Matilda

[neogfx]

Matilda is my 3 month old Veiled Chameleon. I have been having some fun photographing her and I like the way this shot came out.

C&C encouraged.

EDIT:
A note on watermarks - we here on this site are photographers. One of the key skills of a photographer is to be able to visualise. So visualise the images I post without a watermark, they are only set at between 5% and 10% so it shouldn't be hard, they are near bloomin' transparent.
You can still see sharpness, detail, DOF, colour, contrast and, with a little vision, aesthetic appeal. If you can not see through this and do not wish to comment, then that is fair enough, don't comment. But don't post a message saying something like "I'm not going to comment because there is a watermark", I mean, seriously, what is the point, you're just wasting your own time as well as mine.
I post my images for crit on the photography involved, not for a comment on whether or not people agree with my use of watermarks.
Rant over, thanks for reading.

 

[Lyncca]

I like the color version more, but think you need a larger DOF to show a little more detail in the body.

HTH

 

[Markw]

The watermark ruins both of them, but the color one is better. I love chameleons. I currently have 2 rudis and a 3 yr old veiled. Theyre amazing. I actually have a picture in a thread called "Veiled chameleon". You should check it out. Nice capture.

Mark

 

[neogfx]

Markw: They are great creatures. Matilda is my first, but my partner and I hope to get a few more herps when we get our own place.

I don't like placing watermarks on my work, but they are a necessary evil, there is way too much being ripped at the moment so I watermark all of my images.

Thanks for the comments.

Lyncca: Thanks for the crit. I will try to get an image with a larger DOF. At the moment she is settling into her new terrarium so I am trying not to disturb her too much. It is fairly low lighting so I am using ISO 1600 with my 2.8 lenses (one 50mm and the other 105mm), so it is quite hard to get a big DOF. Maybe in a few weeks.

 

[Dmitri]

The watermark ruins both of them

^^^ What he said. I stop looking when I notice the watermark before the subject.

 

[TrickyRic]

Black and white doesn't work so well here because the beauty of a chameleon comes largely from it's ability to change colour. Without the colouring, I just feel the subject is missing something.

Your first shot is fantastic though. Love it! It is a shame about the watermark but what the hell, it's actually quite subtle in comparison to some of them out there.

 

[neogfx]

Thanks for the comment Ric. Glad you like it. And I agree with the comment about colour.

 

[Dmitri]

EDIT:
A note on watermarks - we here on this site are photographers. One of the key skills of a photographer is to be able to visualise.

We're photographers? Well, that explains the site name and all the photos! Also, with all of the photos here, and all the people asking for critiques, one of the key common sensities is to not pile crap on top of the photo and ask the person you are asking the favor of to "ignore it". Please notice the other photos on this site and how many amazing photos by amazing photographers are ruined by "look at me!" water marks... Pretty much none.

So visualise the images I post without a watermark, they are only set at between 5% and 10% so it shouldn't be hard, they are near bloomin' transparent.

Yes, now... You edited it, but no way in heck was it 5% before hand. It looked like some sort of lizard with a big circle and letters over it...

In the meantime, if you post a photo and ask for critiques, don't whine about the critiques you get. Considering you edited the watermark to be less obnoxious, I can see you already learned and took that critique to heart. Kudos.

 

[neogfx]

Dmitri - I really am not looking for an argument here, but the watermark has not been edited. The image posted here is exactly the same one that's been there from the start. I removed the black and white image, but this one hasn't been changed.
My comment on photographers was exactly because this is a photography site, it was the whole point.
And as previously stated, I would like crit on the photo, not on a watermark.
Anyway, you said yourself in your last post that the watermark is not too "obnoxious" I'll assume that the watermark lets the viewer see the image just fine. As I said it hasn't been edited so I'm a little unsure of what the initial complaint was.

Oh, and I don't put watermarks on my work to say "look at me", I do it to say "don't steal my work". Would you call Stephen Dalton obnoxious? He watermarks his work, as do many other professional photographers.

Thanks for your comments.