Shooting From the Hip, As It Were

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

It's been suggested that I'm over-thinking and over-analyzing when I shoot. That may be why I'm feeling stale and that my creativity has deserted me. Yesterday I shot "from the hip," intentionally not thinking it to death. Granted, I did try to keep composition in mind, but I can't claim an "arc of intent" other than that.

This first image could be sharper and the exposure could be better (but I'm unsure how I would correct the exposure). Details: ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/800. What do you think?

Rachel Ann Foster: Bird

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

I am also still test

ing my judgment when it comes to my own work. Which is better (compositionally, interest-wise)? The first shot or this one?

ISO 200, 1/600, f/6.3

Rachel Ann Foster: Bird 2

Nigel Allan · Nov 22, 2009

I think they are great Rachel and yes we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much and just relax and shoot what we see. There are many factors which can contribute to a great shot IMHO from composition to exposure to timing...and these show timing brilliantly

I personally prefer the first shot because I find it more interesting.

Mike Shimwell · Nov 22, 2009

Rachel

The first shot is much more interesting. A really good picture in my view.

Mike

Asher Kelman · Nov 22, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
I am also still test

ing my judgment when it comes to my own work. Which is better (compositionally, interest-wise)? The first shot or this one?

ISO 200, 1/600, f/6.3

Rachel Ann Foster: Bird 2

Rachel Foster" Bird 2 Cropped & sharpened a tad

Hi Rachel,

I like the first picture much more and I'll comment on that separately. I just wanted to see where one might go with this. The issue is, it appears that the water and sky hold little interest. There's no compelling pattern, no interesting light on the water, not a sailboat going by and the sky is non specific.

Had the bird been taken with a 600 mm lens, you'd have filled the entire frame with detail. Maybe, right now you could give the bird a shot at 100% and see what that would perform for us in a tighter crop. It may just come alive or be ordinary. We'd need to see the feather detail.

Here, I just tried to add drama of an impending flight away, perhaps. I do think it moves the image up a notch in working for me at least, but it's not there yet.

Asher

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

Yes, that's a noticeable improvement.

Regarding CS4: I'm finding the shadows/highlights tool extremely helpful lately.

Thank you, Nigel and Mike. I'm not sure I should say as yet which I prefer.

Asher Kelman · Nov 22, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
It's been suggested that I'm over-thinking and over-analyzing when I shoot. That may be why I'm feeling stale and that my creativity has deserted me. Yesterday I shot "from the hip," intentionally not thinking it to death. Granted, I did try to keep composition in mind, but I can't claim an "arc of intent" other than that.

This first image could be sharper and the exposure could be better (but I'm unsure how I would correct the exposure). Details: ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/800. What do you think?

Rachel Ann Foster: Bird

but Rachel,

This is unique and worth saving! For sure you didn't just snap the shutter once, at least I'd hope not. Here's another example of where coverage of adjacent areas is worthwhile. surely you have a sequence of pictures might be all re-examined. I'd love to see if there's more to the right of this array of timber being worn and torn apart by the ravages of the waves, wind and time.

The bird gives this one bit of vibrant present time life to this sense of time wearing away at what we do.

Asher

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

Ah, Asher, shooting birds is like eating Lay's potato chips:* You can't click the shutter just once! I'll look more carefully after dinner!

*Note for members outside the US: Refers to a popular advertising slogan years back. (From Wiki, 'Lays introduced its best-known slogan "betcha you can't eat just one." Sales of the chips became international, with marketing assisted by a number of celebrity endorsers.')

John Angulat · Nov 22, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
It's been suggested that I'm over-thinking and over-analyzing when I shoot. That may be why I'm feeling stale and that my creativity has deserted me.

Hi Rachel,
I've always admired your work, consistency and perseverence. These images attest to your talents, even while generated in self-stated sense of "staleness".
I, too can relate to that sense of staleness and loss of creativity.
What seemed to help me was a forcing of myself to shoot in surroundings I wasn't normally used to.
If one normally is comfortable with landscapes, spend a day on the street shooting urban images. Or, make a night of it and shoot only after dark.
I found that it forced me to get my brain re-engaged, as the "norm" was no longer normal.
Just my thoughts,

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

John, that's good advice, and sort of why I shoot so many landscapes. Landscapes are my weakest area without question. I seem to do best with still life and portraits. So, I figure if I attack my weakest area, what I learn will carry over to stronger areas. The reason I started shooting birds in flight was to force myself to learn how to use the camera better.

"I've always admired your work, consistency and perseverence. These images attest to your talents, even while generated in self-stated sense of "staleness". I, too can relate to that sense of staleness and loss of creativity."

John, I'm not sure how to phrase it, but this leaves me feeling very humbled. You're very kind. I don't quite know what else to say except thank you for the kind words.

Rachel Foster · Nov 22, 2009

Rachel Ann Foster: Bird 2 Again

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

..................

Not that it matters but i like the second picture better and i liked it un-cropped (no offense Asher)...........

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

Thanks, Erik. I preferred the second one also. I think it's because of the relatively greater crispness.

Asher, as you can see, the other shots of this particular spot were uninspired. Here are two.

John Angulat · Nov 23, 2009

I agree!
LOL!...although I can hear Asher saying "Open it up! Give it space!"

Rachel - be strong, stand your ground!

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

John, Asher has despaired many times at my stubbornness! LOL!

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

.....................

Rachel....I like the second and liked it un-cropped because in it you can see the sun hitting the side of the post, this gives it kind of character and a sense of direction...I also liked the notch in the post again giving it some character...This may not make any sense to anyone other then me but i'm okay with that....I very much like the un-cropped version.

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

Thank you, Erik. That's actually very helpful.

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

..................

Hey the 2 new ones above there...The second one has lil bumps in the water far off...Heres my rule for editing okay...If it cant be easily and quickly identified its a distraction and should be removed...Because what will happen is people will look at those trying to figure out what that is in the distance...Know what i mean, then they are distracted from the over all image...I'd clone those out BUT thats is just my preferance....If they can clearly be seen in a full size image leave then.But its when the viewer stops like i did and is looking at them thinking whats that...Then it should go.....

My images especially the model ones are very clean and tight i eliminate all distractions or things i see as a distraction....So when you look at a image to edit it think okay what possibly distracts here....

I'm probably out of line to be giving you advice given my limited shooting exp. compared to Asher,Bart and the boys but there ya go....

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

Thanks, Erik, but those are unedited. I consider them full-blown rejects. They're only posted because Asher was curious what lay to the right of the frame. They definitely are not edit-worthy.

Asher Kelman · Nov 23, 2009

ErikJonas said:
Hey the 2 new ones above there...The second one has lil bumps in the water far off...Heres my rule for editing okay...If it cant be easily and quickly identified its a distraction and should be removed...Because what will happen is people will look at those trying to figure out what that is in the distance...Know what i mean, then they are distracted from the over all image...I'd clone those out BUT thats is just my preferance....If they can clearly be seen in a full size image leave then.But its when the viewer stops like i did and is looking at them thinking whats that...Then it should go.....

Those lil' bumps are in reality the reflections of trees. Removing them would kill the water! Nanana! No!

ErikJonas said:
My images especially the model ones are very clean and tight i eliminate all distractions or things i see as a distraction

Appropriate for your model pictures that are

meant

to be clean looking. Not here!The inherent disorder is part of the natural description of things. now the thing to do is to point in a pleasing direction and from a vantage point where one does not see telegraph poles one hates. Reflections in water, however, are needed!

Asher

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

.................

Asher your not seeing what i am seeing...This page the second of the 2 images just out from the trees lil half circle blotchy type things...Thats not a reflection of anything it looks almost like rocks or something...Still a distraction whatever it is....

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

I've posted a small set of the Lake Michigan photos here. I'm somewhat liking this one.

Rachel Ann Foster: Gatekeepers

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

................

Spec in the upper left corner????.... Really like the image though....Did you go for a swim? Did you look at it lightened up a bit?

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

That's pretty much the way it came out of the camera. I'm intrigued by the dark, brooding quality of it. The speck is a bird, by the way.

Swim? I'm guessing you've not spent much time in Michigan in November!

Asher Kelman · Nov 23, 2009

ErikJonas said:
Asher your not seeing what i am seeing...This page the second of the 2 images just out from the trees lil half circle blotchy type things...Thats not a reflection of anything it looks almost like rocks or something...Still a distraction whatever it is....

Yes, you are quite right. I'd remove that!

Rachel Foster · Nov 23, 2009

Those images are not worth the effort, to be honest.

ErikJonas · Nov 23, 2009

...............

Wait was that Asher agreeing with me?....

Swim yes...Come on wheres your youth,your sense of adventure.....Wooo Hooooo *Splash*

Shooting From the Hip, As It Were

New member

New member

Member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

pro member

New member

New member

Banned

New member

pro member

New member

Banned

New member

Banned

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Banned

New member

Banned

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

Banned