Hi guys, just for starters none of my photos are edited in anyway and I personally don't edit (its just something I don't like doing) on that note my knowledge of cameras and how they work is very very limited so I might not totally understand what you mean when you say somethings but I will try my best. I also might ask if there is anyway I can help my technique that doesn't involve editing because I wont edit my photos, sorry in advance as I know that is the main way to improve on a photo. I'm looking to further my skill to improve my photos naturally using the strengths of the camera and the environment around me at the time instead of relying on PP.
What I currently use is a Nikon P500 Coolpix and a good portion of these photos are taken from a great distance hence why they aren't very crisp. I just hope you enjoy them to some degree.
1.
Technically, I can only knock this one for the clipped moose butt. If you're going to shoot a full body, it's best to shoot a full body and not clip ANY part of it. If you do, it looks like an accident. If it looks like an accident, it appears you didn't put much thought into it.
The white balance is a little on the blue side, but within an acceptable range (acceptable to me anyway). I would warm it up a bit if it were me.
Also, there is a branch in the top left that is out of focus. It is the only thing in the image that is out of focus which makes it seem out of place to me. I'm not against having items in the foreground out of focus that frame the subject, but this branch stands alone and doesn't contribute.
I think the greatest issue with the image is the brightness of the grass in front of the moose. It's so bright, it's really taking away attention from where you want it. Remember that bright areas of a photograph attract attention. Many times (not always) you want the subject to have the highest tonal value in the image. This will require some "burning", but I think it will make the image more of what your impression of the scene was. It will make a strong photograph. I did some modifications and will post if you permit me to. You currently have your profile set to "Do not edit my photos".
2.
For me, nature photography is all about the eyes. Without the eyes, you do not have a strong image (unless you are shooting a flock of animals like zebras or birds, then it's more about texture or overwhelming quantity). With a single animal "portrait", I can't imagine (perhaps a weakness on my part) an image that would be successful without seeing eyes. Here is a ball of fur. Also, the upward facing steps are overexposed (you can tell by the large patches of white that hold no detail).
3. Love this photo, hate the lines from the cage but I have to deal since I don't have access to wild foxes
I can see why you like this one. Notice the exposure level of the fox in relation to the foreground and background. This causes the subject to "pop". Also, the stark color contrast (green on orange, competing colors) adds to this. It gives the image energy. However, the eye is not clear. It is dark and lifeless. Make sure you capture those eyes well! You might google the term "catchlights". It may help you to see the importance of eyes.
4. Same as 3
Here you have run into a technical issue that will happen time and time again, especially when you work in automatic modes. The camera's meter averages the scene (unless you are using a more local metering mode) and expects it to be "18% gray". Google this to see what it looks like. Basically it's an average scene. However, when you have a scene predominately light like snow or a white fox surrounded by white gravel, the meter will underexpose it because it assumes it's supposed to be 18% gray, and not something much higher. You need to add exposure compensation for predominately white scenes, and on the other hand, you need to subratct exposure compensation for predominately dark scenes (coal, black sand, shooting the moon at night). How much compensation depends on the scene, but start with one "f-stop". Google is your friend.
You have the same butt-ampuation problem as in #1, only worse. I bet you wanted to get closer but you were at the limit of your zoom. If so, it's ok to crop tighter in post. You will lose pixels, but if it improves the composition, I think that's better.
So you proved me wrong already and have shown me that a sleeping animal is one situation where seeing the actual eyes is not important. However, we can see that he is sleeping so that IS important.
5.
Similar to the red fox in #3 but a bit underexposed. The eyes are lifeless because of the strong downward direction of the light. On humans, this would be referred to as "racoon eyes" and is generally undesireable. You could use your flash to get some light reflection but you would also risk red/green eye. This is fixable in post and I think it would be worth it if you could get some of that deep yellow color of the irises. Or you could wait until the cat looks up. Or you could wait until the light direction changes (if ever... it may not depending on the enclosure). Unfortunately at a zoo, you're often limited to what you can do.
I admire your careful composition to include the entire front leg to the elbow, but I think the image would be stronger if you shot it vertically and went in tight on the head and paws. That's where the interest is.
You got some detail in the eye which helps this image along. Unfortunately again you clipped the paws and tail. I think the weakest aspect of the image is that he's obviously in a cage. Furthermore, the wood is quite bright and fights for attention.
This is probably the best composition of the set. The entire animal is there and is naturally framed by it's home. You got catchlights in the eyes from the sky overhead which gives the animal some life. The white balance is a bit blue (like most of the other images) and the image is very soft. Partly because of the fence, but mostly because you were shooting at 1/20 of a second. You have to really be stable when shooting that slow. It can be done if you're leaning against something or are sitting or lying down.
(Eagle Below, I can't get the cursor below it for some reason)
It seems a bit underexposed although I would expect this scene to tend to overexpose because of all the dark. You have an orphaned tail feather in top right.
You caught an eagle with a nice little catchlight which is the strength in this image. The major weakness to me is the composition. You basically cut the bird in half. With this shot, I think only two crops would have worked. Either very tight on the hooded area, or full body. I would have shot this vertically and full body.
The background isn't appearling... it looks like bird feather parts stuck in a cage. You're tech limited here. With an SLR you could probably get the background more out of focus. You could do this with editing, but personally, on this shot, I wouldn't bother with it.