One Legged Gull

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

Were it not for my girlfriend pointing out this one-legged bird, I wouldn't have snapped the photo, which turned out to be the best that day. Shot with a Pentax ZX-10, Promaster 70-300 on Fuji 800. Exposure was probably about 1/250 @ f5.6.

Please ignore the specks to the left of his beak. They were introduced during scanni

-- Mike Johnston (mikej165@earthlink.net), December 23, 1998

Answers

Mike, this poor bird had just one leg and you've cut that one off too.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), December 23, 1998.

I agree about chopping off part of the foot, but it isn't my fault, honest! The negative clearly shows the ENTIRE foot. I've had the lab redo the print twice and they still keep chopping it off. Sigh

-- Mike Johnston (mikej165@earthlink.net), December 23, 1998.

I think this scan probably isn't the greatest. The photo seems to be focused well, the eye looks pretty sharp, but it still seems flat, and there's a weird greyish/purple tint when I view it.

The breast looks a little burnt out, and the table slats might be considered hand-of-man.

The composition looks a little off too. I think I would have gone ahead and centered him. He's not far enough over to the side to make it interesting, he just looks off-center. I don't think the rule of thirds would have worked here unless you zoomed back a bit. But that would make his leg smaller, kind of the point of this pic.

Still, I think you did well to get a sharp pic with his head in profile.

Thanks, and good luck!

-- Tom Van Veen (tvanveen@accmail.umd.edu), December 23, 1998.


Mike, by scanning a print you loose a lot of information. Scan the slide or nagative instead !

In case you haven't read it yet, there is an excellent article about this on photo.net.

With regards to the photo, my only complaint is the table.

Regards, Jan.

-- Jan van Bodegraven (janvnbdg@mandic.com.br), December 23, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ