Undercover

[benny]

Hi folks,

It's me again, with a South American dwarf cichlid this time.

This fella kind of dug a bunker for itself and I was trying to portray this terrtorial and yet curious nature of the fish.

http://www.bennyng.digitalgalleryhosting.com/albums/album48/Y1W5421ER.jpg

Incidentally, it's an Apistogramma macmasteri.

Ok guys, rip this one up! I can take it.

Cheers,

[Truffle]

I think that it looks great, the narrow depth of field really focuses you on the fish.

[Goldfish]

Nit-picking beyond the levels one can physically pick, I'd say it'd work better if your signature/copyright thingy wasn't on the actual pic, maybe in a block around it like guppyman's. It just sorta draws the eyes... but... yeah... told you I was nit-picking. :-) Great pic by the way.

Wow I really ripped that apart...

[Ibn]

Great picture, Benny.

The signature isn't too distracting, and when I first looked at it, my attention went straight for her eye (rule of thirds in beautiful practice here). If you were interested in scaling down the sig., perhaps blur the signature and then emboss it (hit it with hard light after these two steps)?

Beautiful picture of a hard to capture moment. I have a female A. viejita that has laid eggs twice underneath some driftwood in an area where I can't photograph. I tried to rectify it by adding a coconut shell a couple of weeks back and now she breeds in there, but then it's even worse, since she barricades the front and I can't even see her =(.

[alanhill]

Admirable in many ways and very typical of Apistogramma behaviour. I am worried by the two pale marks - one from the centre pointing upwards to 11 o'clock and one on the right hand side, which is not as distracting (scratches on front glass?). I like asymmetric compositions, but I wonder if the fish is a little too far to the left in this one.

Alan

[RazorBlade]

First off - nice photo. Nice fish too. :)

If I'd have to take the photo apart ... I'd say that:

1) The fish seems 'overshadowed' by the overexposed substrate, as well as the rock on the right. No fault of yours though. ^_^

2) On composition ... well, rule of thirds aside, I think probably something's lacking. Again, probably it's the overexposed substrate that's messing it up for me.

3) I noticed the two pale marks too ... looks like a reflection of some sort, I think.

Rgds,
John

P.S. You used one overhead flash, on the left of the photo - correct? Um ... probably a 2nd flash at the right may have compensated for my comment #1.

P.S. #2 I just loved the behavior capture by this photo, I just had to comment on it. ^_^

[hir0]

nice shot benny! i think the composition could be improved on with a nice tight crop. let the rocks "frame" the fish. it's just that there's a lot of dead space on the outside of the "cave" - additionally, i don't think the substrate is too overexposed, but it is slightly hot. i would try the shadow highlight tool to cool it down a notch.

[benny]

Thanks guys for all the feedback/comments.

nice shot benny! i think the composition could be improved on with a nice tight crop. let the rocks "frame" the fish. it's just that there's a lot of dead space on the outside of the "cave" - additionally, i don't think the substrate is too overexposed, but it is slightly hot. i would try the shadow highlight tool to cool it down a notch.

You mean like this?

http://www.bennyng.digitalgalleryhosting.com/albums/album48/Y1W5415ER.jpg

Actually, this is a different picture altogether. The substrate seems fine on my monitor, but does seems a little over on some monitors that's set on bright. Ed, you comments on the substrate?

I thought this one wasn't as powerful as it seems to be looking away from the picture. Also the mount seems awefully distracting.

Let me know if I read you correctly and thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

Cheers,

[benny]

Admirable in many ways and very typical of Apistogramma behaviour. I am worried by the two pale marks - one from the centre pointing upwards to 11 o'clock and one on the right hand side, which is not as distracting (scratches on front glass?). I like asymmetric compositions, but I wonder if the fish is a little too far to the left in this one.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the valuable feedback.

Actually, the pale marks must be the tetras on the top and reflection from the rocks. Not too sure.

I've tidied up the imperfections and shifted the fish as far right as I could. Didn't have much space left as I pretty much framed it this way during the shoot. As we all know, no second chance after you packed the camera.

http://www.bennyng.digitalgalleryhosting.com/albums/album48/Y1W5421E2R.jpg

I've also toned down the substrate on the foreground slightly.

What do you think of the revision?

Cheers,

[benny]

P.S. You used one overhead flash, on the left of the photo - correct? Um ... probably a 2nd flash at the right may have compensated for my comment #1.

Thanks RazorBlade.

Actually, I used 2 X overhead flash and a third flash on the right. The four one on the left didn't fire and I didn't realise it till much later.

The rock on the right was not lit by the flash on the right. It would have been the flash on the left. I think if the fourth flash had fired, the exposure would have balanced out nicely. Shame that I didn't check.

Cheers,

[alanhill]

I think the second version is about as good as it will get. Well done.

Alan

[elTwitcho]

Benny, I rarely comment on your pictures because I have trouble finding a flaw no matter how hard I look. For what it's worth I liked the levels on the first picture better than the revised one, it had a much warmer look to it. Great shots anyway, even though you won't see me contribute much, know that I've clicked your thread and said "damn that's a good shot" anyway ;)