Canon t5 to SL2?

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

I’d love criticism on that photo btw.

I love that you got down to eye level with your subject. This is a technique that works so wonderfully with subjects ranging from kids to cars to critters. Approaching your subjects as though you were taking their portrait (from pose to lighting to timing) is extremely effective.

When I initially looked at the image, the first thing that popped into my head was "underexposed" though. On my monitor it looked dark and muddy, with very little dynamic range. One of the defining characteristics of Ansel Adam's work was its great depth (as you prefer also), but another just as important aspect was its tremendous tonal range. He made sure that there was one completely white point in the photo, as well as one completely black. It's not a strict rule that we must always adhere to, but keeping it in mind can usually help to add impact and vitality to a photo.

You mention that this was shot at dusk (and that's what you wanted to convey), but the viewer really doesn't have the benefit of knowing the artist's intentions or circumstances surrounding a photo. And there are no real visual cues that help us here either (besides an overall dimness). Perhaps a more pronounced "golden" reflection of the "sun" in its eye (I know, it's your flash), or even just a brighter eye alone might be all that this needs...

My eye just initially wanted to see a more detailed and lighter-exposed subject (I did like the way you balanced fill flash with the ambient light without overpowering either). I also loved the frog's colors very much, and I think your mono-colored overall scheme (esp the background) really sets those colors off.

Perhaps one thing you could do to help communicate your intent is to add an appropriate title to your image, which would give the viewer a better indication of the message (or idea) that you wish to convey. This is in itself a very effective technique, and can boost an image's "score" substantially.

I occasionally Jury contests and exhibitions, and to be honest, an image has about 3 seconds to make an impression, and avoid the first sweeping cut. No matter what other (sometimes substantial) merits a photo might possess, it's often the technical issues that keep it from achieving the next level. Initial impact is very important.

A couple of minor points. I'd tone down a few of the specular (flash) highlights on the skin, and eliminate that bright leaf at the top, as it creates one of those distracting "edge mergers." On the plus side, the background vegetation has just the right amount of detail in it to give the viewer a good sense of the environment, yet not be too busy or distracting. Well done.

I’ve been being serious about photography for about 8 months now so still relatively new.

Setting aside everything I've said above, let your Eye and your Heart guide you. It's the path to true artistry. If you like something, keep after it. Your "eye" will mature and improve the more you shoot and the more images you evaluate. You'll just keep getting better and better.

May the good light be with you! Even if it's flash.

R2