What do you think???

[tknott1984]

1

2

3

 

[Judobreaker]

Your subjects seem a bit too centered to me and I hate the watermark. xD
Other than that I quite like them.

 

[adichiru]

I like best the tiger one. IMO they all look kind of faded - I have the impression that you shot RAW and made no post-processing.
If these were my shots I would have increase color vibrancy, increase blacks, increase the warmth too. For the first one I would try to work a little bit at highlights. The first image has some interesting potential because of the eye.
Also, I would be very careful with the eyes of the tiger - they look sharp and have details so make sure you won't lose them via post-processing. If necessary make some local adjustments only. Also, I would crop the tiger frame to eliminate at least the rusty metal on the tree if not the frame behind it.

These are my thoughts only - I have no intention to criticize somebody else's work without giving reasons and indication of how I would handle the situation.

These are my favorite shot of a jaguar in the Mexican jungle; digital:

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Photo 45

http://www.adichiru.com/digital_photography/nature#h1f3bd9d2


and on film, 35 mm:

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Marmot
I am not aware of your experience but these look like very nice shots!

 

[pgriz]

So, what do I think?

Bird shot:
Technical: ISO 100,f/5.6, 1/320 sec., 171mm, auto exposure, auto white balance. Focus is a bit soft, but it is clear thatyou are shooting through wire netting (can be seen in the out-of-focus highlights in the background), so maybe you got the best that could be gotten.
Compositional: Thebird’s eye is centered, and his/her beak is almost against the left side –feels awkward. Positioning the eye closer to the right 1/3 line and giving some space to the left of the beak would have given the bird some “breathing room”. Our eye is immediately drawn to the bird’s eye, then we follow the direction of the head to the left, run into the left wall, and come back looking at the plumage of the bird’s neck, then back to the eye. The space to the right is wasted. The background is relatively neutral and doesn’t compete with the bird. Overall the image could do with a bit more sharpening and contrast.

Butterfly shot:
Technical: ISO 800,f/5.6, 1/250 sec, 194mm, Auto exposure, auto white balance. Focus appears to be just behind the butterfly, as the tail end of the body appears soft ant the antenna are very soft. The edge of the leaf is sharp, butI don’t think that was your target. Shutter speed is appropriate for that focal length and hand-held shooting. You were at the wide-open setting for that lens, and had to boost the ISO to get the right exposure.
Compositional: Thebutterfly is centered, which generally gives a static image. One of the useful techniques to know is to leave some space in front of the animal, so that it is looking into the image. The twigs in the background are somewhat distracting. That is due to it being quite close to the butterfly, and therefore not sufficiently out of focus. To get good out-of-focus background, you need to be closer to the subject, and have more space between the subject and the background.

Tiger shot:
Technical: ISO 1000,f/7.2, 1/400 sec. 250mm Auto exposure,auto white balance. Better would have been 1/320, f/5.6, ISO 400, mainly to get the ISO down. Your shutter speed of 1/400 could be lowered to 1/320 and still be within the “handshake” limit with a 250mm lens. A slightly more open aperture would have also made the background slightly more out-of-focus. Focus on the tiger appears to be good.
Compositional: The cropping to be done depends on the intent of your image. If the focus was to be on the tiger, then the right side can be cropped just to the right of the tiger to eliminate the tree and the concrete at the back. The top of the image could be cropped a little above the tiger’s head. The result would put the tiger at the 1/3 line(more or less) on the right, and give some space to the left for the tiger to “look into”.
If the intent was to show the tiger in artificial confines, then a vantage point a little more to the left would have placed the “artificial” elements closer to the tiger in the image and would have made that link more obvious.

Other comments: The main reason to watermark an image is to protect it from being copied. Do you believe that your images are sufficiently good that you need to protect them that way?

 

[Mygixxer]

pictures look a little under exposed?

 

[ph0enix]

I think your watermark is extremely distracting.

 

[480sparky74 74]

1 and 3 should be taken in portrait orientation.

 

[DiskoJoe]

That tiger looks hungry and over exposed.

 

[Austin Greene]

Well, I see a watermark, and not much more. Make it much smaller/less distracting or just get rid of it altogether.

Trip to the zoo, an instant photographer does not make. Just keep shooting and focus on things such as composition.

 

[KmH]

I think you started your thread in the wrong forum section , which is why I have moved it to the Nature & Wildlife forum in the "Photo Galleries- Photos submitted by members for general display or critique." forum section. You asked no technical questions.

The Beginner's forum description states in part - "This is NOT an actual gallery, but more of a place to ask questions and get feedback on technical issues. Use the TPF Galleries to show us some of the photos you have taken so far and get some review - so you can learn where there is room for improvement!"

FWIW - According to the US Copyright Office's Circular #3 - Copyright Notice, the notice you have added to your photos is not valid because it doesn't include a year. However, a copyright notice has been optional for copyright protection since March 1, 1989. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

 

[480sparky74 74]

I don't think they're really over-exposed.... they just need to have the black point moved up.

 

[KmH]

In #2 and #3 the light is pretty flat and there is little contrast in the photos.

Setting the black, white, and gray points, some dodge/burn, and mid-tone contrast adjustment would likely help.

No one here can illustrate what that might look like for you though, because you don't allow editing of your photos.

 

[Joel_W]

No need to go into a in-depth CC for each picture as it's already been covered a few times.

What drove me nuts looking at your set is your double watermarks. I've posted this over and over again, that watermarks are not only being used way too much here needlessly, but continue to grow in size, and now comes your double watermarks. Unless your a pro, there is no need for them. Download a picture from here and try to enlarge it without the quality going down hill. If you still insist on having one, make it very small, and put it in the least important bottom corner. Just out of curiosity why do you feel you need to use watermarks?