In a message dated 6/24/2006 3:24:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/Birds/missed.html
istDS, 1/250 sec, f/4.0, K135/2.5 hand held Comments, crits welcome ... Shel ======== Interesting to see you branch out, and as some have said interesting combo of blur and not blur, but, no, I don't particularly like it. And it's not because it's not traditional. It's because I could take one very similar to it. Take it just as well, or just as badly. :-) One of the standards of bird photography seems to be, basically, that the bird be identifiable. This means showing the bird's significant field marks -- which usually means a lot less blur. I've taken some bird classes, but I am no expert by a long shot. Not even a serious novice. :-) But for serious bird watchers, identifying the bird is very important. There are thousands of types of birds. Having tried a tiny bit of bird photography, and my awareness and admiration just goes up for those that actually do it well. I think it's one of the subgenres of photography that can be ranked as difficult to very difficult -- much more difficult than some other subgenres. Just my .02 cents. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
