|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 4, 2009 9:35:48 GMT
Some friends have been encouraging me to post my pictures of birds with some background and to make the bird more like life size. I am making a poll to find out if people like it this way or the over sized bird where you can see the bird with more details which I personally prefer. I will appreciate it very much if you would make use of the poll in your reply. Thank you for your participation and feel free to add your comment.
|
|
|
Post by ppaaoolloo on Oct 4, 2009 11:56:47 GMT
We're on the same boat ely. I try to get as close as possible to the point that I am too close to focus but others encourage me to not to go that extreme. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Eric Patdu on Oct 4, 2009 16:24:08 GMT
I also prefer the "giant" small birds as long as the shot is super sharp. I would even go for the portrait shot of bigger birds.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Matuod on Oct 4, 2009 17:41:07 GMT
For me, I try both. But I agree w/ Eric P. Sharp and crystal clear but not so huge capture(for posting) of small birds is fine. My toonie.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Alfaro on Oct 4, 2009 23:59:41 GMT
it could be both, it depends on the bird (how big or small). for small birds, i would prefer larger than life size to see the details.
|
|
|
Post by Edu Lorenzo Jr on Oct 5, 2009 0:16:46 GMT
I think my vote just took it right in the middle.
but on a personal note, and if I had the gear, I would not be able to resist posting larger than life photos of birds. It is such a delight watching them, and seeing details that the naked eye from a distance just can't see, is an addition to the experience.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Oct 5, 2009 1:27:22 GMT
for me it depends on the capture. If I am forced with a background that is boring, I'd rather highlight the bird, so in this case, it could be larger than life and this of course provided that the details are so vivid. If the background are as compelling, i'd love to present the background as well to give viewers a more dynamic, enriching experience.
As to which of the two I prefer? I think it is more like on the way I'd like to achieve a capture. Getting all too close isn't a priority for me. I'd always go for a better background to complement our subjects.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Regpala on Oct 5, 2009 2:20:26 GMT
*Edited*
For viewing whole birds with some environment as BG or FG, print or web, not greater than life size from the viewing distance. For reference and doco only, it can be larger than life.
For partial birds, artistic or not, freeform, it all depends on how you want to showcase it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 9:00:15 GMT
We're on the same boat ely. I try to get as close as possible to the point that I am too close to focus but others encourage me to not to go that extreme. ;-) I think that is what we are all trying to do, to get as close as possible outside the minimum focusing distance. Everyone knows the closer you are to the bird the better your picture will be. So get as close as you can but how do you post it with the background and the bird as close as to life size or just the bird to show the details. Please read what the others have to say as I find both school of thoughts very interesting. Thank you Paulo for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 9:03:42 GMT
I also prefer the "giant" small birds as long as the shot is super sharp. I would even go for the portrait shot of bigger birds. I agree with you. People have different opinions but I don't think anyone is wrong. I think its more of a personal choice. So do one or the other once in a while and see for yourself which one you or the others like more. Thank you Eric.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 9:06:21 GMT
For me, I try both. But I agree w/ Eric P. Sharp and crystal clear but not so huge capture(for posting) of small birds is fine. My toonie.[/quote Thank you Ed for your reply. I agree with you try both.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 9:13:09 GMT
it could be both, it depends on the bird (how big or small). for small birds, i would prefer larger than life size to see the details. Well said and done. Thank you for your reply Den. How many of us knows how a bird really looks like until we see a good photograph taken by the likes of Romy, Neon, Rey, William, Tina and realize how beautiful the birds are after seeing them close up. So its good to have both so we can appreciate the background, bokeh, and others aspects that can make us appreciate the picture better.
|
|
|
Post by alainpascua on Oct 5, 2009 13:51:12 GMT
If my capture of the bird is super sharp, I would go on presenting larger than life sizes or portraits to emphasize details.
If my capture of the bird, whether super sharp or not so, has a very good BG and position, I would go on presenting the environment to emphasize overall message over details.
In both cases, I could still show both to drive into two priorities: 1) details, colors, etc... but more on details... and 2) environment, position, poise, etc... composition and message factor.
Well, if you can do both, why not so everything is covered!
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 14:07:04 GMT
I think my vote just took it right in the middle. but on a personal note, and if I had the gear, I would not be able to resist posting larger than life photos of birds. It is such a delight watching them, and seeing details that the naked eye from a distance just can't see, is an addition to the experience. Thank you Edu for your reply. Seeing the bird so life like is really a delight which normally people don't see from a distance.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 14:16:10 GMT
for me it depends on the capture. If I am forced with a background that is boring, I'd rather highlight the bird, so in this case, it could be larger than life and this of course provided that the details are so vivid. If the background are as compelling, i'd love to present the background as well to give viewers a more dynamic, enriching experience. As to which of the two I prefer? I think it is more like on the way I'd like to achieve a capture. Getting all too close isn't a priority for me. I'd always go for a better background to complement our subjects. I am in agreement with what you say. The background is important. Even if it is not picturesque, if it can depict the natural enviroment than it would be nice to look at. However sometimes we don't have a choice of the background because its the bird that chooses where he wants to perch and when he wants to leave. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. As Neon would say shoot first and ask questions later.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 14:20:51 GMT
For viewing, prints or web, life size. For reference and doco only, it can be larger than life. Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion Teddy.
|
|
|
Post by Ely Teehankee on Oct 5, 2009 14:24:07 GMT
If my capture of the bird is super sharp, I would go on presenting larger than life sizes or portraits to emphasize details. If my capture of the bird, whether super sharp or not so, has a very good BG and position, I would go on presenting the environment to emphasize overall message over details. In both cases, I could still show both to drive into two priorities: 1) details, colors, etc... but more on details... and 2) environment, position, poise, etc... composition and message factor. Well, if you can do both, why not so everything is covered! Your reply is very much like Solomon. This is sharing in the true sense of the word, everybody gets to see what they are looking for. Thank you Alain for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Toto Gamboa on Oct 5, 2009 15:19:31 GMT
for me it depends on the capture. If I am forced with a background that is boring, I'd rather highlight the bird, so in this case, it could be larger than life and this of course provided that the details are so vivid. If the background are as compelling, i'd love to present the background as well to give viewers a more dynamic, enriching experience. As to which of the two I prefer? I think it is more like on the way I'd like to achieve a capture. Getting all too close isn't a priority for me. I'd always go for a better background to complement our subjects. I am in agreement with what you say. The background is important. Even if it is not picturesque, if it can depict the natural enviroment than it would be nice to look at. However sometimes we don't have a choice of the background because its the bird that chooses where he wants to perch and when he wants to leave. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. As Neon would say shoot first and ask questions later. There are I guess ways to get good background and composition. The Mastah is the testament to this. I dont think Mastah is always that lucky in every sortie he has been but everytime, when he publishes his works, we would always see both elements that we are wanting to achieve here (excellent details and background/composition). Is he that lucky everytime? I would tend to disagree. Perhaps he surveys the terrain first before doing his masterpieces so he can do whatever is necessary, use the right rig or place himself strategically and wait out for perfect moment. Or he is patient enough to resist the temptation of just shooting wantonly if the bird isn't in an ideal perch. I guess he also studies each bird's behaviour so he knows when they do pose for him and where. What I believe is that Mastah is observant, careful, deliberate, patient and decisive in getting all the shots he made regardless whether the birds give him the perfect moment or not. I guess the perfect moment can be anticipated when we have achieved the skills of the Mastah. I could be wrong though
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Regpala on Oct 5, 2009 19:43:55 GMT
For viewing, prints or web, life size. For reference and doco only, it can be larger than life. Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion Teddy. Edited my response for more accuracy of what I'm trying to say. It really boils down to personal taste and style. Otherwise, all our captures will look the similar. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Agerico M. De Villa on Oct 5, 2009 20:09:09 GMT
Here are the steps I would like to follow as much as possible. If the situation allows for a full-body capture of the bird with as many indicators of the bird species as possible, go for the full-body capture, and if the distance or the lens involved can only give you the birdscape version, go for it. However, as a second option, if the situation does not allow for a full-body capture because some twig, leaf, or some other obstruction is preventing a good full-body capture, go for the "bust" shot that is going to give as many details as possible. Both cases, keep an eye on the possibility of an artistic twist.
|
|