The Blue Heron Stretch

Gallery: AvianPosted July 7, 2010114 views7 comments

Taken from a boat on a lake in NE Kansas late June.

Bird appeared to be in molt with skin showing on point of carpus.

Nikon d300, 18-200 at 200 [300mm effective], f/9, ISO 200, 1/320 sec.
25% crop

In watching posts on Avian I know the wings are supposed to be not blurred but I think this shot justifies a slight movement, although unintentional on my part.

I don't shoot many birds and would appreciate constructive criticism on this photo.

the fisch

Comments

7 comments

Comment posted by Peter Conway on July 7, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I don't really think there are any rules on motion blur in the wings.

I think it depends on the effect you are striving for, the blur certainly conveys motion here. I think it would be easier for comments if you added in your shutter speed and aperture values. I am also curious as to if this is 25% of FF or 75%, I am not sure what you meant.

For me the major nit is that the distant shoreline is a distraction from the subject, especially in the ULC

Peter

Registered on June 25, 2007, 347 Posts, 3913 Comments

Comment posted by Charles Gangas on July 7, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I have no problem with the blurred wing, as Peter points out it depends on the effect you're after and I agree that motion is certainly conveyed here. I would try to defocus the shoreline BG if possible. Nice capture.

Registered on August 12, 2009, 544 Posts, 2414 Comments

Comment posted by Michele Williams on July 7, 2010 at 8:49 PM

I agree that motion blur isn't good or bad, but usually I prefer either more blur (lots of motion) or none. Also, it looks to me like the post on the right is in sharp focus and the heron is not. Are you using spot focus? That is what works best for me, especially for birds. I do like the position of the heron though.

Registered on April 3, 2010, 28 Posts, 146 Comments

Comment posted by Terry Sohl on July 7, 2010 at 9:05 PM

The wing blur works for me, and the background doesn't bother me much. I do wish there was a bit of separation between the feet and the stump.

Registered on November 1, 2003, 513 Posts, 6889 Comments

Comment posted by Richard Ditch on July 7, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Wing blur isn't a problem for me, and there are no "rules" about that anyway. Only personal preferences.

More at issue is the saturation (a bit high for my tastes) and the contrast (also a bit on the high side).

Registered on November 1, 2003, 1031 Posts, 12705 Comments

Comment posted by Larry Fischer on July 8, 2010 at 8:26 AM

Thanks for the comments.
I learned from them.
Yes, I tweaked the contrast and saturation and it appears too much.
I took a series of pics but did not have the camera on continuous. Consquently the separation of the feet from the stump is what it is--but something I had not considered--and a valid point.
And I usually post more data. Will do so.
Again, thanks for your time.
the fisch

Registered on July 28, 2008, 155 Posts, 874 Comments

Comment posted by June Marie Wingert on July 8, 2010 at 1:15 PM

The background shore is not a problem for me, I like the picture it denotes some dynamic energy going on.

Registered on July 1, 2010, 8 Posts, 137 Comments