White throated dipper

[Gregor Bergquist]

Hi everyone

Took this picture in february that I like to share. It is taken at Sickla sluss in Stockholm. Used a Nikon D90 and Nikon 70-200 + TC-20EIII @ 400mm, 1/250s, f/5,6, ISO 800. Cropped & applied some sharpening, but no other major alterations done.

[Kerry Perkins]

Hi Gregor, cute little bird here and it looks like it is standing on the water! You did a good job with handling the whites although the shadow areas are a bit dark. The shooting angle here gave you a tough time! Better to get a nice low angle and more of a profile so you can see the bird's wing and tail better. The angle also caused the shadow to be larger than the bird in the frame. I like the little water drop on the end of the beak. Would love to see the nice smooth water in the upper right as well - the debris and white spots are distracting. I'm sure you will see this little bird again, try to get a better angle and down low if you can!

[John Chardine]

Hi Gregor- Great bird! We don't have dippers in the east of North America. Good comments from Kerry. The main issue with this image as mentioned is the camera angle. Lower angles get you into the dipper's world and provide much more impact. Once you are down low (if you can!) you can decide whether to go really low and include whatever there might be above the water (sky, vegetation or whatever), or a little higher and have the substrate- in this case water- in the background too. Regarding the head angle, it would be better to have the bird's head slightly turned towards you rather than away. Again this adds impact to the image.

Look forward to seeing more!

[Paul Guris]

I love the wetness around the feet, the reflection, and the whole image.

I'm going to have to question the comments on camera angle, though. I understand and agree that a lower camera angle is usually more desirable, but wouldn't the reflection be significantly less impressive if this image had been taken at a lower angle? It just feels like there's a trade-off here to get the lower angle. I'm interested in hearing if commenters agree there's a trade-off and, if yes, if a lower angle would trump the reflection for them in this image. (Hope all that makes sense.)

[John Chardine]

Paul- you can get some fantastic reflections at pretty low angles, certainly much lower than this, particularly if you have clean, still water. Only at extremely low angles does the reflecting surface show little depth. As the camera angle decreases, the shape of the reflection becomes more vertically compressed but it's still there. Try this out with a mirror. I can post an example if you like.

[Paul Guris]

Thanks for the reply, John. I have an ornamental pond in my yard. I'll turn off the pump to get it still and try some experiments this weekend.

[Gregor Bergquist]

I think the reflection in this image is nice. Will try lower angles when possible. Most time this bird is found in streams. And you get really cool images of it jumping in to the freezing coold water, or standing in it. But you mostly dont find in in still water. This time I just had a opportunity above the bird standing on a small bridge. Just like Kerry wrote, I think the debris in the ice is distracting.

Thanks for all C&C, Gregor

Here is a picture of it turning it head to me, like saying: I see you..

[Kerry Perkins]

I love the wetness around the feet, the reflection, and the whole image.

I'm going to have to question the comments on camera angle, though. I understand and agree that a lower camera angle is usually more desirable, but wouldn't the reflection be significantly less impressive if this image had been taken at a lower angle? It just feels like there's a trade-off here to get the lower angle. I'm interested in hearing if commenters agree there's a trade-off and, if yes, if a lower angle would trump the reflection for them in this image. (Hope all that makes sense.)

Paul, what do you mean by "significantly less impressive"? If you mean "smaller", yes that is exactly the point. The reflection should not be significantly bigger than the bird. This is a function of the shooting angle.

[Gregor Bergquist]

Paul, what do you mean by "significantly less impressive"? If you mean "smaller", yes that is exactly the point. The reflection should not be significantly bigger than the bird. This is a function of the shooting angle.

All right, we just need to find out exactly which angel that produce the same size reflection...