# Duck In Water



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 26, 2013)

This is my picture of a goose floating peacefully in the lake.
I feel that making the photo black and white really brings out the ripples in the water from the goose.

Any feedback, comments, or suggestions are welcome.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 26, 2013)

Welcome to the site. There are a couple of things that I notice about this photo. The first is that the duck is in the center of the frame. The second is that it just seems drab and the goose sort of blends in with the water with the b&w conversion. And the last for me is the angle of the shot, it is shooting down on the goose. Trying to get down to or close to the level of the goose may help.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 26, 2013)

There is also the fact that it's a goose and not a duck


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 26, 2013)

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.
This is really why I joined this forum, to get tips on how to improve in the future.

The image was shot using a simple Kodak point-and-shot camera, which converted it automatically to a grey-scale image. It was taken from a dock and there really was no option to get lower to the goose, although I agree that the picture would have had more effect.

Is it bad to have the subject of an image in the center?
Should the goose have been to the side of the frame?
Really, I focused the goose into the center of the frame because it really showed the ripple effect from the duck, but I can see why it would look better if it was to the side.

Thank you for all of your feedback. I hope that I will receive feedback like this on all of my future images.

And hopefully my future pictures will be more professional with my new Fujifilm S8300 camera that I purchased yesterday.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 26, 2013)

Duck...duck...  GOOSE!


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 26, 2013)

SCraig said:


> There is also the fact that it's a goose and not a duck



Oh!
I suppose it is.
Oops!


----------



## timor (Dec 26, 2013)

SCraig said:


> There is also the fact that it's a goose and not a duck


It is a goose cause the duck is dead.

Your Duck is Dead-- A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary  surgeon. As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his  stethoscope and listened to the bird's chest. After a moment or two, the  vet shook his head and sadly said, "I'm sorry, your duck, Cuddles, has  passed away." The distressed woman wailed, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I am  sure. Your duck is dead," replied the vet.. "How can you be so sure?"  she protested. "I mean you haven't done any testing on him or anything.  He might just be in a coma or something." The vet rolled his eyes,  turned around and left the room. He returned a few minutes later with a  black Labrador Retriever. As the duck's owner looked on in amazement,  the dog stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on the examination  table and sniffed the duck from top to bottom. He then looked up at the  vet with sad eyes and shook his head. The vet patted the dog on the head  and took it out of the room. A few minutes later he returned with a  cat. The cat jumped on the table and also delicately sniffed the bird  from head to foot. The cat sat back on its haunches, shook its head,  meowed softly and strolled out of the room. The vet looked at the woman  and said, "I'm sorry, but as I said, this is most definitely, 100%  certifiably, a dead duck." The vet turned to his computer terminal, hit a  few keys and produced a bill, which he handed to the woman.. The duck's  owner, still in shock, :took the bill. "$150!" she cried, "$150 just to  tell me my duck is dead!" The vet shrugged, "I'm sorry. If you had just  taken my word for it, the bill would have been $20, but with the Lab  Report and the Cat Scan, it's now $150.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 26, 2013)

ComputerWhiz said:


> Is it bad to have the subject of an image in the center?



Putting the subject in the middle of the frame may not be the strongest composition for the shoot. Do some research on Rule of Thirds (ROT) for more about this.


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 26, 2013)

Thank you for the link.
I see what you mean.
Most professional photos have the subject out of the center, especially when they are depicting speed.


----------



## jfrabat (Dec 26, 2013)

Another thing that works is get close, and then, GET CLOSER...  A lot of times we try to show EVERYTHING in our photos, when it is not really necessary.  A close up is MANY times better than the wide angle shot (of course, there are exceptions, but in this case, I would have gone a lot closer).


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 26, 2013)

As I said above, "It was taken from a dock and there really was no option to get lower to the goose..."


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 26, 2013)

jfrabat said:


> Another thing that works is get close, and then, GET CLOSER... A lot of times we try to show EVERYTHING in our photos, when it is not really necessary. A close up is MANY times better than the wide angle shot (of course, there are exceptions, but in this case, I would have gone a lot closer).



The S8300 has a pretty good zoom capability as I recall so that should help a lot.  Also I would recommend color particularly for wildlife, Geese and ducks can both be extremely colorful and it really adds to the shot.

Not a pro myself of course, just a dedicated amatuer - but here's a couple of quick examples:

20131129_138 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

20131130_ 383 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

20131130_ 264 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

20131201 1346 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## DarkShadow (Dec 26, 2013)

A general rule of thumb is put the subject in a rule of thirds. Also most of the frame is water so getting closer to bring eye and feather detail is ideal. Either way, less frame behind the goose is more pleasing to a viewer.


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Dec 27, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> jfrabat said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing that works is get close, and then, GET CLOSER... A lot of times we try to show EVERYTHING in our photos, when it is not really necessary. A close up is MANY times better than the wide angle shot (of course, there are exceptions, but in this case, I would have gone a lot closer).
> ...



When this picture was taken, I did not own my S8300.
I used a crappy Kodak EasyShare M531. It had x3 zoom!


----------



## deeky (Dec 30, 2013)

ComputerWhiz said:


> As I said above, "It was taken from a dock and there really was no option to get lower to the goose..."




What was your position?  Were you standing?  Were you on your belly on the dock?  I've even held the camera away and shot roughly blind (no live preview) to get a different angle.  

I've gotten some of my favorite shots when I first had to overcome my own hang-ups over appearing to do it 'the right way'.  Can make it a lot more fun but can be a bugger to get through if you are self-conscious.


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Jan 1, 2014)

deeky said:


> What was your position?  Were you standing?  Were you on your belly on the dock?  I've even held the camera away and shot roughly blind (no live preview) to get a different angle.


I was lying on the dock on my belly with my arms fully extended through the railing. That was as close as I could get to the target.


----------



## deeky (Jan 2, 2014)

Now that's a high dock (at least as the photo makes it look).  Most of ours around here are at most a couple of feet off the water allowing for eye-level with the fowl.


----------



## ComputerWhiz (Jan 3, 2014)

deeky said:


> Now that's a high dock (at least as the photo makes it look).  Most of ours around here are at most a couple of feet off the water allowing for eye-level with the fowl.


Yes, the dock was quite high making an eye level shot impossible.
Maybe next time I will be able to think of a way to get closer to the duck.


----------



## deeky (Jan 3, 2014)

ComputerWhiz said:


> Yes, the dock was quite high making an eye level shot impossible.
> Maybe next time I will be able to think of a way to get closer to the duck.



Waders - an essential part of any photo kit.


----------

