Feets Too Big

[john crookes]

Another Piping Chick from Mondsy

Nikon D3
600mm F4
1.7 EXT
F 9.5
1/750
ISO 280

Fill with SB-900 and Better Beamer

[Jeremy Linning]

Is this on a beach? Nice capture, was it manipulated at all to create the small depth of field?

[Ramon M. Casares]

Love it! I love this type of images, I would give the BG another round of NR and I would suggest also to remove the rock and the stick in the sand in order to leave the chick totaly alone in the frame. But as I said, love it! Congratualtions!

[Ilija Dukovski]

Agree with Ramon on all points, get rid of the rock and stick and you've got a beauty
with great action!

[Marina Scarr]

Hi John:

When I saw the thumbnail, I thought this looks a bit scary. Curiosity took over. Other than the stick and rock which I agree on removing, this is an amazing capture. You have the environment and the great story of this little guy's plight. Congratulations and thank you for sharing something different with the viewers.

[Jim Fenton]

John...

Love the concept and the lighting.

I'm wondering how this would look as a pano cropped to just below the top of the dark band?

I would remove the rock and little stick as this one should be as simple and clean as possible for the most dramatic impact.

[john crookes]

I thought of ceopping to just above the rock But when I did then I lost most of the blue water on the left at the same perspective and a Pano I lost the sunrise sky' . So I left it as is full frame.

I do not remove things from photos it is just a personell choice it was there so it stays

Nothing wrong with doing so to your own but it is a choice I have made for my Nature Photography

Also the narrow depth of field is from Photographing at just over 1000mm and at F9

one of the reasons for photographing at wide aperatures

[Fabs Forns]

John, I understand your choice of not removing things from pictures, then, you have to take into account that you have to work a little harder, move your position or setup and try to get a clean picture from the start. The rock is an image killer.

[john crookes]

Fabs,

I was laying in the sand when this yungster decided to move that way and I had already been laying there since before the sun came up to gain the birds confidense that allowed them to roam freely around me.
I would never move and cause any loss of that confidense and because of that will live with what i photographed here.

You think the rock is a photo killer I think it shows the beach as they are up here in the northeast

John

Heree is the alternate crop i tried but to me it did not have the same effect as the original

[Fabs Forns]

John, I like your second crop better. Just because there are rocks in the environment, it doesn't mean they would contribute as a positive element in a photograph. Our jobs as photographers is exactly trying to incorporate the elements in an appealing manner, not because they are there. If the rock were in focus. behind the bird, I'd go for it, a nice habitat element that would add to enrich the image. As presented, out of cous and close th the frame's edge, I don;t care how typical of the beach it is, it is a negative.
I applaud your ethics, just happen to think that they go with the extra work to try and create a pleasing image in the camera. If PS is not going to be your friend, then make your legs do the work.

[john crookes]

Fabs ,

as I said I was lying in the sand and was not going to move and send the family of Plovers scurring back into the vegetation.
No matter how much I wanted to improve the image the safety and concern for the welfare of the birds weighs more than any photo