Hi guys,
I was amazed at the quality of the posts on this thread. I am by no means a "photographer" but enjoy looking for what I consider "neat" shots but I am using a Canon IS5 camera with no lenses and I do not even know much about aperture, etc... and usually just use the "Auto" setting so bear with me.
Here is a photo I took at the Niagara Falls of a birdy.
Any advice is HIGHLY appreciated and I heave learned a lot just from reading some of the posts.
Take care.
You certainly have conveyed a sense of motion here by capturing the snow being kicked up by the bird's foot. It would help a lot if some part of the bird was in sharp focus, but even if that were the case, I think I'd still want to see more of the bird. The composition is about half bird and half background, which gives it an uneasy see-saw quality.
If you're finding that your camera is a bit limiting for action shots, you might try just working on composition for a while. And whatever you do, keep posting your shots here for comments; it's a great way to learn.
Ok, this is my first look around this side of the forums and although the photo wasn't taken within the challenge period, it's the first time i've posted one of my photos publicly and just thought i'd see what reaction, if any, it gets.
Thanks,
Stu.
You've done a very nice job of combining the exposures. The light is great, and you froze the action beautifully. I agree with JDDavis that there is just
way too much sky here. You could crop in a lot on the top and at the left and get us a lot "closer" to the action. All of that blank sky is doing nothing for the composition. And yeah, the bright complementary colors are a bit jarring.
Trying to capture static and motion while hanging over a bridge.
EXIF Summary: 1/80s f/6.3 ISO100 Tamron 28-75 2.8@30mm
Dale
I love photos that juxtapose the static with the dynamic, so I think you were headed in a great direction here; however, in order to pull off that effect in a still frame, it's usually best to exaggerate the motion instead of freezing it (to get a real sense of contrast between the two). A slower shutter speed is usually the solution. With such fast-flowing water, you could probably get away with about 1/20s, which is easily achievable with a stabilized lens and no tripod (I'm going to guess this view would be nearly impossible to get with a tripod). Even slower would probably be better, though. Also, as you know, the eye is attracted to light in an image, so the bits of direct light at the extreme upper edge of the frame command attention in this one. The placement of those parts in the composition literally marginalizes them, and they don't seem to be revealing anything important to us, so I get sense that their inclusion is unintentional. Getting the right light on moving water is super tricky, so I can appreciate what you were up against here.
Interesting way to show the contrast between static and motion. Very well done. The rock in the foreground looks a bit washed out. Is it naturally that light?
Thanks, Dale. Do you mean the granite surrounding the still pool? A check of the histogram for that area shows it to be mostly mids and quarter tones, so if you're seeing something lighter than that, perhaps you're using a laptop monitor? I know my MacBook Pro's monitor (even when calibrated to the extent that it can be) makes all images look washed out. At any rate, it's granite reflecting light from the sky, so yeah, its tonal values are more or less authentic here.
I love this, it's very dreamy. Great contrast of the sharp rocks and water in motion, and the reflective puddle at the front adds to it's success as a point of interest keeping the eye busy. Technically and visually superb.
Thank you very much, Reef. A great compliment coming from the master of moving water himself.
![](http://<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davennikki/4836503968/" title="2010-07-25 at 21-57-16 by Dave Gregory, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4836503968_d8d47c3523_z.jpg" width="640" height="428" alt="2010-07-25 at 21-57-16" /></a>)
