Okay, finally one of my pictures I actually like. But the foreground doesn't sit great with me. So the question is, what could be done for a better foreground, or would no foreground at all be better?

This was with with a Canon Elan IIe, Quantaray 70-300mm f4-5.6 at 300mm, and a circular polarizer.

Any feed back is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-

Adam

-- Adam Harrison (eros@ncd.com), August 11, 1998

Answers

A longer (and better) lens, better light and less of the distracting fuzzy stuff at the bottom and left would improve it. The center "hot spot" (light fall off at the edges) doesn't help either. Sorry to say, but as it stands, it's not really a "keeper" in my book.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), August 11, 1998.

I would say that you have included just enough of the foreground to be unrecognizable, and therefore distracting.

You could include more foreground so that it's interesting to the viewer, but then the bird would of course be too small. Therefore I would agree you should skip the foreground and zoom in on the bird.

-- Matt Swope (vswope@voyager.net), August 11, 1998.

This is certainly a good idea for a photograph, the overall effect is to my eye, "oriental". For me that's good, it means a well thought out graphic composition with interesting light and a detatched sense of beauty. Keep up this kind of work and up-grade your lenses and you'll do very well. As a general rule I suggest that you spend you photo dollars on lenses, camera geegaws don't make images like this, but it does take excellent lenses to do them justice.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), August 12, 1998.

I don't find the stuff in the foreground distracting. It belongs to the picture - you see this stuff when walking along a water. The picture does express a mood. I think it's good. And I agree that you deserve better glass.

-- Jana Mullerova (jam@terma.com), August 12, 1998.

Are you using a tripod? I would think this lens stopped down should provide better performance, but at 300mm with a polarizer you will be need a long enough exposure to require a tripod.
In terms of composition, however, I don't think its too bad. To my eye the problem resides entirely in the foreground stuff that is included in the frame. It seems like this is very close to being a beautiful abstract graphic image. The key ingredients to an abstract image, however, is simplicity and balancing the elements in side the frame. The reeds in the foreground really confuse things and throw the whole picture off. A response above suggested that the foreground elements "belong there." I would agree if this were trying to be an enviromental portrait of the bird. If that is your goal then the bird really needs more detail, more "accurate" exposure, and would demand to occupy more space in the frame. As it stand the foreground simply makes me uncertain of how I should interpret the image. If you have a graphics program try cloning out the reeds and re-crop to place the bird in the lower left of the frame and see i

-- Mark Meyer (mameyer@xsite.net), August 12, 1998.

Frank K. hit the nail on the head with some great insight. Adam is certainly talented in the realm of subject and framing. Is there more detail in the bird on the print? ESP

-- Eric Peltier (espelt@winternet.com), August 12, 1998.

The overall arrangement of image elements is nice, but that's all that can be said for this image. The out of focus forground elements are very distracting. Perhaps a tripod and a smaller aperture could have brought them into focus, in which case they would add to the image. You do need them, cause otherwise the image would be far too empty. I also don't like the green murky color.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), August 12, 1998.

Hi Adam. I like your picture. And I like the foreground. No, I love the foreground. And I think that image well conceived. If I were in your exact positon with your equipment, I would first have raised the position of my camera slightly. This would have given some separation between the bird and the foreground (by placing the bird higher in the frame). Also, I would have (again, by shifting my position) moved the bird to the upper left or the upper right rule of thirds position. Moving the bird to the upper left thirds position would have been quicker and easier, but moving it to the upper right thirds position (by raising your camera and moving to your right) would have produced a more balanced composition. Keep on shooting and keep on thinking and asking.

-- ARTHUR MORRIS (BIRDSASART@WORLDNET.ATT.NET), August 13, 1998.