1D2n, 600mm f4 is x1.4TC, 1/640s, f7.1, iso 200.
Another pond image, this time of the only tufted duck to make an appearance for a few months. I hope the males return. Comments and critique always appreciated.
Printable View
1D2n, 600mm f4 is x1.4TC, 1/640s, f7.1, iso 200.
Another pond image, this time of the only tufted duck to make an appearance for a few months. I hope the males return. Comments and critique always appreciated.
This is a stunning image in every aspect. The angle and the lighting really make the image sing, can't find a single nit!
You have a great situation and are making great images. Love the low perspective and the killer light and the preening pose. Love the reflections. I do believe that pointing the camera down and right would have yielded an even stronger image with the bird out of the center and more of the reflections.
Yeppers--a stunner! Very dramatic and artistic, The light area behind the head and water ripples spread to the edges of the frame are classic fundamental comp methods and you certainly have worked them to perfection here. Fantastic detail from the side light. Congratulations for the awesome image!
Paul
Wow, that one's so good it looks like a painting where you got to control every single aspect of the bird, the pose, the background, everything. Very well done. In this image I think the bird at the center of the frame, usually not optimal, actually works quite well.
Ian, I really do like your style. Very dramatic effect and well executed. Beautiful lighting and details and pose!!
What strikes me the most is the calmness and smoothness of the water. Great job!
SUperb Angle of shot and great light. Agree with Daniel on calmness of water. It's so good
I like the preening pose, and the quality of light. This is nice and sharp, and just love the overall detail. Well captured Ian.
Another classic Ian, great angle, light and pose... congrats..
Simply brilliant. Fantastic angle, colors pose and light.
Many Thanks Art! Pointing the camera to the right would be straightforward and indeed I could frame the bird in that way. Pointing it down however raises a few issues. There is no problem is actually moving the camera physically, but evey intended action is balanced by another, perhaps less welcome action. From my own experience of the setup and the comments from others, the main appeal is a result of two main ingredients: Firstly, the subject is isolated against distant and vertical background, rather than the water, which is obviously very close to the bird. Secondly, the smooth transition from foreground to background and the reflected light on the bird results from the lens being AT or BELOW and PARRALEL to the water level. Because of the large diameter of the front element, it is certainly possible to get it below water level and still produce a nice effect. However, if the lens is slightly off-parralel, the effect is lost. I could indeed raise the height of the setup a smidgeon and tilt it but this would result in autofocus being hopeless. It is physically well-nigh impossible to manually focus without dislocating a shoulder in the process!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
So I suppose it's a trade-off between the various options really. Hope this explains the dilemma!
Ian
Cracking shot Ian. Can't add much as been all said, other than my respects. WD!
Ian--when you shot this how far off the water would you say the BOTTOM of yours lens shade was? Or was it actually at or below the waters surface?
The other thing I was thinking is that in addition to this type rendition you moigh also take one with the camera high enough so that the ripples in the water are more apparent. Assuming you have a rapid or geared column to do that quickly. I can see both type shots as very appealing. I feel that circular ripples can add a lot to a picture--not that there is a thing wrong here--just to have some variety and sometimes possibly you might like the higher angle.
Paul
PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by paul leverington
I can't be sure how low the lens was, but usually the bottom of the lens is below water level. I see what you mean about alternatives, but in this setup I don't use a centre column, because it would prevent the tripod from going low enough. Therefore it is not easy to adjust the height. I think for this setup, I will probably concentrate on this effect - I do go to other sites that don't allow such a low viewpoint, and, yes ripples are very attractive. I might post some later!
Ian, I am quite confused: You said, "....but usually the bottom of the lens is below water level." That would seem to indicate that your lens is actually in the water. Am I missing something?
Arthur, I'm sorry. I'm asked to explain this so often that I lose track of who I have explained it to. No, I'm not in the water, nor is the camera or lens. Water flows from the pond over a small waterfall. I sit under the waterfall and can position the tripod anywhere. It's the equivalent of having a water tank full to the brim and shooting from outside the tank. Hope this makes sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
