Jim, > And I wanted to comment on some of his comments. Kind of different, > but not out of laziness. Oh who cares, read or delete: Actually, thinking about it, it's not too bad. As a purist my initial reaction is always to want to read "first impression" reviews made in isolation - i.e. before the reviewer has been influenced by hearing what others think. However: in a way comments on comments are sort of discussion fodder ... > It's just interesting. And of course, it's got > THAT flag in it... Ah, that flag. > Really, Bob! You a sick, sick man. Tell me something I don't know! > Really, I want to know what's really in this > photo, it's that strange. I will explain later maybe. The title is a clue - or at least the sort of clue that might make sense afterwards. > Ya, for this I would have let some highlights blow out to see the > bird's face. Plus I would have cropped a bit from each side. Stop down > a bit more, just cause you got a fast lens doesn't mean you have to > use it wide open. I find f5.6 a minimum for shots this closeup. I've read Achal's explanation. Sometimes you really don't get the opportunity for a second shot. Always best to just let one go while you are thinking. My biggest regret was the one and only time I saw let alone photographed a UK cuckoo on Berneray. I had the lens on my lap (in the car) 300mm fitted with doubler. I framed and fired a few in rapid succession then it flew off. Bugger! The camera was set to f32!!!! The photo was fine (of the bird) but the background 100m away contained sheep, fence posts etc. At f5.6 it would have been a classic. > Well, it's sharp enough to make a real pleasing 12 by 18, real > pleasing. I'd ask you to send me a full-res excerpt (off list) of just the head / eye but I've got the mail set to delete anything with attachments right now - bloody Swen >he eye has just fallen below the sharpness threshold of web > images that's all. And, I like a variety of poses, head out - got tons > of those... to me this photo is all about the 3 way filling in of > foliage and it's wonderful colour and lustres. You're the ultimate judge, revisiting my best heron shot www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/images/heron752w483h.jpg see what you mean. In an A3 print you can count the feathers ans see a pin-sharp eye/beak. It does not come over so perfect on the web. And pretty good. I too, want > to know how this image was made. My guess is on black and white > channel mixing, and with the rimlighting on the palm, you managed to > make it look like this without any special fakery. Err ... for me channel mixing to this extent was fakery ;o) > like some of the objects reflected must have been manmade. Anyway, > it's got a real impact and feeling of 'ART' to it. Ouch: you uttered that word!!!! >Bob you need to head down to > Edmund's Scientific and get some books on electronics, perhaps a cheap > project like this would be a good place to get into a new hobby. There are only so many hours in the day. I've got too many projects on right now - building, programming, photography - I want my hand held on this one. > Na, a great review, thanks Bob. I hope you can review more often. > Emily's got the butter, you got the salt. I'm throwing in some pepper. Ah, analogy time: Maralyn adds the sugar - Greg the cream - Jim, well pepper? Mmmmm .... Cayenne pepper maybe ;o) Thanks for taking the time to comment . Bob
