least sandpiper juvenal plumage

[Keith Carver]

Southbound migrant at Weskeag Marsh, South Thomaston, Maine, 8-26-08, one of several thousand of these tiny jewels fattening up on the mudflats. Although the legs look dark in this photo, they are actually greenish-yellow. I love these spunky little guys.

1DM3, 500mm, 2.0xTC, ISO800, f/8, 1/4000, -0.3EV, USM 120/0.2/0.

Comments appreciated.

[Arthur Morris]

I like the reflection and the feeding behavior and the EXP is good. I would like to have seen more room below the reflection.

After being totally wrong on Beth's bird in Avian ID, I will state that this is a juvenile Semipalmated Sandpiper. (Heck, maybe I will go 2 for 2.) Do check out the thread. I am trying to post Kevin Karlson's extensive comments on relying on leg and soft parts color for ID of juvenile peeps but have run into technical difficulties for a bit.

[Rob Palmer]

Very nice. Like the water on the bill but to me it looks quite soft on my monitor.

[Keith Carver]

Thanks, Artie. I do have (and study) both your Beautiful Beachcombers and The Shorebird Guide, but readily admit to being bamboozled by Leasts vs. Semis. Am certainly no expert but am slowly learning.

I had read the lengthy discussion re Beth's bird in Avian ID, especially your comment:

It appears that the yellow legs are in part covered with mud. I have seen juvie Semis with greenish legs but never yellow. ...

I should probably have posted this on the Avian ID section. However, I do have a closeup of this bird's yellowish-greenish legs (but not webbing) from the same photo sequence. That, plus the overall brownish look, led me to conclude it was a Least. Do you still think it's a Semi?

[Wayne Richardson]

Hi Keith

I agree with Artie on this one! :D

It is a Semip based on jizz, head pattern, bill structure & feather detail, i.e. note the distinctive 'anchor' markings on the coverts. Ignoring the mud, the legs are quite a dark green with lighter mottling (same basic shade) in some areas & don't look yellowish to my eyes.

Cheers: Wayne

[Keith Carver]

Thanks, Wayne. I have re-read (about six times!) Beth's post on Avian ID, Artie's comments, yours, and now weighing in Crossley, etc. It's quite an education on semipals vs. leasts just to read that thread. Should have posted this one on Avian ID to begin with. Anyway, I accept your ID and appreciate your comments, and Artie's.

[Robert O'Toole]

Keith,

Yes the image looks soft, sometimes the IS gets bumped off and the sharpness will really suffer with the 2X. Also its better to bump the ISO or lower the SS and stop down a 1/3 or 2/3 at least, 1 is better, this helps with the 2x also.

Are all the frames in this series soft as this one or just a few?

Robert

[Keith Carver]

Thanks, Robert. The other two images in this series look sharper to me but composition isn't as good. The IS was on, but it's possible I didn't hold the lens tight enough for this image.

I'm going shooting same site early tomorrow morning, with the 2X, will try both higher ISO, and a combination of lower SS and stopping down. Thanks for the helpful suggestions. Maybe I'll have something better to post tomorrow night.

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Keith,
I like your composition, The subject looks a little soft. Would have liked a bit more room at the bottom for the reflection. Like the water droplet coming off the bill...:cool: