[Clinton]

Thanks. But you can see what I mean. It's a mistake to set your lens for F/9 for sharpest picture, then shoot at 1/320th here. You can see some of the water droplets in motion, and their shape implies that 1/1000 or faster is mandatory for this kind of shot. Which the K-5 could easily have handled by going to ISO 800. I learned a lot from this one error. Next time I get a chance for a shot like this, I'll be ready.

TaV mode is sometimes the way to go. Let the ISO float, and set your aperture and shutter speed for what you need.

[Take-5-JB]

I am not a pro, although I have some time behind an eyepiece (1st SLR was 1977). My first impression when looking at your photo is not the critical aspect you ascribe. I see an asymmetry that conveys 3 dimensional aspect to the shot and the droplets convey the motion of the scene.

Many times one sees a "perfect" shot that looks like someone cut and pasted exactly perfect parts onto a palatte in perfectly boring 2 dimensions. Maybe I ascribe a different value and quality to a photo, but perfect is boring and for pixel peeping. You made a wonderful capture that I would be proud of having made and to heck with the "mistakes". I photograph for what is conveyed to me and hopefully others viewing. To those that want to be perfectionists and nit-pick, I say go on to the next "perfect" photo and leave me in my ignorance in my happy little non-perfect place.

JB

[Greyser]

I am not a pro, although I have some time behind an eyepiece (1st SLR was 1977). My first impression when looking at your photo is not the critical aspect you ascribe. I see an asymmetry that conveys 3 dimensional aspect to the shot and the droplets convey the motion of the scene.

Many times one sees a "perfect" shot that looks like someone cut and pasted exactly perfect parts onto a palatte in perfectly boring 2 dimensions. Maybe I ascribe a different value and quality to a photo, but perfect is boring and for pixel peeping. You made a wonderful capture that I would be proud of having made and to heck with the "mistakes". I photograph for what is conveyed to me and hopefully others viewing. To those that want to be perfectionists and nit-pick, I say go on to the next "perfect" photo and leave me in my ignorance in my happy little non-perfect place.

JB

Hi, What do you think about these three: crispness vs. blurriness?

[Skymist]

I am not a pro, although I have some time behind an eyepiece (1st SLR was 1977). My first impression when looking at your photo is not the critical aspect you ascribe. I see an asymmetry that conveys 3 dimensional aspect to the shot and the droplets convey the motion of the scene. Many times one sees a "perfect" shot that looks like someone cut and pasted exactly perfect parts onto a palatte in perfectly boring 2 dimensions. Maybe I ascribe a different value and quality to a photo, but perfect is boring and for pixel peeping. You made a wonderful capture that I would be proud of having made and to heck with the "mistakes". I photograph for what is conveyed to me and hopefully others viewing. To those that want to be perfectionists and nit-pick, I say go on to the next "perfect" photo and leave me in my ignorance in my happy little non-perfect place. JB

Thanks for putting it into a more artistic (or journalistic?) perspective. I do tend to over stress over the technicals and let the composition slide. If this had been a UFO I was photographing, I would have been happy just to have gotten the shot. I should feel that way about any unposed, non still-life shot that conveys something. I couldn't toss that shot because of its being the exact moment I was seeking, and one other thing, the thing that gets me is the eyes. That bird has eyes that just say Madness. If that bird were 100 times its size, it would do well in a monster film, with eyes like those. (Hopefully slightly sharper focused...)

Here's the same bird, about 2 seconds later than the previous shot. With less motion, it's sharper, but maybe not as interesting. Here's where the Tamron just loses it, with the purple fringing in the water reflection, though. Same settings as previous shot, but heavily cropped.

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks. That's about my rate too, thank goodness for digital media. I find at least half of the throwaways are bad focus. I often wonder if this would be better if I were using a Canon or Nikon camera. Any opinion on that?

Thanks stormtech. Yes I wish everyone posted as much detailed exposure, lens, and conditions info as possible. That's why I do it.
Thanks 8540Tomg and Dane.Dawg.

Here's a mystery Sandpiper. Despite my online searching I can't pin down its species. It's larger than the Least Sandpiper (about 6 inches). Perhaps it's a juvenile.
K-5 with handheld Bigma, AF & ME, F/6 at 1/750th, ISO 800, heavy overcast afternoon. In-camera jpeg conversion from raw.

no mystery

spotted sandpiper,

the key is the white between neck and shoulder

[Skymist]

no mystery
spotted sandpiper,
the key is the white between neck and shoulder

It fits! Non-breeding plumage, that's why I didn't see it at first.
Thanks!

[dane.dawg]

Great photos Greyser. Do you mind telling us your first name?

[Lowell Goudge]

It fits! Non-breeding plumage, that's why I didn't see it at first.
Thanks!

No problem.

I have put a thread as a placeholder in the birder's social club for future reference. If you aren't sure post questions here

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/161-birding-group/2227-id-bird.html#gmessage26324

[Greyser]

Great photos Greyser. Do you mind telling us your first name?

No problem. My PPG:

PENTAX : PENTAX Photo Gallery artist page

[Take-5-JB]

Hi, What do you think about these three: crispness vs. blurriness?

Greyser,

I sense this may be a test. I am degreed in Chemistry and Biology, not Art or Photography. I have spent a lot of my life in the outdoors and nature. So here goes.....

Photo 1 is a delight and I chuckled when I scrolled down to it. I am sure a drop or two are crisply in focus, but the blurring (wing tips, etc) gives me a sense of action. There is no eye to connect with, but that bird is happy to be alive at that moment. I think the photo is alive. Would it win an award? I don't know, but consider the Mona Lisa versus one of the Picasso females (say Nude, Green Leaves and a Bust). Which would win ... depends on the judges.

Photo 2 is great. I am a fool for good reflections and it is sharp. The droplets and ripple give action and keep it from looking like a museum mount. I like the fact that one can see into the water to the bottom and glimpse the feet. While there are no "landmarks" and surrounding points to contribute, or frame things, the visual dimensions give the eye alot to play with.

Photo 3 is interesting. The eye is a bit out of focus, but the feather detail is nice. With the bird perched on the partially submerged limb and showing great intensity, there is some drama created in the photo which makes me enjoy viewing it.

Ok. So much for my POV. Did I pass or fail the test?

JB

[Take-5-JB]

Thanks for putting it into a more artistic (or journalistic?) perspective. I do tend to over stress over the technicals and let the composition slide. If this had been a UFO I was photographing, I would have been happy just to have gotten the shot. I should feel that way about any unposed, non still-life shot that conveys something. I couldn't toss that shot because of its being the exact moment I was seeking, and one other thing, the thing that gets me is the eyes. That bird has eyes that just say Madness. If that bird were 100 times its size, it would do well in a monster film, with eyes like those. (Hopefully slightly sharper focused...)

Here's the same bird, about 2 seconds later than the previous shot. With less motion, it's sharper, but maybe not as interesting. Here's where the Tamron just loses it, with the purple fringing in the water reflection, though. Same settings as previous shot, but heavily cropped.

Skymist,

I like the sunlight in the eye and the beak. You are right about the eyes. The intensity of the predatory birds should make us very happy they didn't evolve as 40-50 foot tall versions. There would be alot fewer mammals, including people running around.

JB

[Skymist]

No problem.

I have put a thread as a placeholder in the birder's social club for future reference. If you aren't sure post questions here

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/161-birding-group/2227-id-bird.html#gmessage26324

Thanks, but it isn't letting me post there. Do I have to join a group first? Answer: yes.

[Greyser]

Greyser,

I sense this may be a test.

There is no test. I have plenty of slightly off focus shots of water birds catching/holding/swallowing fish. Believe me, the sharp and crispy ones look better.

I am degreed in Chemistry and Biology, not Art or Photography. I have spent a lot of my life in the outdoors and nature.

I hold PhD in Material Sciences and what I do every day for living is far away from Art and Photography too. However, I'm so excited when I'm able to get a decent enough shot. I'm not sure what is it: a passion, hobby, or just a part of my life already. I'm pretty sure the majority of us here feel the same.

Photo 1 is a delight and I chuckled when I scrolled down to it. I am sure a drop or two are crisply in focus, but the blurring (wing tips, etc) gives me a sense of action. There is no eye to connect with, but that bird is happy to be alive at that moment. I think the photo is alive. Would it win an award? I don't know, but consider the Mona Lisa versus one of the Picasso females (say Nude, Green Leaves and a Bust). Which would win ... depends on the judges.

Photo 2 is great. I am a fool for good reflections and it is sharp. The droplets and ripple give action and keep it from looking like a museum mount. I like the fact that one can see into the water to the bottom and glimpse the feet. While there are no "landmarks" and surrounding points to contribute, or frame things, the visual dimensions give the eye alot to play with.

Photo 3 is interesting. The eye is a bit out of focus, but the feather detail is nice. With the bird perched on the partially submerged limb and showing great intensity, there is some drama created in the photo which makes me enjoy viewing it.

Ok. So much for my POV. Did I pass or fail the test?

JB

Thank you JB very much for the kind words. Believe it or not your thoughts are very similar to what I feel myself about these shots. Even #3. It is dreamier than the one which is focused at the beak-head-eye. I have this one two. It is more dynamic and sportier, I would say. For some reason I like the posted one here more.

There are two more similar shots:

[BigDave]

Greyser- Nice capture on the top one! That fowl is defying gravity! Great timing!

[crewl1]

Excellent shots and action on this page, folks!

Here's my contribution to the 'Birds fishing while splashing' topic.