Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Blue-eared kingfisher

Discussion

16 replies
Posted by David Sewell on November 26, 2012 at 6:40 AM
Blue-eared kingfisher
Image taken on: Sun Oct 21, 2012 23:53
Focal length: 700 mm
Shutter speed: 1/200 sec
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO speed: 1600
White-balance: Auto
Flash: No
Camera make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera model: D600
Exposure mode: Aperture priority
Exposure compensation: 0 EV
Metering mode: Center Weighted Average


The weather outside is miserable, not just in Kent but over the UK as a whole as far as I can tell, so I have dug back into the Borneo archives, and here is one from a month or so back.

Incidentally, the EXIF information is interesting. The focal length is based on a 300mm f2.8 with a 1.7x converter. By my reckoning that comes to 510mm, not 700 as recorded here. The exif is consistently wrong when this combination is used. Does anyone know why?

If you are wondering why the time of day is also wrong, I base all my picture dates and times on GMT (mainly because I never remember to change it when abroad). As Borneo is 8 hours ahead of the UK I can explain that bit, it is just the focal length that has me puzzled.

David
Posted by Neil Burton on November 26, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Beautiful bird David.
Posted by Bob Johnson on November 26, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Lovely bird David. A bit like the malachite :wink:

Bob :smile:
Posted by Stephen Kaluski on November 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Hi David, would agree with Bob, it does look like the Malachite.

I quite like the posture/ position even if the branch looks like it's running through the body, but I would tone down the branch highlight top LH corner which in turn, would help the 'umbrella' branch over the bird :wink: Personally I think you could bump up the vibrancy a bit more in the BKG. Giving the subject some more rounds of USM, a little bit of a Channels Curve to give a bit more definition in the body & feathers brings it up nicely IMHO, although, again I personally might just drop a bit of red out of the blue feathers to bring that hint of electric to them?

Just my take david.

TFS
Steve
Posted by John Robinson on November 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Looks ok to me David but its just the crop seems a bit awkward.
If it was from a landscape I would have kept it so. No big deal.
Cheers
JR
Posted by Andy Shepherd on November 26, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Awesome bird and I love how the colour of the legs matches that of the breast and lower body. Some good advice given too.

Looking forward to seeing more, David.

Andy... :smile:
Posted by David Sewell on November 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Here is where I have followed Steve's suggestion, which is an improvement (thanks, Steve), although I now find the orange of the breast a little too intense. What do others think?

David
Posted by David Sewell on November 26, 2012 at 12:38 PM
On this version I have kept to the original landscape format, as per John's suggestion. I chose to crop to portrait because of the vertical stick on which the bird was perching, but I am posting this version so that others can decide what they prefer.

Thanks for the suggestions to both of you.

David
Posted by John Robinson on November 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM
David I would crop the one above in landcape. Maybe tone the dark line top left if the crop takes it in. Maybe take out the bright green leaf or darken it too.Last post much better comp wise whatever- -just my opinion. The bird looks a bit gaudy in the second but what do I know ?
JR
Posted by Stephen Kaluski on November 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM
David, I think you have gone a tad too far on the vibrancy, have had to breakout the shades again for this one!!! Will try & fwd the OP with the tweaks which might give you a steer. I think the landscape format sits better, but the branches in the top LH corner are still a little distracting.
Posted by Barry Southon on November 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM
David

Yet another interesting post, with options that highlight personal choices in presentation all of which have merits.

I suspect each monitor probably has a further influence on both adjustments and final viewed image.

A splendid image.

:wink:
Posted by Bob Johnson on November 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Landscape for me David with the orange somewhere between pic one & two. A bit of work on the top left and you have a winner :wink:

Bob :smile:
Posted by keith mitchell on November 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM
David sorry to rock the boat but i like the first one just as it is,natural colour and pose fits the bill for me.
It's good to see all the different views on what is a very good image imho :wavey:

Keith. :smile:
Posted by Paul Whippey on November 26, 2012 at 4:46 PM
I'd also stick with the original, but I agree that you could run a few more USM passes on the bird. A stunning shot otherwise. :toast: :toast: :toast:
Posted by Jeroen Stel on November 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM
What a gorgeous little Kingfisher!
Never seen one like this before. Well seen and i think i like the last post best.

greetings,

Jeroen Stel
Posted by Phil Ellard on November 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Not easy to get all the colours just so but it is a great shot of a stunning little bird so well worth the effort :toast: :toast: :toast:
Posted by Nick Mckeown on November 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Looks like a superb little Kingie and the colours are out of Walt Disney on steroids! Tis a difficult one to crop and I would go with whatever you feel looks right to you David.

Nick. :toast: :toast: :smile: :wavey: