NPN has moved to naturephotographers.networkYou’re viewing the read-only archive of the original site (2000–2018). The community is active today, with new critiques and discussions every day.
Posted by Magnus Hird on December 20, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Seeing John's thrushes on mistletoe reminded me to look back at some shots I got a month or so ago on a damp morning. The above was a bit of a grab as one alighted on top of a WW2 pillbox in the local woodland. Pity about the missing legs but none of the trees were climbable
40D + 120-300 and 1.4xTC @ 420mm, ISO 1600 and f7.1 for 1/320
Hand held, full frame
All comments welcome
Posted by John Robinson on December 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Hi Magnus
Is this not a Mistle ?
Anyway good stuff.
Great backdrop too.
Cheers
Johnr
Posted by Tom Smit on December 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Hi Magnus,
Good shot. May be the BG is a little too much.
I personally find it not a problem the legs are not visible. But that depends on what you want, a good shot or a complete bird e.g. for determination. I think you succeeded in the first, and that's no problem.
Posted by Magnus Hird on December 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Thanks for looking John,
I had wondered which but the bird guide I checked suggests mistles are greyer on top and don't have the russety colours to the sides although it was only a cheap one picked up at a bargain shop a while ago so I wouldn't be surprised if they've got it wrong!
Posted by John Robinson on December 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Magnus
Thats it- the grey on the back/size, and just the general "jizz "of the bird.
The spots can appear bolder too.
John
Posted by Bertl Menegoni on December 21, 2008 at 7:21 AM
Hi,
BG is different but I like it. Bird and Comp is great.
Bertl
Posted by Matt Cole on December 21, 2008 at 8:01 AM
a striking image Magnus, a slight shame you couldn't climb a tree but you'd made the best of the angle you did have.
Matt
Posted by John Varley on December 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Good shot Magnus, with an interesting background. My vote is for Mistle.
Lovely shot, Magnus. The "missing" legs are no problem for me.
Posted by David Sewell on December 22, 2008 at 5:29 AM
Lovely shot, Magnus, but the others are right - this is a definite Mistle. The description in your bird book is right - look at the much richer browns on a song thrush. The good news is that mistles are much harder to photograph in my experience, so be glad to have a shot as good as this.
David
Posted by Cliff Young on December 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Hi Magnus, nice shot but I find the bg colours too intense and personally speaking would prefer to see something of the feet, maybe shooting from a different angle. Cliff
Posted by Magnus Hird on December 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Thanks everyone for looking and commenting. I'll get it renamed on my computer - having had a look at some other ID guides this weekend I also agree. The cheap book's colours are out! That will probably be the last image I post before Xmas, so have a great time everyone and I hope Santa brings us some perfect weather and obliging subjects
Discussion
11 replies40D + 120-300 and 1.4xTC @ 420mm, ISO 1600 and f7.1 for 1/320
Hand held, full frame
All comments welcome
Is this not a Mistle ?
Anyway good stuff.
Great backdrop too.
Cheers
Johnr
Good shot. May be the BG is a little too much.
I personally find it not a problem the legs are not visible. But that depends on what you want, a good shot or a complete bird e.g. for determination. I think you succeeded in the first, and that's no problem.
I had wondered which but the bird guide I checked suggests mistles are greyer on top and don't have the russety colours to the sides although it was only a cheap one picked up at a bargain shop a while ago so I wouldn't be surprised if they've got it wrong!
Thats it- the grey on the back/size, and just the general "jizz "of the bird.
The spots can appear bolder too.
John
BG is different but I like it. Bird and Comp is great.
Bertl
Matt
John
David