Feet, err foot, by request AND bonus swamp monster.....

[Dorian Anderson]

Since several people commented on the lack of feet in my last Pectoral Sandpiper shot, a criticism I can appreciate, so I offer this as redemption.
This was the softest ground/mud I've ever braved, so getting higher to get the second foot was impossible (photo).

Shot very early morning. Sun filtered with mix of haze and smoke.

Canon 600mm f/4 IS II + 1.4x III on EOS 1DX2
1/2000 at f/5.6, ISO 1600
Processed in LR CC - Cleaned up a few distractions on mud and lightened the brown-green stripe at the bottom to minimize its distraction. Sadly, I can't crop it away without cramming the subject into the frame.

188233

[Dorian Anderson]

The low angle beast....

188234

[Ivan Sjogren]

I appreciate your interest and love for shorebirds Dorian as I'm pretty much the same. This is a very nice frame!
I saw the earlier post now and I think both images have many of the same strenghts. The low shooting angle, beautiful light, nice colors, great eye contact and good IQ. I think the previous frame has a better background and foreground. I also think the light hits the bird more evenly in the other photo, here you have a tiny shadow under the tail (not something that bothers me though). On the other hand the raised leg and the thin streak of mud in focus in this frame is strenghts that the previous frame are missing.
I'm nit-picking, both are stunning and I'm very envious. There actually was a Pectoral Sandpiper one hour drive from the Buff-breasted Sandpiper I just posted. These shots makes me regret that i didn't go the extra miles to get that one too...

[John Mack]

Ah yes there is a foot in this one. Looks great just like the previous with regards to techs.

[Mike Poole]

First one is a beauty, great light, and the low POV makes the effort all worthwhile. Really nit picky now but it would be even better if the raise foot was further forward in the stride, but I'd be more than happy with this.

Second shot is off sun angle. Artie will NOT be impressed if he sees that

Mike

[David Roach]

Glad you love to play in the mud... Perfect sweet pose, light and framing. The picture of you after the session, priceless... TFS

[gail bisson]

I wallow in the mud too but wear waders! Best investment I ever made!
Lovely frame. Nice to see the feet and I like the layered FG and BG.
Great POV and the filtered light works beautifully.
I think cropping to just above your name would work well without cramming the subject in the least.
Nice image!
Gail

[Brian Sump]

Dorian, I had no nits with regard to seeing feet. When you're low, you can't always get feet without sacrificing dof and perspective.

That said, it was brought to my attention that foot back position was a delete. Was news to me. However, seems like others are opposed to no feet visible, so pick the poison I guess.

Touch of magenta in the bkg gradient is a nice, subtle addition.

You busted your butt and took home a fine keeper. Congrats.

[Dorian Anderson]

Who was so high and mighty as to issue this decree? Sounds like BS....



That said, it was brought to my attention that foot back position was a delete.

[Brian Sump]

Who was so high and mighty as to issue this decree? Sounds like BS....

Haha, my initials plague me.

Re-reading the referenced thread, "necessary delete" was what I inferred but may not be the requisite; rather a preference thing. Read here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/152683-Walk-of-Life?highlight=

[Dorian Anderson]

Haha! Didn't even think of the initials! My feeling is that all sharp, well-lit legs are fine. Sure, some are slightly better than others, but I think it depends most on the individual frame....

[Dorian Anderson]

As per your suggestion. Think he/she still has plenty of breathing room....


I wallow in the mud too but wear waders! Best investment I ever made!
Lovely frame. Nice to see the feet and I like the layered FG and BG.
Great POV and the filtered light works beautifully.
I think cropping to just above your name would work well without cramming the subject in the least.
Nice image!
Gail

188245

[Brian Sump]

Haha! Didn't even think of the initials! My feeling is that all sharp, well-lit legs are fine. Sure, some are slightly better than others, but I think it depends most on the individual frame....

Makes sense to me