Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Jan 10, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    They're small, they're fast, and they're flighty as hell, but even
    from the safety of across a pond the diminutive Kingfisher cannot
    escape the 40D, the Forgotten 400 w/the 1.4x TC, and the window clamp
    ballhead mounted on the new Altima.
    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Wonderful photo.

    Rita, take note that the sticks in the background are not showing up
    double, this is how a photo should look.

    Great capture Bret.

    Scott W, Jan 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Rita will claim the the Nikon must have twice the resolution of the
    Hence, the double sticks.
    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2008
  4. Annika1980

    PixelPix Guest

    I think Rita enjoys being beaten with sticks! lol
    PixelPix, Jan 10, 2008
  5. LOL!

    Sure, if it came straight out of the camera that way. We all know that it
    didn't. The kingfisher is so over Photoshoped that it lacks any detail and
    is lucky to have 16-colors. I'll stick with top notch images straight out
    of the camera and let the trickery up to the people that can't take a decent
    picture and need to draw them in Photoshop.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 10, 2008
  6. Annika1980

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    That's a cracker of a shot! Love it. Good to see not much IQ
    lost with the 1.4x too.
    Troy Piggins, Jan 10, 2008

  7. I couldn't agree more with Scott in that this is how a photo should
    Gorgeous color and detail of the bird's feathers. Superb
    composition. Belted Kingfishers are extremely flighty, very fast and
    easily frightened.
    To die for capture.
    And FWIW, there is no "trickery" done here, because I KNOW how
    Kingfishers look.
    Just pure talent, diligence and patience from a great wildlife
    helensilverburg, Jan 10, 2008
  8. Annika1980

    Bob AZ Guest

    , but even

    Should print nice. Will let you know.

    Where does one find Kingfishers?

    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Jan 10, 2008
  9. Annika1980

    Troy Piggins Guest

    * Bob AZ is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    On their thronefishers?

    Sorry, that was terrible...

    Chasing their mistressfishers?

    Oh god, Troy. Stop now...
    Troy Piggins, Jan 10, 2008
  10. Annika1980

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Sorry Rita, Your voice is muffled, could you open up the gap in your hat
    a little please.
    Neil Ellwood, Jan 10, 2008
  11. Annika1980

    Walter Banks Guest

    One finds Kingfishers flying away at a great rate of knots.
    There was a pair last summer nesting about 300 yards
    from my house. I have exactly one picture of a dot
    sitting on a wire.

    Walter Banks, Jan 10, 2008
  12. Annika1980

    Walter Banks Guest

    Well done..
    Walter Banks, Jan 10, 2008
  13. Annika1980

    Draco Guest

    Very good quality image of the Kingfisher. I placed it next to Rita's
    on screen and yours has a deeper, richer color saturation than does
    Rita's. Both are very sharp and given the focal lenths involved the
    backgrounds arenot very busy at all.
    Rita's does have a better angle of the light. But Bret's has a
    better saturation of color. Both are very good.

    Draco, Jan 10, 2008
  14. Annika1980

    jean Guest

    Feet in mouth do that too.

    jean, Jan 10, 2008
  15. Annika1980

    jean Guest

    So phtoshop yours to see if it is better than Bret's!

    jean, Jan 10, 2008
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Over creeks and ponds. You'll need a long lens because they are
    flighty buggers.
    Annika1980, Jan 10, 2008
  17. Annika1980

    jean Guest

    EXIF data shows only the 400, was the TC on too? (not a Canon TC??)

    jean, Jan 10, 2008
  18. I'm not sure how you can call either one sharp? Bret's was over processed
    and lacks detail and depth, natural or otherwise. My crop was taken from a
    100% image that was clearly beyond the range of having a usable image. This
    was taken handheld at 500mm and is a bit soft. There is no post processing
    other than cropping. Even with the blown highlights it has much more
    natural detail and depth.
    That's because when you try to create an animation in Photoshop you need to
    have skills sufficient enough to be able to get these small details good
    enough to pull of the deception.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 10, 2008
  19. NO! That's not the point or goal. I could do an animation like Bret's but
    that's not my goal. First off, this isn't a Photoshop group and I have no
    intentions of creating the plastic excrement that Bret puts out and try to
    pass them off as photographs.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 10, 2008
  20. Like we are going to believe Bret's EXIF data! Yeah, right.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.