http://ohm.phys.ualberta.ca/photo/tmp/deerpond.jpg

-- John P. Kelly (medicman@flash.net), February 22, 1999

Answers

Quick reminder for posters: URL is case-sensitive, and should be inside IMG tag. Read forum rules for more info.

-- Andrei Frolov (andrei@phys.ualberta.ca), February 23, 1999.

Sorry about that. It's my first time submitting. I'm just starting out in Nature photography and appreciate any critique on this one (good or bad).

-- John Kelly (medicman@flash.net), February 23, 1999.

Be careful of your background. The highlights in the background take all attention away from your subject. The lack of sharp detail in the image could be either a poor scan or vibration while shooting the photograph. Judging from the B&W image, I'd guess you're trying to scan a print on a 300-dpi flatbed. People will always criticize, or throw away without comment, fuzzy images. If you were using a tripod, you need to work on your technique some more to reduce vibrations. If you weren't using a tripod, don't take another photograph until you get one. You're wasting film without one. Work on getting closer to your subject. The best way to do this is to let your subject come to you, rather than chasing them through the forest. Aside from the tripod, worry about technique before equipment.

Good Luck.

-- Joe Boyd (boydjw@traveller.com), February 23, 1999.

The location looks like some swamps I know in Connecticut!

I know large animals make exciting subjects and it is hard to pass one by, but, as you do and learn more photography, this image will soon be surpassed and you can relegate to the "record shot" file or lower. Primarily, it is too busy - all those different trees and parts of them in that extreme range of lighting are overpowering. The deer seems to stand out only as an absence of tree clutter on its flank. The dark trunk ans samller branches on the very left are a major distraction, cropping them out and the trees to the right of the deer start to make the image of the deer itself visually more important. I viewed this as a 35mm vertical with the above cropping suggestions and the picture lokks a lot better, even with the over- bright background.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), February 26, 1999.

Low contrast, overexposed, too much background clutter, too much foreground clutter (unsharp branches from tree), subject of interest too small, subject of interest not posed nicely... I don't want to sound to negative, but I don't see anything I like here...

-- Andreas Carl (andreas@physio.unr.edu), February 27, 1999.

This is better than any deer picture I have, but the subject has been done so well before, that your image just doesn't compare. This is true to some degree for most of the images done by us amateurs in this forum. For me, most of the fun is exploring nature with my camera. But I also enjoy the challenge of trying to improve. There are some good suggestions above, have fun trying again!

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), March 01, 1999.