[missbirdphotos] Re: Hooded warbler

  • From: Larry Pace <larrypace64@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT)

Amen!!  Cluttered backgrounds are a fact of nature photography.

Larry


________________________________
 From: Robert Smith <rsmithent@xxxxxxx>
To: missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:55 AM
Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Hooded warbler
 

 
Two more good ones!  Sometimes clutter is all you can get & represents the 
reality of the bird & it's habitat MUCH better than an "artistically - 
approved" shot!

Robert Smith
336-339-3497
rsmithent@xxxxxxx
www.photobiologist.com
 

 

> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:38:21 -0500
> Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Hooded warbler
> From: jcliburn@xxxxxxxxx
> To: missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> I appreciate your comments, Robert.  Thanks a lot.
> 
> I'm with you on the branch clutter.  Later last evening I went through
> the 50 or so shots I'd taken and came up with a couple more.  Although
> it's blown out in spots, I like DSC_0935 much better as a singing shot
> because it's way less cluttered.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Jay
> 
> I like DSC_0929 because it's a better diagnostic shot, showing more
> hood and back.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Robert Smith <rsmithent@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I like both of these - though the first one (in the poorer light) seems
> > better to me because the limbs frame the bird rather than protrude from the
> > background.  I heard one of these guys Friday, but he never came out of the
> > oak limbs to pose for me!  Congrats on a cool bird!
> >
> > Robert Smith
> > 336-339-3497
> > rsmithent@xxxxxxx
> > www.photobiologist.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:05:11 -0500
> >> Subject: [missbirdphotos] Re: Hooded warbler
> >> From: jcliburn@xxxxxxxxx
> >> To: Missbirdphotos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>
> >> I went back this evening and got him in different light.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM, J. K. Cliburn <jcliburn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Got this about an hour ago or so.  Comments and criticism welcome.
> >> >
> >> > Jay

Other related posts: