Bring it on!

[acherontia]

Just to show I can take it as well as dish it out - which of these do you prefer, if at all and why? A test in 'constructive' criticism. Don't hold back as long as it's 'constructive'.

If it's a matter of 'taste' say so and explain why it doesn't appeal. If it's a matter of 'fact' explain what it is that you don't like and why.

I know which one I prefer and I know why.


Elephant Hawk Moth



Dung Fly



Acher

[squishy]

Since you asked for constructive criticism: The yellow dung fly could use some noise reduction in the background.

[Jim Ford]

The images are really a bit small to offer any technical criticism, e.g. sharpness.

I'm not sure I'd agree with 'squishy' - I can't see any significant noise and wouldn't expect much at ISO 400 anyway.

I guess the space to the left of the dung fly is for 'artistic' composition, but I'm of the opinion that images such as this are 'technical' images, to show the features of the subject and should be cropped fairly tightly and centred. Others may no agree!

Jim

[Jonners]

For me, the Dung Fly is a far more interesting shot. And that's not due to the subject... I would much rather happen across an Elephant Hawk Moth any day. The moth shot doesn't show the moth's most charactestic features, namely its wings (IMHO). The fly, on the other hand, shows interesting close up features on its legs and body that catch the eye. So for me, the fly is a much more appealing shot. For the moth to have won me over, I think you would have had to concentrated on it to a similar degree, i.e. either close up on say the head, or show the wings, where the striking colours and markings are.

[squishy]

I suppose noise reduction depends on what you intend for the image. If you want a technical image to show features, there's no problem with a bit of speckling in the background.

But if it's for artistic purposes, surely there's no reason not to apply noise reduction to the background to get it as silky smooth a possible?

[Durrell]

I like the dung fly photo, for me it's a really good composition. I take a different opinion to Jim and see this more of an action shot with it rubbing it's front legs together and i think the space adds to the photo.

With the moth i find the shadow from the antennae a bit distracting and would prefer both wing tips to be in focus.

[acherontia]

No one spotted what's technically wrong with the moth yet???

The noise on the dung fly was reduced in CS4 bridge - it appears more noisy at 72 resolution - as said before it's not ideal to view images at web quality. It was a little noisy but I thought I'd cured it Oh for some sun - but not too bright or direct It was a dark little corner where he patiently sat for the portrait and I needed the tripod for this one.
Neither image was taken using flash.

I have images of the EHM for more informational problems but, again, it's not an ideal shot. As per any portrait the eyes/head should be the focal point but this was at the expense of the wings being in focus in the first image as it wasn't possible to set up the tripod on this shot and the aperture couldn't be feasibly reduced any more because of the effect on shutter speed.
The second image was just fun - it decided to sit on my finger! A 'one handed hand held shot The advantage of Sony is the AS is in the camera so it's there for Macro lenses
Neither is good as far as I'm concerned for the same reasons as the original EHM!





It's often seen as desirable, especially on a wildlife forums, to zoom in and crop very closely. IMHO this is often at the expense of any artistic effect. Sometimes it's nice to see where the subject sits in the world and perhaps appreciate their smallness - whilst still aiming for sharp focus on the eye area of course.
It seems that the closer it is the more it is admired by some - I can understand this and I could have cropped closer but I didn't want to in this case. Durrell is bang on when he guesses my reasons for leaving space - it draws more attention to the front action - at least that's what I was trying for.

I'm really glad there's a discussion going on and no-one has just said "they're c..p!"

Now what's wrong with those Hawk moths?

Acher

[Geoff F]

Well if we are being brutally honest here, I agree with both Jim and Durrell.

The Hawkmoth legs and antennae are slightly on the over exposed side and I find the antennae shadow distracting. The background 'spots' are also a bit on the harsh side.

There is a bit of background noise in the Dung Fly photo but not excessive and a little bit more noise reduction would make a lot of difference; particularly if it was adjusted during a conversion from RAW to Tiff.

As a purely personal opinion; I do not like applying the rule of thirds to unsuitable scenes. This results in what I term 'forced thirds' which never works for me. If there was something else of interest in the blank area it would become 'balanced thirds' which would work a lot better.

For me it is a 'guide of thirds' not a rule. But this is purely a matter of personal choice and some people prefer to stick slavishly to the 'rule'.

And cropping tighter would remove a lot of that noisy background. It doesn't have to be excessively cropped though.

So, just my thoughts, both images are fine for identification but the angles and short depth of field mean that neither of them are 'prizewinners'. However, that term only really applies to a very small number of exceptional and usually either lucky shot photos or very carefully controlled studio photography of dead specimens.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Well if we are being brutally honest here, I agree with both Jim and Durrell.

The Hawkmoth legs and antennae are slightly on the over exposed side and I find the antennae shadow distracting. The background 'spots' are also a bit on the harsh side.

There is a bit of background noise in the Dung Fly photo but not excessive and a little bit more noise reduction would make a lot of difference; particularly if it was adjusted during a conversion from RAW to Tiff.

As a purely personal opinion; I do not like applying the rule of thirds to unsuitable scenes. This results in what I term 'forced thirds' which never works for me. If there was something else of interest in the blank area it would become 'balanced thirds' which would work a lot better.

For me it is a 'guide of thirds' not a rule. But this is purely a matter of personal choice and some people prefer to stick slavishly to the 'rule'.

And cropping tighter would remove a lot of that noisy background. It doesn't have to be excessively cropped though.

So, just my thoughts, both images are fine for identification but the angles and short depth of field mean that neither of them are 'prizewinners'. However, that term only really applies to a very small number of exceptional and usually either lucky shot photos or very carefully controlled studio photography of dead specimens.

Excellent reply! Those legs and antennae are most certainly overexposed - completely blown and devoid of pixels in some areas - totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. You were being excessively kind when you said 'Slightly on the over exposed side'
It was direct sun and I over hurried the shots - better none than bad ones! OK for info , I suppose.
I tend to prize technical proficiency and artistic flair over accurate scientific detail - I leave that one for my OH , whose stacked shots are quite phenomenal. I put a couple on a while back. Horses for courses - he's had a head start and is now specialising whilst I'm still trying out different disciplines - including non-wildelife ones.

I've never personally used 'Rule of Thirds' - I always go on the look and my artistic/ design experience helps in this. However - it's a good starting point for those not used to cropping and framing well. OH never fails to ask me about the cropping and framing and as he's the one with 2 degrees in Fine Art/Wildlife Photography I'm always happy to be asked! Vice versa - I often ask his advice. Two heads are better than one!

Now I'll put those hawk moths in the 'not very good at all' section of my computer!!

Cheers!

Acher

[Jim Ford]

My main problem with the dung fly image is that:

Is it an image of a blade of grass with a dung fly on it, or is it a picture of a dung fly on a blade of grass?

I guess the comments about noise have been made referring to the dung fly image. From what I can see, the noise is luminance noise, not chroma. I don't find it a problem in the least and would rather have the noise than lose any detail. I'm viewing the image on calibrated 23 inch CRT monitor. Possibly those that are seeing 'lots' of noise are using an LCD monitor with the usual far too high default contrast setting.

Jim