800 f/5.6L/2XIII TC/EOS-1D MIV

[Arthur Morris]

This image of Cattle Egret chicks in the nest was created this morning at Gatorland in Kissimmee, FL with the tripod-mounted Canon 800mm f/5.L IS lens, the 2X III TC, and the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +2/3 stop: 1/320 sec. at f/16 in Manual mode. Bill clean-up.

Live View/Live Mode AF Rear Focus AF as described in the Mark IV User’s Guide. Click here if you missed the Rear Focus Tutorial. Click on the image for a larger version.

What are you thoughts on the foot?

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

If you have been to Gatorland in the past year, you might wish to enter their photography contest; details here.

[Karl Egressy]

The head looks excellent in terms of angle, sharpness, detail.
Unfortunately I don't like the foot as it seems to be a distraction rather than adding to the picture.

[Melissa Groo]

I really like the detail on the head. Excellent exposure and IQ as usual, Artie. I don't like the foot though, feel it detracts. And wish the tip of the bill were sharp.

[Neil Nourse]

Hey Artie, your usual great IQ, but I have to agree with Karl and Melissa this one just doesn't do it for me. I too wish the tip of the bill was a bit sharper.

[Marina Scarr]

Great IQ on the chick with fantastic details in those fluffy white feathers. Did you do any beak clean up? I ask b/c chicks at that age usually have a beak that looks a mess. While I really like the idea you had in mind when composing this picture, I don't feel as though it works. Had it been its sibling's OOF head rather than its foot, it may have had a better chance of working in this particular case.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Artie, excellent exposure and detail on the whites of the chick. Love the eye too. With regards to the foot, it draws my eye there, as its dark against white plumage, and it competes with the bill of the chick.

[Doug Zoern]

It seems to me that it depends on how you look at the image.

If this is an image about the chicks face/head then the foot is a distraction.
My questions are: If the foot were not there how would it change the image? or, If the foot were not there how would the photographer change the presentation of the scene?

Looking at the image as a whole I think the foot adds balance. The three dark areas in the image, the foot, the dark background and the bill form a triangle fairly centered in the image so this is balanced. There is another triangle outlined by the foot and the bill back to the eye and back over to the foot. This one is off center but is balanced by the negative space in the upper right corner.

The thing I’m not crazy about is that the leading lines through the foot and the bill lead the viewers eye out of the frame (or at least very close to the edge). However, I've also noticed that the leading lines keep my eyes in the image. When viewing from the left I stop at the foot, follow the toes down and pickup the line from the bill and follow that to the eye. Where I spin out looking at feather detail ending up in the upper right corner looking a the fine lines against the dark background. I've now viewed the entire image. When viewing from the right all the fine detail in the feathers points you to the eye. From there the major path out is the bill, which leads my eye down but I catch the foot and follow it up into the image where it is a short hop back to the eye.

I have to say, I think the image is better with the foot than without.

[Alan Murphy]

Beautiful detail and exposure. I would warm it up a bit though. The inclusion of the foot works for me especielly with the comp, that's if OOF, and that it shows a young bird not alone.

[Tom Redd]

Artie, unusual image, obviously. IQ is excellent like always, but the foot just doesn't do much for me. It is thinking outside the box and it is something different, but as Stuart mentioned, it competes with the main subject.

[Robert Holguin]

Wonderful shot. Excellent comp, exposed very well, detail is superb, but I agree with the others regarding the foot. I feel it distracts more than it adds.
Well done.

[Jack Breakfast]

The foot adds a lot for me...as A. Murphy pointed out, it shows us that another egret is there. It does draw the eye over to the left side of the image, but then the eye travels back to the right side. To me, this is a most appealing trick in the world of bird photography. The egret on the right looks otherworldly! But it's the left side of the image that brings us into the sweet world of the unusual...well done, I say.

[Don Railton]

Hi Artie

I think the foot could stay if it was in focus but as its not I find it a distraction that draws the eye onto something out of focus. I am happy with the OOF background feathers however as they are white and don't compete for the eye.

DON

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks all for sharing your honest thoughts. As for me, I am with Alan, Mr. Breakfast, and the other foot lovers as it balances the composition nicely and lets you know that the one chick is not alone. And I much prefer it o-o-f to in focus. Do note that I was already at f/16. At MFD you are not gonna get something 3 inches behind the plane of focus sharp with a super-telephoto at any aperture....

[Arthur Morris]

Great IQ on the chick with fantastic details in those fluffy white feathers. Did you do any beak clean up? I ask b/c chicks at that age usually have a beak that looks a mess. While I really like the idea you had in mind when composing this picture, I don't feel as though it works. Had it been its sibling's OOF head rather than its foot, it may have had a better chance of working in this particular case.

The guy on the right has a pretty clean bill for a big chick but I did clean it up. The original is here for comparison.

[Arthur Morris]

Actaully, pretty darned clean. Mostly I toned down the highlights with a 40% Clone Stamp Tool.