Yosemite Falls and Deer

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

Thanks in advance for comments. http://members.aol.com/dbradmills

-- brad mills (dbradmills@aol.com), July 15, 1998

Answers

My inner ear feels better when the image is rotated about 3 degrees counter-clockwise.

-- Matthew Francey (mdf@my-dejanews.com), July 16, 1998.

Brad,

Congratulations! Nice stuff. What more can anyone say? Showoff... (laughing ;>)

I'd like separation between the two animals...do you have more from that trip? Care to share your experience? How did the deer react to your presence?

Best Wishes,

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 16, 1998.


My reaction to this was very strange. I looked at it and wanted to yawn, while at the same time thinking my God! - I wish I could take a picture like that!

I looked at it for a while, and decided that I would have prefered a horizontal shot. I'm sure this would have presented framing problems, and since I have never been there I don't know, but it just looks like the right side of the scene was cut off.

It is still a great picture, just didn't seem quite right to me for some reason. I'm not really sure what the rules are - if there are any - for getting a closeup of wildlife and the landscape in the same image but I tend to think horizontal here if it could have been framed properly.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), July 16, 1998.


I am not sure about how to react to this picture.

I suspect that taking this photo would have been amazing, but the photo itself seems a little bland.

The picture would, I think, be improved if you had used a flash to catch the deer's eye. (Though this may not have been possible.) I am also tempted to cut the photo in two to produce an environmental portrait and a landscape. for some reason I keep wanting to see a horizontal photo.

I also agree with the 3 degrees counter-clockwise.

Richard

-- Richard Temple (z2203932@student.unsw.edu.au), July 16, 1998.


I really liked the backdrop of the waterfall! The deers provide a good foreground but I would like them to be seperated.

-- Wee Keng Hor (weekh@singnet.com.sg), July 16, 1998.


My eye is continually drawn to the waterfalls. They are bright and the eye is naturally drawn to them. The deer and the grass are the same tone and not nearly so bright and therefore have a tough time competing with the waterfalls. I like the pose of the deer. If there were a glint of highlight in the eye as someone as already mentioned, then would help to accent the deer more and draw the eye back to it. I think the shot is nice but I feel a tension when I look at it. I think the softness of the deer and grass against the towering hard rock and the dynamic waterfalls is just too much all at once or in such proportions ( about a third each). If the deer were at least 50% of the frame then I think they could compete with that majestic background.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 16, 1998.

This IMO is a lovely shot. While the mid-horizon is not horizontal, the deer of the foreground would not do well if you did rotate the framing as suggested. The deer appears square to the camera view as it is. It is always serendipity to have animals in the "perfect" placement, and the guy in the back didn't quite cooperate for "perfect" composition. But for capturing the feeling of tranquility I give you a 10.

-- Carlyn Iverson (absolutsci@aol.com), July 16, 1998.

Wow! beautiful shot. I would try to add a little saturation - make the green "pop" a little. I agree it needs to be rotated a little. Can you share some of the technical info with us (what type of lens was used etc.)?

-- Guy Tal (guy@spyra.com), July 16, 1998.

It is possible the grass-line is not horizontal because this scene happens to be on a hill???

I think so.

In fact if it's rotated till the grass-line os hoizontal then the image falls apart. I think it's fine the way it is. The nearly vertical lines of the cliff walls are more than enough visual cues, in addition to the way the animals are standing.

Best wishes,

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 16, 1998.


If memory serves, this area is a fairly flat meadow. Those meadows used to be lake beds a long time. I would also be interested to know what time of year this was taken at.

-- Guy Tal (guy@spyra.com), July 16, 1998.


A hill.

Yes that certainly explains it. I don't think the first comment on this was intended as a criticism, mine certainly was not, but an observation of the slight disorintation felt by two people looking at this image.

Unfortunately knowing that it is a hill makes no difference. I can get motion sick in a car on a suburban road and feelings of vertigo at the top of a flight of stairs so being slightly disorientation by a photo is niether a big deal nor a serious criticism. It could even be considered realism!

-- Richard Temple (z2203932@student.unsw.edu.au), July 16, 1998.


Thanks to all who have responded so far. Here is some information and answers to the questions poised above:

Nikon F3 - Nikon 28-70 zoom (somewhere near the 28mm end) - Film Kodak Royal Gold 100 - exposure data not recorded - hand held.

This shot was taken near dusk in Yosemite Valley. A storm was leaving and it was still raining, that probably allowed me to get off a shot without people in it. I took the photo the week before Memorial Day weekend (May, hence the full waterfall).

In the valley the deer can hardly be considered wild so they do tolerate people to some extent if you are careful (there was a sign not too far from where I took this warning about a 5 year old who was kicked to death for getting too close to the deer). I positioned myself in front of where the deer were slowly heading and let them come into the photo with the waterfall behind them. I could have taken many more photos but the light was fading FAST and the rain was coming down harder.

I think a two stop underexposed fill flash probably would have helped bring the deer out a touch. As to wether the shot is tilted. Maybe, I'll have to check some of my other shots.

I have a couple more shots from Yosemite and other shots at my personal web page

Once again thanks to all for the comments so far.

-- brad mills (dbradmills@aol.com), July 16, 1998.


very nicely done; the elimination of the closest deer would improve the composition substantially, imo. the deer is obviously aware of your presence, and this factor introduces you into the image.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), July 17, 1998.

The closest deer is the best thing about the picture. It would be nice if the deer didn't overlap, though. I'm not sure about the horizon issue -- it does look like the strata line halfway up the near cliff is tilted too. To an extent, whether the true horizon is tilted or not is irrelevant if it looks tilted. Distracting is distracting.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), July 17, 1998.

The use of a flash would be too obvious because of the light fall off and the presence of the second deer. I think an 0.3 ND grad filter would really to tone down the beautiful background. I prefer the vertical format as it stands. Be careful in rotating the picture 3 degrees or so to level the grass field because the falls might start looking unnatural!

-- Carlos Co (co@che.udel.edu), July 19, 1998.


A great subject, but I find the composition too centered due to the position of the deer's eye just below the middle of the frame. It might have been better if you had taken a step or two to your left, and recomposed so the deer were further to the right (maybe with her hind leg beside the edge of the frame). Nevertheless it's a unique and appealing image.

-- Richard Shiell (rshiell@lightspeed.net), July 22, 1998.

This photo has a magnetic appeal.Keeps drawing me back.Deer always take their backyard for granted.The waterfall is where it should be doing what it should be doing.Maybe we get a little tipsy from the great height you have captured.

-- John Tait (jtait@northcom.net), December 06, 1998.

Brad -

Set your monitor to gray scale, no color, and you can see that the deer have near the same tonal value as the green trees and grass. This is handy if you are hiding from a colorblind predator but makes a photograph that has no contrast between the deer and the background. So they don't stand out as nicely as you would like. There is a color difference yes, but you need color and contrast.

Ben

-- Ben Lanterman (benl@anet-stl.com), December 06, 1998.


Brad - Very nicely done. I must admit I kept going back and forth to the image after each comments, it is that interesting. I would say from the flurry of comments evoked here that you made a particular intriguing image. The image definitely keeps your attention and interest, even if some do state "there is something wrong."

Personally, I love the composition... it's an excellent habitat shot and doesn't have that cliche Yosemite shot feel to it. If anything could be nitpicked, I would say a little more space to separate the deer.

A pretty nicely done handheld shot at that. At 100 ISO, I imagine your shutter speed was pretty low, and the image appears to be pretty sharp with a lot of DOF.

You should be proud to hang this one on your wall...

Mark

-- Mark (Grafphoto@aol.com), December 07, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ