Pelicans

[davidc]

I have a number of different versions of this same image I want to test out before "settling" on the final one. I think I've looked at it too much to be objective now

Anyway, here is version 1 -

Pelicans by David, on Flickr

What I'd love is to get your thoughts on this before I show version 2, then will work on a "final" version based on feedback.

[Mike Farley]

I have been looking at this for a day or so wondering what to think of it to make sure that I was not missing something. It is an unusual shot and in some ways I like the idea but I find it difficult to comprehend what is going on. The pelicans appear to be intertwined, although it could simply be one is standing in front of the other. The heads overlap slightly, which is unfortunate, as is the diagonal wing which appears awkwardly placed; I find it obtrusive and distracting. The heads are sharp, but not the bodies appear to have subject movement for no apparent reason in what is otherwise a static subject. Neither do I understand the dark background and the way the the lower halves of the birds disappear into the gloom. I am sorry, I would like it to be otherwise but it just is not doing anything for me as presented.

What were you trying to convey with this shot? If you can answer that, maybe it will help you with the follow up.

[davidc]

It's interesting you ask what the motivation behind the shot was as this version is different to how I originally imagined it!

What caught my eye was the symmetry of the way the birds are perched and the soft light from above. On the day, it was also tipping down with rain and version 2 is one of the shots with lots of rain, splashes off the beak etc. but after trying different processing options I went for this. One of the reasons is that "legit" rain in photos can often look like photoshopped rain.

After making the decision to do away with the rain I was left with the blurred background and the birds - plus some tidying up tweaks. It was trial and error that led to this result, with just the light and the birds. The background as you'll see later was "generic tree bokeh". I like Scott Kelby's advice that anything not adding to the scene is taking away and in this case the rain + background wasn't adding any context and took away from the simplicity.

One of the reasons for this kind of look and feel is that it contrasts to this -


Purple Bird by David, on Flickr

This is a clean, sharp & minimally processed bird. No distractions. But it's basically a record shot, it only is slightly different because of the vivid colours of the bird.

I could have taken a record shot that had a perfectly normalised histogram, pushed the shadows at the bottom and showed you everything you wanted to see about the pelicans... but then it would be just a technically competent image of some pelicans. Here, I wanted to show an image of two pelicans huddled together against the driving rain (in a fortuitous symmetrical position) but when the rain didn't "work" I focused instead on how the soft light made the birds look.

Once I get home I'll share the original image and a WIP on my "how to make real rain not look like fake rain" version

On the techie side, there's no subject movement at all, which part(s) of the body look motion blurred?

[Mike Farley]

Thanks for the explanation, although I am afraid it does not change my opinion. The birds look awkwardly posed and with that large dark area on the left underneath them they appear to be sharing one leg between them. The unlit part does not add atmosphere or mystery for me, just frustration that I cannot see what is happening.

On the techie side, there's no subject movement at all, which part(s) of the body look motion blurred?

Maybe it's an effect caused by the rain, possibly in combination with a low resolution image, but a lot of the feathers down the right hand side especially look blurred.

[davidc]

Thanks for the explanation, although I am afraid it does not change my opinion. The birds look awkwardly posed and with that large dark area on the left underneath them they appear to be sharing one leg between them. The unlit part does not add atmosphere or mystery for me, just frustration that I cannot see what is happening.

I would never have guessed pelican legs were such a big thing for you

Truth be told I don't see what having very visible pelican legs would add, but the point is noted The blurring I don't see at all, even on low res. I was ready to defend the apparent clipping of highlights (they're not), so motion blur was a bit out of left field for me

I'll try and get the source image online soon.

[Mike Farley]

I would never have guessed pelican legs were such a big thing for you

Blast, I have inadvertently let the secret out.

I am not unsympathetic to what you are trying to do and produced something similar myself a few years ago with a shot of some seagulls. Like you, I darkened the background to concentrate on the birds and give the effect of confusion as they flew around in a flock. I was not at the competition so am not aware of his comments, but as I recall it scored 8 so the judge must have been spectacularly unimpressed. It would have helped if I had got a bit more separation and had sorted out the dark area at top left where there is nothing to be seen. Judges tend not to like voids.

Seagulls

Seagulls.jpg (128.84 KiB) Viewed 10070 times

[Paul Heester]

Isolating the Pelicans gives the viewer a chance to explore their textures and form. And for this reason it has alot of appeal. At the same time we are effectively examining them in more detail than normal and so there a few points that I can see. Firstly, I take Mike's view that having one set of legs looks odd, although I can understand the further Pelican's legs are probably in shadow. Secondly, would suggest the right-hand bird's breast is toned down as our eyes will naturally be drawn to the lightest part. And thirdly, when I viewed this at home it was in a dimly lit room and I could spot some background shapes in the darkness, would suggest its all brought down to total blackness.

On a separate note I read your review of the 80D on PetaPixel without realising it was you. However, when I got to images of the bright birds and a mention of Singapore I suddenly realised it was the famous DC