Pfft you lot - I wasn't fooled for a moment!
Now to the Photography!
Shot 1) I'm assuming this was a lean over and quick grabshot at the time, considering the described location - a very lucky close encounter with just 55mm to use. Exposure wise though you've got some blowout on the face areas of the beaver - when shooting in harsh lighting I generally find that its best to set some negative exposure compensation; typically anything from 1/3 to 1 stop underexposing to help protect the highlight areas that get touched by the sun (this is in evaluative metering mode).
That might have netted you a little more shutter speed, as at 1/100sec whilst its more than enough for handshake its not enough really for motion; short looks good at this size, but I suspect is not critically sharp larger. Typically you want to aim for 1/400sec - and when your aperture is already at f4 - that means higher ISO (at that point things get more tricky, as under-exposure makes noise show up more - yet you've also the highlights to balance for - a few test shots on random subjects can help also learn to use the histogram to review shots to better balance against the light).
The polarizer isn't doing much in this shot either, you've got the turn the polarizer to get the most effect and this shot isn't showing what I'd think to be the full effect. (that I can see; the cloudiness looks like water reflection rather than the water content - and of course you might have chosen to preserve some of the cloudiness). For fast wildlife its a tricky tool to use because its taking away 1 stop or so of light - that's your shutter speed slowing which you don't want.
Shot 2 - Woodduck
This looks good, sharp, well focused, good shutter speed as well. The only niggle is more the angle of the shot itself; if you can get down lower it really helps improve the appearances of most wild subjects; it not only gives a new view (looking down is a common view we see most things, so getting low gives the viewer a new vantage point) but also helps to make the creature appear larger in the shot; and they always look smaller in a shot than they do in reality.
Shot 3 - woodduck
This looks missfocused - you've nabbed the back of the bird, but missed the head where the action is happening (I think - the eye area looks a tine bit blurred/soft)
Shot 4 - duckling
You've got a strong diagonal motion in the shot from left to right, however you've got your empty space in the upper section of the shot. That means you've got space where there is no subject nor focus for the viewer - its deadspace and combined with the direction of focus and motion it feels wasted - having that gap more below the duckling, giving him some "room" to look/move into would be more preferable in general.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/35/35597-714b74cc48992e5353856abfe325df68.jpg?1734167220)