Swans "Kissing"

[kirbinster]

What could I do to enhance this shot? The lighting conditions were crap and it was a dreary day, but I love the shot.

[akshatrathi294]

I think a tighter crop and a little contrast adjustment should do the magic.

Beautiful moment captured!

[psykon99]

I'm not quite sure what I'd do about the light, but I'd start by cropping in closer to the swans. That way the darkness of the pond is minimal and the colors of the swans are more dominant.

[peeperita]

i love this shot too....and i would be proud to call it my own....

i fiddled around with it in photoshop and i found sliding the midtone eyedropper in levels lightened up the water and some of the shadowing on the birds....plus, i boosted the yellows that came up after levels....

really nice photo.....repost if you decide to edit more....

peeper

[falafelicious]

Hey.. hope you don't mind my tinkering around with a bit, thought it would just be easier to show you than tell you.. feel free to discard.. great shot though!

[xxpinballxx]

nice shot but to be honest something is really weird about it. I mean not in a bad way but looking at the two heads out of the water and then looking at the reflections it seems like it was photoshop'd someway. I mean in reflection shots i like seeing the same thing top and bottom but this one the darker swans head is casting a longer reflection for whatever reason. Not that it makes it a bad shot but is really distracting to me. I love the colors of the two birds though i expected a set of white swans the standard but seeing the different colors it makes a better photo in my eyes.

[kirbinster]

falafelicious - I love the edits - thanks. If you could explain exactly what you did to get that result I would appreciate it.


xxpinballxx- I'm not sure about what you mean about beig photoshoped nor the thing about the longer neck. I assure you I have not changed the picture in photoshop. I can only assume that what you are seeing has to do with the angle of the sun with respect to the two animals. Actually, I think I just realized what it is. The sun was to the left and slightly behind the birds. The white swan has a longer neck but it is slightly tipped to the left thus it casts a smaller shadow/reflection as it is closer to the water.

[PollyK]

hope you dont mind but I loved the photo, just thought i'd do a bit of PP to get a better look
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...c3535db5PP.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...5db5edited.jpg

[baseballboy828]

I know you think the light is bad, but trust me, it's the second best light there is. Nice diffused light from a cloudy day. Direct sunlight would ruin the image, because there would be way too much contrast in the birds. The only light that's better is sunrise/sunset. Also, you need a longer lens for this. I'd suggest a 400mm, which you undoubtedly cannot afford. Stay away from slow, garbage lenses like the 70-300 or 18-200 and save up for a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. Slap a 1.4x teleconverter on it and boom, you have yourself a 240-450 f/4 (including sensor crop factor) with amazing optical quality. This will cost you a bunch, but if you like wildlife it's really a must. There's really no such thing as a fast zoom for cheap. Unfortunate fact of life.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by baseballboy828

I know you think the light is bad, but trust me, it's the second best light there is. Nice diffused light from a cloudy day. Direct sunlight would ruin the image, because there would be way too much contrast in the birds. The only light that's better is sunrise/sunset. Also, you need a longer lens for this. I'd suggest a 400mm, which you undoubtedly cannot afford. Stay away from slow, garbage lenses like the 70-300 or 18-200 and save up for a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. Slap a 1.4x teleconverter on it and boom, you have yourself a 240-450 f/4 (including sensor crop factor) with amazing optical quality. This will cost you a bunch, but if you like wildlife it's really a must. There's really no such thing as a fast zoom for cheap. Unfortunate fact of life.

Baseballboy828 - since your are fairly young I am going to offer you some free advice that you did not ask for. I don't mean this in a hostile way, so please don't take it that way. You need to be very careful making statements about people both on forums and in-person unless you know all the facts. You stated: "I'd suggest a 400mm, which you undoubtedly cannot afford" You know nothing about what I can or cannot afford so you should not make such a statement. I could easily afford this or any lens made for that matter. Its a matter of whether or not I would choose to want to spend that much money on a lens. So, just try to be careful how you judge people - it will do you well in life.

That said, I do appreciate your advice. Will my D40 accept a teleconverter? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you could not put a teleconverter on it, but I could be mistaken.

Why do you think the 70-300 is garbage? And which one are you talking about. I tried the new AF-S 70-300vr in a store the other day and it seemed like a decent lens, although not fast. I question how much it gets me as far as extra reach versus my 55-200vr It does not seem to me that 300 looked like 50% closer than 200mm.

As far as your opinion on the 18-200 I do agree. I went out shooting with a friend that has that lens when I shot the ducks yesterday. At 200mm my pictures with the 55-200vr were sharper than his with the 18-200, both of us were using Nikon D40 cameras.