Starsphinx Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Out with the camera yesterday - mainly doing town and landscape work so only had the 18-105mm lens. Walking back I had one of those moments nature delights in throwing at photographers without their zooms - a kingfisher. I took a load of shots anyway - just to see what I could get - the light wasn't brilliant either. Anyway one of the shots has come out way better than anything I have managed in that situation before - but I cannot assess it accurately as I have nothing else to assess it against. I am not submitting it - but would appreciate some feedback on what I got right, what I got wrong - and if the situation is just beyond the camera and lens (more the lens - if I had my 300mm and a tripod I would have known what I was doing lol) I cannot get the image to show on here from Dropbox so am just putting the link - if it doesn't work please let me know. Thank you https://www.dropbox.com/s/5fhdujk00j3buqw/289-Dec-20-2018 - bath.jpg?dl=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Search the Alamy database for 'kingfisher'... and see how it compares... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Yup, I understand your pleasure at spotting a Kingfisher and managing to capture it in camera. I've only ever seen a kingfisher on two occasions and was unable to get a picture! However, some folk make this their life's work and there are some incredible images available. You need a longer lens, a hide, a dollop of luck, and an awful lot of patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 OTOH, you could rebrand it as a concept image. A number of us can identify with that little bird after the recent commission kerfuffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starsphinx Posted December 21, 2018 Author Share Posted December 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, John Morrison said: Search the Alamy database for 'kingfisher'... and see how it compares... Oh its not going to touch them. I have taken half decent shots of kingfishers before - just not at 105mm 1/125th iso 500. I am lucky, my town has fairly shock proof kingfishers who have been known to ignore 20 odd people 30ft away. Come summer I will try and get some shots for here. The image I have put up is just one where I have pushed everything I have - I was a distance from the bird, it was not bright, it was not the ideal lens etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Kingfishers are birds of habit. Good chance you'll find it in the same spot day after day. Some people create a perfect perch for the bird. Some go even further. A car is a good blind btw, if you don't have a real one. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starsphinx Posted December 22, 2018 Author Share Posted December 22, 2018 8 hours ago, wiskerke said: Kingfishers are birds of habit. Good chance you'll find it in the same spot day after day. Some people create a perfect perch for the bird. Some go even further. A car is a good blind btw, if you don't have a real one. wim My lucky town has nearly tame kingfishers - they will happily fish less than 30ft from groups of people pointing at them. I should not have any problems with a targetted shoot of them (although being animals they will note I am focused on them and practice being awkward) The photo above was absolutely not a targeted shoot - it is absolutely the last way I would seek to get a shot of a kingfisher. I had been doing a town centre shoot - was walking back to my car and was presented with this by chance. I feel I pushed everything I had to limits - and I have a shot where you can zoom in on the kingfisher and it still stays relatively sharp considering how small it is in the frame. At this stage in my experience I do not feel I could have done better - what I want to know is what areas of my experience do I need to work on so I could do better. Is everyone else with something that small getting it way sharper under those conditions - and how. With that distance, that light, that lens was there anything extra I could have done. Not for an image for stock but just for the technical challenge of such a small subject at such a distance with totally wrong conditions. The old if I understand how to gain the most from incorrect set ups my correct set ups will also improve. The image is not compositionally - it is not going to be offered for sale - I am just after technical critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAROL SAUNDERS Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 I think you made the most of bad light and lack of reach here and it really goes to show that you don't always need massive heavy lenses i.e., last year I was lucky locally to get some nice shots of a Kingfisher in an urban situation a few in my port I think. At the time I was using a heavy 200-400mm handheld. It was so close I had to zoom out and the exif shows the focal length between 180 and 200mm, could have used my 70-200mm 2.8 ! You never can tell, good luck with shooting a few more. Carol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.