bird's left foot, a spider's web?

I'm open to comments and critques whenever i post my photographs, it just strikes me as odd that when i share this on photography websites i hear nothing of "noise" and i hear nothing about the depth of field.

The depth of field in this photo enhances the motion in my opinion.

 

[dariob]

What body/lense?

 

[[TQ]]

What body/lense?

That was with a 300D and a 70-300 sigma

 

[Joves]

Hell I like it. And you are correct the blur does give the idea of motion. Cool pic. I have to up-load one I shot of a hawk that sat nicely for me today.

 

[HorsePunchKid]

I'm open to comments and critques whenever i post my photographs, it just strikes me as odd that when i share this on photography websites i hear nothing of "noise" and i hear nothing about the depth of field.

The depth of field in this photo enhances the motion in my opinion.

Fair enough, i guess some people cant apreciate a moment.

It's called constructive criticism. If you don't want it, please tell the form "don't criticize my photos". I offered a suggestion, one I hear often on other forums I visit, that reducing the noise (or blurring the portion that's out of the DOF) can help the background be less distracting. Perhaps the fact that you're not getting criticism on other forums suggests that people are no longer willing to critique your photographs.

I happen to agree that the DOF is what makes the pose interesting. If you'd done it at a tighter aperture, it would destroy the sense of motion that you had captured.

 

[[TQ]]

It's called constructive criticism. If you don't want it, please tell the form "don't criticize my photos". I offered a suggestion, one I hear often on other forums I visit, that reducing the noise (or blurring the portion that's out of the DOF) can help the background be less distracting. Perhaps the fact that you're not getting criticism on other forums suggests that people are no longer willing to critique your photographs.

I happen to agree that the DOF is what makes the pose interesting. If you'd done it at a tighter aperture, it would destroy the sense of motion that you had captured.

So let me get this straight, the only thing you can find to critique in the photo is the noise level?

Thats what bothers me, i'm not a pixel peeper, i have an 8x10 of this hanging on my wall and the noise you see online is not visable on paper, thus it isnt an issue to me so it's an anoyance to hear it brought up.

 

[HorsePunchKid]

So let me get this straight, the only thing you can find to critique in the photo is the noise level?

Thats what bothers me, i'm not a pixel peeper, i have an 8x10 of this hanging on my wall and the noise you see online is not visable on paper, thus it isnt an issue to me so it's an anoyance to hear it brought up.

Like I said, tell us not to give suggestions if you don't want to hear them. I won't be offended. I wouldn't have brought up the noise if I didn't think it was an issue. I don't feel compelled to find flaws when there are none, but it's rare to find a perfect photo. I would hope you would take it as a compliment that that was the only fault I found in your photo; if you are opaque to that, don't blame me!

 

[misan-thrope]

Horse has it correct, if you don't like the critism, be sure to ask for none.
Personally, I like the motion captured, but the background is distracting and the angle just doesn't do it for me, strikes me as wierd for lack of a better word.

 

[[TQ]]

Horse has it correct, if you don't like the critism, be sure to ask for none.
Personally, I like the motion captured, but the background is distracting and the angle just doesn't do it for me, strikes me as wierd for lack of a better word.

I'm perfectly fine with your opinion, what bothers me is when people bitch and moan about "noise".

 

[Chris626]

Cool. I like the photo. The lower half of it's body reminds me of a rat for some reason.