Ducks

[jcdeboever]

Unedited, Canon SX60HS.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ZombiesniperJr]

nice shots what type is the second one

 

[jcdeboever]

nice shots what type is the second one

Second one is an American Coot.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[baturn]

Nice!

 

[WesternGuy]

I think you will find that the second one is a Common Gallinule. An American Coot has an almost entirely white beak and forehead. Nice pic of it though. For the first one, my only comment is that the beak of the one in the back seems to be growing out of the head of the one in front. Probably not something you were looking for.

WesternGuy

 

[Watchful]

Beaks never grow out of the back of the head, its an illusion caused by the duck being behind the front one. There is a space between them visible though.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think you will find that the second one is a Common Gallinule. An American Coot has an almost entirely white beak and forehead. Nice pic of it though. For the first one, my only comment is that the beak of the one in the back seems to be growing out of the head of the one in front. Probably not something you were looking for.

WesternGuy

Someone that lives on the site told me it was a Coot, so I ran with it. Didn't know the details of how to take pics of ducks, thanks for the tip.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[dannylightning]

nice shots. definitely not a coot.. but it can see how someone may have though it was.

 

[jcdeboever]

nice shots. definitely not a coot.. but it can see how someone may have though it was.

I should have looked it up, the lady seemed a little out there. Lol

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[WesternGuy]

Beaks never grow out of the back of the head, its an illusion caused by the duck being behind the front one. There is a space between them visible though.

Yup, having shot thousands of bird images over the years, I am well aware of the "illusion" factor and that beaks don't really grow out of backs of heads, but the illusion makes it looks like they do to the casual observer. This is one of many of the types of illusions that have been referred to as "pokies" - things sticking into, or out of, an image, or parts of an image where they probably shouldn't be. How many times have you seen folks take casual images of their friends only to find a lamp post, or a tree branch poking out of their head or the side of their torso. Sometimes they can be cropped out and sometimes not.

It is just that when you have two or more birds in an image, it is not usually the best thing to have them appear to intersect with each other. I have done it and a lot of folks just starting to photograph birds, including me, years ago, do it without even noticing it has happened until someone points it out. Fortunately, I had Art Morris to point this out to me on a workshop many years ago.

For those interested in bird photography, there is a web-based book, free for all to read. Its table of contents can be found here - Secrets of Digital Bird Photography

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

 

[Watchful]

I doubt anyone will be fooled by it. Even a child can tell what's going on in the picture. It's pretty obvious.
I like the picture, personally. I think it's a good shot. I suppose the far duck could be moved back in post, but it will not then show accurately their true nature of how they align when swimming, which to me is the more important factor here.
Its a choice of accuracy in the shot, capturing the moment as it happened, or staging an artwork.

 

[jcdeboever]

Beaks never grow out of the back of the head, its an illusion caused by the duck being behind the front one. There is a space between them visible though.

Yup, having shot thousands of bird images over the years, I am well aware of the "illusion" factor and that beaks don't really grow out of backs of heads, but the illusion makes it looks like they do to the casual observer. This is one of many of the types of illusions that have been referred to as "pokies" - things sticking into, or out of, an image, or parts of an image where they probably shouldn't be. How many times have you seen folks take casual images of their friends only to find a lamp post, or a tree branch poking out of their head or the side of their torso. Sometimes they can be cropped out and sometimes not.

It is just that when you have two or more birds in an image, it is not usually the best thing to have them appear to intersect with each other. I have done it and a lot of folks just starting to photograph birds, including me, years ago, do it without even noticing it has happened until someone points it out. Fortunately, I had Art Morris to point this out to me on a workshop many years ago.

For those interested in bird photography, there is a web-based book, free for all to read. Its table of contents can be found here - Secrets of Digital Bird Photography

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

I was really waiting for their beaks to line up at the same angle, when they did, I fired the Shutter. I was looking at it compositionally. I thought that the mirror angle of the beaks would bring the viewer back into the intended feeling, "in unison ".. I had no idea that it could be considered a bad shot. There are so many rules in photography, it makes my head spin. That may be one of the reasons I go back to painting. I have no idea what a good shot or bad shot is. I am having a hard time because I think of things in terms of a painting and I suspect that is a wrong approach but my mind is so wired that way. Additionally, I am trying to visualize the shot before I take it and I watched them for a while to find a pattern, then I seen one (unison), waited again and did it... Probably another mistake.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Watchful]

In my mind, only the photographer knows what the goal was and if the photo met that criteria. I have seen plenty of nature shows (Wild America, Wild Kingdom, and a lot of others) and I have seen a lot of shots like yours, they are not concerned that one person might not 'get it' and want to show the animals as they are in the moment. I'd rather see the moment as it happened than see it as someone else would have liked it to be. If you want to take it to the extreme, you could say the second pic looks like two ducks, one normal and one ghost duck swimming upside down underwater. But we know that's a trick of light and reflections.
Embellishing colors and contrast, and use of HDR, to me should attempt to more closely show what the eye saw and not try to show what never was.


However, there are places that is totally untrue as in the case of abstract and avant garde where the emotion is all that is important.
Everyone has a different take, and all are correct, this is just me explaining my views, yours are just as valid.

 

[jcdeboever]

I doubt anyone will be fooled by it. Even a child can tell what's going on in the picture. It's pretty obvious.
I like the picture, personally. I think it's a good shot. I suppose the far duck could be moved back in post, but it will not then show accurately their true nature of how they align when swimming, which to me is the more important factor here.
Its a choice of accuracy in the shot, capturing the moment as it happened, or staging an artwork.

That is very encouraging, that is exactly what I was trying to capture. Thank-you

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk