Calling all kinds of artists (but mainly photographers)!

[drakir_nosslin]

So, I've decided that I want to start with photography and while I'm looking around for a good camera (I've decided on a Canon eos 5D, I just need to find one cheap enough) I've borrowed a crappy one from a friend and started taking pictures.

The thing is that I'm not really good at it, and I have no idea on how to improve. Reading guides on the internet can only get you so far, so I thought that some (constructive) criticism would do me good.

So, here's what I thought where the 'best' ones from my first attempt at catching things on digital film, comments, thoughts and cries of "this sucks!" are all equally welcome :smallbiggrin:.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0118.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0124.jpg
These two are pretty standard, I was just trying to get some really 'autmny' pictures.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0127.jpg
I didn't get the focus right on this one, but I feel that it has some potential anyway.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0146.jpg
I like reflective water, which you'll see a lot more of below.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0144.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0142.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0141.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0138.jpg

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/291/6/5/swan_lake_by_drakirnosslin-d4d74xl.jpg
And this one is the one that I like the most.

So that's it, what do you think?

I'm also looking to get into photoshop, so tips on how to improve these pictures or just general hints or links to good tutorials are much appreciated.

[Dispozition]

I'll state one thing straight out of the blocks...The camera a good photographer does not make.

Starting your foray into photography with a 5d? That's insanity. That's quite literally a professional camera. Not even semi-pro, or enthusiast, but actually professional. And why you would want to spend $4000 on a camera straight off I have no clue. If you're dead set on getting a DSLR, I'd look at the far cheaper ones since they yield quite similar results in most things, just with slightly less precision, and are worse for large size prints. I would also consider looking at the nikon range more closely unless you'll be using the video function quite regularly as nikon have a stronger photographic function to their cameras.

As for the photos...Since I'm far more partial to landscapes than anything else, I may be a bit biased. Your first photo is the only one I particularly like, but the framing on the left side should have really left out the bush. It distracts from the scene and is quite ugly.
In fact, in most of you shots, your framing is distracting. As a general rule, don't just have an object blocking a portion of the edge of the shot. If it's 'symbolic' then you want it fully in the frame, and if it's not you don't want it there at all.

Avoid taking photos of the sun directly as they never meter well unless you have filters or you're playing silly buggars with film.

The location your at doesn't sit too well for general landscape framing either. You generally want the horizon line on a third portion of the frame rather than centered (go look at work by Ansel Adams to see what I mean). Unfortunately where you are doesn't afford a good view if you drop or lift the line. I'd say try and find some slightly broken views of the lake with trees and whatnot in front and see what you can do.

As for getting better at photography in general...Find photographers you like and examine their styles, themes, and general photography. Go to some local galleries or just browse stuff online. Look at magazines and whatnot. There's a lot of sources out there for finding photos you like, and by extension, what you like doing in photography.

For Photoshop, it's a bit of a trial by error experience IMO. If you get a DSLR, make sure to always shoot in RAW format since it affords a far larger amount of versatility in editing.

Oh, and with your third photo, you focused it fine, and it would have been a nice shot if the subject was at all interesting :)

[drakir_nosslin]

I'll state one thing straight out of the blocks...The camera a good photographer does not make.

Starting your foray into photography with a 5d? That's insanity. That's quite literally a professional camera. Not even semi-pro, or enthusiast, but actually professional. And why you would want to spend $4000 on a camera straight off I have no clue. If you're dead set on getting a DSLR, I'd look at the far cheaper ones since they yield quite similar results in most things, just with slightly less precision, and are worse for large size prints. I would also consider looking at the nikon range more closely unless you'll be using the video function quite regularly as nikon have a stronger photographic function to their cameras.

Heh, yea I know that I might be starting out tough, but I've found several used ones in good shape for around 750 USD, which isn't too bad, and I'd rather have a good camera than a decent one... *shrugs* that's the way I am, I guess, I tend to buy the high-end stuff no matter what I'm doing.




As for the photos...Since I'm far more partial to landscapes than anything else, I may be a bit biased. Your first photo is the only one I particularly like, but the framing on the left side should have really left out the bush. It distracts from the scene and is quite ugly.
In fact, in most of you shots, your framing is distracting. As a general rule, don't just have an object blocking a portion of the edge of the shot. If it's 'symbolic' then you want it fully in the frame, and if it's not you don't want it there at all.

Yea, everyone except one who I've shown that picture agrees with that. I'll see if I can make a decent crop and repost it, I'm working with photoshop right now, messing a bit with the hues and trying to get more warmth in it.



Avoid taking photos of the sun directly as they never meter well unless you have filters or you're playing silly buggars with film.
Thanks, I'll try to remember that :smallsmile:



The location your at doesn't sit too well for general landscape framing either. You generally want the horizon line on a third portion of the frame rather than centered (go look at work by Ansel Adams to see what I mean). Unfortunately where you are doesn't afford a good view if you drop or lift the line. I'd say try and find some slightly broken views of the lake with trees and whatnot in front and see what you can do.
I'm not sure that I understand this part, is the horizon line supposed to be in the top 3rd or the bottom 3rd? I'm looking at some of Ansel Adams' work right now, those are some stunning pictures...



As for getting better at photography in general...Find photographers you like and examine their styles, themes, and general photography. Go to some local galleries or just browse stuff online. Look at magazines and whatnot. There's a lot of sources out there for finding photos you like, and by extension, what you like doing in photography.

For Photoshop, it's a bit of a trial by error experience IMO. If you get a DSLR, make sure to always shoot in RAW format since it affords a far larger amount of versatility in editing.

Oh, and with your third photo, you focused it fine, and it would have been a nice shot if the subject was at all interesting :)

I'm not too interested in shooting portraits and such things, I like nature/animal pics more, and close up macro shots. I guess deviantart might have a lot to look at... The camera I have right now doesn't shoot in RAW, so for now jpg will have to do.

3rd photo: I was actually hoping to get those swans flying, but there were so many branches in the way you can't really see them now :smalltongue:

Thanks for sharing! It actually helps a lot, and it makes me look on the pics very different from before. :smallbiggrin:

[flumphy]

I'm not sure that I understand this part, is the horizon line supposed to be in the top 3rd or the bottom 3rd? I'm looking at some of Ansel Adams' work right now, those are some stunning pictures...


I'm no photographer, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) applies pretty much universally.

[leakingpen]

First things first. Change the camera to b and w and start shooting b and w. or at least, convert everything you shoot to black and white and see how it looks. If you have a LOT of gray, you have a problem. You want contrast.

On the first shot, yeah, the bush is worthless. I like the stump though. A better shot would have been to get down on your knees or your butt, and have just the stump sticking up into the picture.


Which brings me to the one thing that always gets me awesome shots. Change your elevation. Crouch. lay down. Crawl. Find something high, and get up on it, not to shoot DOWN, but across, as if that were your eye level and you were shooting at eye level. If you ever find yourself pointing the camera down, GET down, and point the camera straight ahead.


Bad focus is your enemy. a lot of those shots, the hill and trees across the lake are fuzzy. a little from the mist, a little from the distance, but a lot from focusing too heavily on focusing the foreground.


for composition, the rule of thirds is a big one. ie, chop the photo into thirds both dirrections. things that are important in the photo should appear on those lines and intersections. (its just more naturally pleasing to the eye. )

[Zjoot]

Well, I'd be far better off receiving advice than giving it ( in fact, with your permission, could I post some of my own shots on here some time? I'd love the opportunity to get constructive criticism), and, I'm probably not the best to critique your shots, but to me they seem a bit...plain. They have a certain charm though, and I actually sort of like the symmetry created by centering the horizon line ( but then again I'm no artist)

If you want a good source check out National Geographic. They're pretty much the best when it comes to photography, and they have a great set of galleries on their site, as well as a myriad of photos submitted by readers. In fact, I think their photography contest is still in progress. It might be worth checking out the entries.

And if you're looking for macro, one of my personal favorites is undergroundbastard on Flickr. He's got a really good eye for texture.

Hope I've been at least a little constructive here. :smallwink:

[Dispozition]

I'm no photographer, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) applies pretty much universally.

More commonly known as the rule of thirds amongst photographers, yeah. That rule is generally your friend, but don't live by it. If you honestly think it looks better without the rule, don't use it.

I disagree with leakingpen about black and white. While it can be a useful tool to find out how your shots are going with contrast, unless you're looking to actually shoot black and white then don't set your camera to it. The only place where you want your shot to be black and white is either in your film, or in photoshop.

If the 5Ds your looking at are body only, that means they're the old ones. Don't get one, just get one of the newer enthusiast level cameras. Also the body is less important than the lenses. If you have to spend lots of money, spend it on lenses.

And even if you're not interested by a style of photography, still have a look at it, you may find elements you like. I hate shooting portraits, but I love looking at them since they always have wonderful lighting and composition. Just because you don't want to shoot something, doesn't mean you shouldn't take tips from it :P
Also I wouldn't go to DA first, you want professional photographers to follow, rather than amateur or semi-pro. Head down to the library, find the photography section (iirc it's around 770) and have a look at the books.

[drakir_nosslin]

I'm no photographer, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio) applies pretty much universally.

Aha! Thanks :smallbiggrin:
I realize now that I've heard about it before, but there's a lot of things that I've heard about that I don't remember...


First things first. Change the camera to b and w and start shooting b and w. or at least, convert everything you shoot to black and white and see how it looks. If you have a LOT of gray, you have a problem. You want contrast.


I've been working with turning pictures b and w in photoshop, but I find it hard to know what the 'natural' b/w is. I'm using the channel mixture tool.


Well, I'd be far better off receiving advice than giving it ( in fact, with your permission, could I post some of my own shots on here some time? I'd love the opportunity to get constructive criticism), and, I'm probably not the best to critique your shots, but to me they seem a bit...plain. They have a certain charm though, and I actually sort of like the symmetry created by centering the horizon line ( but then again I'm no artist)

Go ahead and post! The more photos the better :smallbiggrin:

I suspect that the plainness comes from both the composition and the dull colors, I've been trying to improve on the last part with photoshop just to get a better understanding on how it could look, but so far no luck.

I know that I got a bunch of NatGeo pictures lying around somewhere, I guess it's finally time to go through them properly.


More commonly known as the rule of thirds amongst photographers, yeah. That rule is generally your friend, but don't live by it. If you honestly think it looks better without the rule, don't use it.
Roger that, though I suspect that I better learn to use it before I can choose if I should use it or not...



I disagree with leakingpen about black and white. While it can be a useful tool to find out how your shots are going with contrast, unless you're looking to actually shoot black and white then don't set your camera to it. The only place where you want your shot to be black and white is either in your film, or in photoshop.

Well, the camera I've got right now can't even shoot in b/w so I'll be using photoshop for that for a while...


If the 5Ds your looking at are body only, that means they're the old ones. Don't get one, just get one of the newer enthusiast level cameras. Also the body is less important than the lenses. If you have to spend lots of money, spend it on lenses.
Yea, perhaps you're right, I've found one 5d with the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lens for 1000 USD. Do you know anything about that lens? From what I can understand it's a pretty good all round lens worth the money, agree/disagree?


And even if you're not interested by a style of photography, still have a look at it, you may find elements you like. I hate shooting portraits, but I love looking at them since they always have wonderful lighting and composition. Just because you don't want to shoot something, doesn't mean you shouldn't take tips from it :P
Also I wouldn't go to DA first, you want professional photographers to follow, rather than amateur or semi-pro. Head down to the library, find the photography section (iirc it's around 770) and have a look at the books.

Yea, I sometimes like portait pieces too I even got a few on my wall that I really like, but I'm not interested in doing that myself. I'll look into it and see what I can learn. Right now I know next to nothing, so you're right in that I shouldn't neglect anything really.

Sadly I don't have access to a library right now (vacation at my parents, hence a lot of nature, but little in the way of civlization :smalltongue:) I guess I'll have to do with what the internet can provide. For now I think that the NatGeo pics I have might help me a lot.

Thanks for the comments everyone!

I went outside for about an hour today with the camera, but the weather really sucks with rain and clouds all over so I didn't find anything interesting to shoot. I'll play around with photoshop a bit more, I've been trying to spice up the first image by applying more color to the trees across the river and cropping it a bit, but I can't seem to get it right...

[Dispozition]

A 28-105mm lens will be fine, but 3.5 is horrendous and that's one of the low level kit lenses that comes with the low level cameras. What you really want is a prime lens. That means no zoom, all that stuff. Something like a 1.4 50mm lens is godly, but they also cost around $800. For pano you may want a 10-20mm (again around $1000), but don't ever get a fisheye lens.

Also, even if the weather is bad...Take photos. With digital you can afford to be willy nilly with your shots when you're starting. It's a good way to find out what actually makes a good shot and what doesn't. With film you have to be more considered and careful, but digital allows you to be silly.

[H Birchgrove]

As a kid, I got a very advanced camera from my dad which he bought in Hong Kong IIRC. I was never able to take a photo and get them processed (this was before digital cameras become common), because I couldn't for the life of me understand the darn beast. The camera, I mean. My dad is not a beast. Though some times I don't understand him.

Didn't have much trouble with my mum's much simpler (and smaller) camera.

[drakir_nosslin]

A 28-105mm lens will be fine, but 3.5 is horrendous and that's one of the low level kit lenses that comes with the low level cameras. What you really want is a prime lens. That means no zoom, all that stuff. Something like a 1.4 50mm lens is godly, but they also cost around $800. For pano you may want a 10-20mm (again around $1000), but don't ever get a fisheye lens.

So, ignoring the camera house for a moment, what kind of lens would you recommend starting with, assuming that I go for some kind of canon?


Also, even if the weather is bad...Take photos. With digital you can afford to be willy nilly with your shots when you're starting. It's a good way to find out what actually makes a good shot and what doesn't. With film you have to be more considered and careful, but digital allows you to be silly.

After reading this I picked up the camera and walked outside with our dog for about half an hour. Most of the shots are terrible, blurry, messy and not with enough light at all. I did get two that I feel might be salvageable though.
http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0131.jpg
http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0130.jpg

And today I went for tour around the houses.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0137.jpg
Old and worn out is what I wanted to get through with this one.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0144-1.jpg?t=1319111974
There's always room for a cat as well.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0151.jpg?t=1319112011
Now, this one isn't particularly interesting, but man! I spent so much time getting just a single sharp picture of a bird, that gotta count for something (those things are fast!).

[Zjoot]

Wow. You live in an area with much more potential than I do. I'm stuck in a big suburb, and I can't ever get a good view of our beautiful mountains either. :smallsigh: There are still a lot of nice photos to be had if I go looking for them though.

Anyways, what's that in front of the cat?

EDIT: Oh, and I grabbed a photo from my computer
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/6c827.jpg
Comments?

[Dispozition]

So, ignoring the camera house for a moment, what kind of lens would you recommend starting with, assuming that I go for some kind of canon?

While these aren't the exact lenses I'd recommend, they're a rough ballpark. The links are also an aussie store, so I imagine they're far cheaper in America. They're also on teh cheaper side.
50mm lenses are godly and no one should ever not have one. (http://www.teds.com.au/canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-ii)
A 28mm lens (or similarly pano) is great for landscapes. (http://www.teds.com.au/canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm)
Tele lenses are just nice all rounders, but they aren't as good with aperture sizing just because of how they're made. (http://www.teds.com.au/canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm)

Also this site is a godsend for comparing things and finding out news on the camera front. (http://www.dpreview.com/) Always give it a look before buying something, even if it's just a quick glance. But don't treat it as a be all and end all. Always consider what feels right to your hands and eyes as well.


After reading this I picked up the camera and walked outside with our dog for about half an hour. Most of the shots are terrible, blurry, messy and not with enough light at all. I did get two that I feel might be salvageable though.
http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0131.jpg
http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0130.jpg


Not really much you can do with these, and this is a short falling of non-DSLR cameras. You never want a shot to have one portion of it (the sky in this case) metered correctly, and the rest of it (the ground) to be incorrect. In those two the sky is nice and detailed, and even the water, but the treeline has no detail at all. Filters and HDR can fix that, but that's a lot easier with a DSLR.

Your framing is off again as well. The tree on the right? Why is it in the shot? You should never go "this is a nice photo" and then take the photo. Consider it first, "where's my framing, how do I meter it, what's the balance I want". Lots of questions before you take the photo.


And today I went for tour around the houses.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0137.jpg
Old and worn out is what I wanted to get through with this one.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0144-1.jpg?t=1319111974
There's always room for a cat as well.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0151.jpg?t=1319112011
Now, this one isn't particularly interesting, but man! I spent so much time getting just a single sharp picture of a bird, that gotta count for something (those things are fast!).
The first shot is quite nice, but the weed in the right side of the image is quite distracting. It's also a bit confusing as to what the focus of the image is. If you'd have moved your body to the left a bit, and angled the camera right, I think it would have been a bit nicer. But not being able to physically do that, I might be a bit wrong.

The second one is...Well, it's a picture of a cat. They normally aren't very interesting imo. But that's more just me. Artistically it's alright I guess? It would have been better eye level I think, and the whites are overblown, so you needed to meter down.

The third one is far too busy, and where a macro lens would have been better (although then you need a tripod, or a flash, to get a steady shot). But the idea is nice enough.


Wow. You live in an area with much more potential than I do. I'm stuck in a big suburb, and I can't ever get a good view of our beautiful mountains either. :smallsigh: There are still a lot of nice photos to be had if I go looking for them though.

Anyways, what's that in front of the cat?

EDIT: Oh, and I grabbed a photo from my computer
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/6c827.jpg
Comments?

Even if you don't have beautiful mountain scapes, cityscapes are just as stunning sometimes.
Here's a city shot I did with a large format camera. It's metered pretty horribly, and I messed up when I processed it so it's nowhere near as clean as I'd like...But still.
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/9991584797/4/tumblr_lr95tcviNd1r1x0sz
So yeah, you don't need nature to take landscapes :P

Also, that shot is...Well, it's a photo. I wouldn't really call it artistic. The framing is quite nice, but ideally you'd want the bird facing inward rather than outward, and the background to be far cleaner.

[drakir_nosslin]

@The Grimmace

I agree that the picture would be better if the bird was facing inwards instead, but the rest feels good. It's a nice mixture of colors, making it feel alive and interesting.

@ Dispozition

Thanks for the help with the lenses, I still haven't had any luck in finding a camera house that I like. Either there's something wrong with them or they've already been sold. :/

As for the trees and bushes that appears everywhere in my photos, well that's how it looks around here. Lots and lots of bushes. I still haven't found a decent piece of empty beach that is usable. Every clearing is lined with small, leaf-less trees...

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0118-1.jpg?t=1319554041

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0122.jpg?t=1319554031

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0129.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0143.jpg?t=1319554022

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0124-1.jpg?t=1319554011

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0126.jpg?t=1319553994

Once I get a decent job and can move back to the southern parts of this country you can expect a lot more urban pictures...

[Rising Phoenix]

Wow. You live in an area with much more potential than I do. I'm stuck in a big suburb, and I can't ever get a good view of our beautiful mountains either. :smallsigh: There are still a lot of nice photos to be had if I go looking for them though.

Anyways, what's that in front of the cat?

EDIT: Oh, and I grabbed a photo from my computer
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/6c827.jpg
Comments?

That's a hybrid macaw right? I cannot make it into a pure Green and Red or Scarlet Macaw...

In any case. When photographing portraits of animals it is very important to get the eye(s) in focus. It generally is also highly desirable that the animal fills 2/3rds of the image and that you follow the rule of thirds. (Which you can apply when cropping the image)

Now onto your Macaw picture: The first thing I notice is not the bird, it's the wood in front of it that it's reaching out to. Second though the pose is engaging- the bird is moving towards you- it is not focused entirely on the bird, the shot is not centered on the bird, and the target only occupies about a third of the image. Lastly the colours, it is always best to have the light source behind you and as a birdwatcher I know that Macaws can be a lot more brilliant and gaudy than this shade dappled picture suggests. Lighting and shading can sometime make or break an image and if in doubt it is always best to try to get even lighting.

To demonstrate the above points here are some of my parrot pictures

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/352/c/6/rainbow_lorikeet_2_by_sirtimid-d355t80.jpg
This is probably one of by better images. Notice that not only is the bird colourful, the eyes in focus and the lighting good, it is also engaged with the camera. This image would probably be better if I could get a dark background and if the bird was perched on a nice branch rather than that pale blue railing.


http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/247/1/c/long_billed_corella_by_sirtimid-d48tq5y.jpg A Long-billed Corella, this image would have been very good if the perch was 'even'.

http://sirtimid.deviantart.com/gallery/27492250?offset=0#/d3asz5n A Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, this image is nice but unfortunately the light is at the very limits that my camera can handle without overloading the ISO...

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/333/f/d/gang_gang_cockatoo__male_by_sirtimid-d33wu84.jpg Male Gang Gang Cockatoo. This is probably as best as I can do with my current camera.

Oh and my camera is an Olympus SP-51OUZ, with 10 x optical zoom and 7.1 MP. It has served me well in the last five years, but I really wanna get an SLR. :)

Edit: @ Drakir Noslin. Regarding your last image of frosted trees. A nice image, but you got the power lines in it... A sin when taking natural landscape :)

[ShortOne]

/tosses hat into the ring

Photographer here. I take portraits and self-portraits, though, not landscapes.

What Dis said about the photographer, not the camera is completely right. With a very basic camera, a great photographer can make masterpieces.

The Rule of Thirds can be a good baseline, but there are times to throw it completely out the window. Experiment to learn when those times are.

Personally, I use Photoshop beyond minimally. I know how to use it, but I really don't do much in it. Usually, I use it for crops. Photoshop is not necessary to be a good photographer.

Above all, take photos. Take as many photos as you can, as often as you can. That, more than anything else (whether it's looking at "Great Works" or reading how-tos) will help you improve.


Now, about photos posted here.


http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0118.jpg
The bush should be cut off.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0124.jpg
Not bad, I like the framing.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0127.jpg
It could have worked if there weren't other branches farther forward. With this setup, I'd recommend focusing on the foremost object.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0146.jpg
The framing is a little odd. I think if you'd swung the camera to the right to have more of the sandbank, it would've balanced better. Also, the darkness on the left is odd combined with the sandbank on the right.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0144.jpg
I would have preferred just centered on the islandish bit, without the sandbank.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0142.jpg
I like it a lot, but the dark on the left is odd with the light on the right. Also, the sunspot doesn't belong here.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0141.jpg
Very nice capture of the fog, but the line of the trees should've been straight, even if it wasn't in real life.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0138.jpg
Not bad.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/291/6/5/swan_lake_by_drakirnosslin-d4d74xl.jpg
Very nice. The one thing I'd say would be to crop the right a little bit, to make the swans truly centered.



http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0131.jpg
Crop out the branches on the right, but great colors.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0130.jpg
Same comment as above, and I like it better than the one above.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0137.jpg
Not bad!

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0144-1.jpg?t=1319111974
Very cluttered, but that's the composition.

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0151.jpg?t=1319112011
I like this one better than the one above, actually. It's slightly too much to the right to be Thirds, and it's too much to the left to be centered. Pick one.



http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/6c827.jpg
Woah, the perspective is trippy. I'm still trying to decide whether that's good or bad.



http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/9991584797/4/tumblr_lr95tcviNd1r1x0sz
/me drools on the large-format
But it's slightly crooked!


http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0118-1.jpg?t=1319554041

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0122.jpg?t=1319554031

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0129.jpg

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0143.jpg?t=1319554022

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0124-1.jpg?t=1319554011

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r352/drakir_nosslin/PICT0126.jpg?t=1319553994
The first one's okay, and I like the last one.

[QUOTE=Rising Phoenix;12109115]
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/352/c/6/rainbow_lorikeet_2_by_sirtimid-d355t80.jpg

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/247/1/c/long_billed_corella_by_sirtimid-d48tq5y.jpg

http://sirtimid.deviantart.com/gallery/27492250?offset=0#/d3asz5n

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/333/f/d/gang_gang_cockatoo__male_by_sirtimid-d33wu84.jpg
How did you get that close to them? A 10x digital zoom wouldn't do it, would it?

[Rising Phoenix]

How do you get close to birds?

The above? I bribed them with seed :). I have no problems at all with them landing on my shoulder :smallsmile:. (all are 100% wild birds)

For others I have to approach them in the proper manner (field craft). Birds are very good at perceiving when someone's interested in them (and for very good reason). If you want to approach (or any animal for that matter), keep your profile low, make as little noise as possible, try to avoid eye contact, wear no bright clothes and make no sudden movements (best let the bird come to you). However, I find that once a bird notices you and you speak softly it will sometimes approach you (either curiosity or it thinks that there's another bird behind that 'weird thing')

[ShortOne]

The above? I bribed them with seed :). I have no problems at all with them landing on my shoulder :smallsmile:. (all are 100% wild birds)

For others I have to approach them in the proper manner (field craft). Birds are very good at perceiving when someone's interested in them (and for very good reason). If you want to approach (or any animal for that matter), keep your profile low, make as little noise as possible, try to avoid eye contact, wear no bright clothes and make no sudden movements (best let the bird come to you). However, I find that once a bird notices you and you speak softly it will sometimes approach you (either curiosity or it thinks that there's another bird behind that 'weird thing')

Wow, that's amazing. Sounds like you have a lot of patience! :smalltongue:

[Rising Phoenix]

Wow, that's amazing. Sounds like you have a lot of patience! :smalltongue:

hahaha, perhaps. It is very rewarding when I finally get a good picture :)

[Saeyan]

OK you definitely don't need to buy that 5D yet. Try a prosumer like Canon S95 or Olympus XZ-1 (my current cam) - easier to carry around, more likely that you'll actually take it with you, exponentially greater chance of you getting good shots.

Edit: because I'm very happy with my new camera, some plugging: the XZ-1 gives you really good boke/shallow depth of field effects as it has an f/1.8 aperture. Hard to find on compacts.

I see many distractions in your photos. Random twigs, big areas of...stuff that draws my eye in a bad way. Good advice from everyone else so far.

Try going to Flickr. Look at good photos. The photographer's sense diffuses into you, it really does. (that's what I did anyway when I wanted to take a break from drawing and painting for a bit. My photos improved by 50 times.)

Also, post-processing isn't necessarily evil, just don't overdo it. Maybe look into GIMP or Photoshop? Lightroom is also fantastic.