- This topic is empty.
Greenfinch
-
Shot yesterday evening as I dozed in my hide. Was there for the Yellowhammers and 4 of the buggers landed right in front of me … in the shadow of the hide and too close to focus. They also seemed to know I was there, unlike the other birds.
Excellent. The branches detract a little from the overall photo, but you must be well pleased with this all the same. I would be.
I am pleased with it. As for branches… I don’t get this fantatical “I dont want a background” approach that is evident in the C&C sections of magazines. The bird was in a tree. They usually are. Branches are in trees too. They usually are too. :D As long as the background doesn’t take away from the subject and the bird is not bisected then I’m happy.
This was hard as heck to shoot. It was still pretty windy and branches were wobbling like crazy. The birds were not staying still so I had to completely rely on pre-composing, pre-focusing and pre-metering.
I think it’s fine. I tried to do the same today minus a hide and got a few nice shots of birds flying away. It’s perfectly sharp and exposed. I wouldn’t even consider the background worthy of comment – it isn’t distracting given the quality of the main subject.
Alan.
Cracking shot Aidan. Absolutely sharp and brilliant
colour throughout.
Birds… in trees… who’d have thunk it.Rob.
Thanks Alan and Rob.
Alan, something I was doing with some success before I got the hide was to set up the tripod about 3 or so meters from likely landing places and sit behind it on a cheap collapsable camping seat. The Tits don’t mind me all that much and if I stayed still I was getting some of the others come close. I even got a shot of the extremely shy Dunnock using this method a few months back. It takes some patience until the birds stop to care about you. It does require some blending though … I’ve an old fleece that I often wear … plus an ex-brit army uniform for camo.
joe_elway wrote:
I am pleased with it. As for branches… I don’t get this fantatical “I dont want a background” approach that is evident in the C&C sections of magazines. The bird was in a tree. They usually are. Branches are in trees too. They usually are too. :D As long as the background doesn’t take away from the subject and the bird is not bisected then I’m happy.
This was hard as heck to shoot. It was still pretty windy and branches were wobbling like crazy. The birds were not staying still so I had to completely rely on pre-composing, pre-focusing and pre-metering.
It’s a pretty well perfect shot of the bird. I’m not taking anything away from that. It’s better than any bird photo I have taken.
What I said about the branches still stands, though. Your shot demonstrates how even a fairly colourful bird can be camouflaged. One has to force one’s eye to find the bird’s outline in this photo, and the reason is that the branches by the bill and tail are almost in focus. The reason that the best bird books use paintings and not photos is that it is very difficult to show all the important features of a bird in a photo. For the same reason, plant books use paintings too. The closest the photographer can get to achieving a specimen shot is to isolate the bird with a background of uninterrupted blur.
I agree with the point about branches. Unless the foilage is obscuring the bird to the point of distraction, I wouldn’t worry about it :D I think this a great capture of a Greenfinch in its natural environment, nice one :wink:
Wow I’m such a critic tonight :lol:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
