this image was taken in the wilds of joshua tree nf. i used an eos 5 with a 300mm lens and velvia (thus very little dof). this is my first submission to this forum. thanks to all and especially bob (and phil).

-- greg rothschild (gnr@toast.net), August 01, 1998

Answers

I am a little curious as to what the exposure was. Was the lens stopped down? I dont have any experience with velvia, so . . . I cant comment on that aspect. It might be a more interesting picture if you had gotten a lateral (side) view with the eye in focus and crop the distracting background. Bottom half of background is not quite as out of focus as the top, which is less distracting.

-- Jim Korczak (korczaks@ptdprolog.net), August 01, 1998.

You've got an interesting composition of the rattler, but there are a few problems with the image: first, focus is in a funny place, just in front of the eye, leaving the eye unsharp; second, on my monitor the whole image has a lavendar color cast (and this is the first time I've seen that on my monitor), which, while attractive, doesn't look natural to the animal, it looks like some kind of weird illumination.

The cropped image with the snake's blurred body as background looks neat, with the same color head in front of the body, like camouflage. Too bad the eyes, don't stand out more and a tongue would be great.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), August 01, 1998.

thanks for the comments. the fstop was the max (f4) because i was using slow film and i happened upon the snake right at dusk as i was shooting landscape stuff. i changed lenses as fast as i could and shot what i could- handheld. this was a true "grab" shot. as for the purple cast to the shot- that came with the scan, as did the overall lack of sharpness. the original is much sharper and does not have any unnatural coloration.

-- greg rothschild (gnr@toast.net), August 01, 1998.

One word. Cojones! Nuff' said.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), August 02, 1998.

Wow! It took me a while to figure out the eyes etc but I think this shot is really amazing! I've kept coming back to this page several times and each time I liked the picture more. I hope your slide is sharper than the scan but even if it wasn't - the subject + foreground/background make it unique!

-- Ralf Hafner (hafner@physics.ox.ac.uk), August 02, 1998.

Greg,

This really is something... How many snake shots do you have - or this is a rare subject for you?

You know, it feels (feels!) like one of those 3D images, when the hidden image comes out on you...

Thanks for the experience!

-- Michael (mkozhevnikov@lucent.com), August 03, 1998.

Well, you nailed the focus on the front of the head, at least. The DOF is really quite shallow. Given the specs, I assume you used a flash. If so, you should have been able to stop down a bit and increase your DOF, unless you have a very weak flash. I know you were using a 300mm lens but you appear to have been quite close and your flash might have allowed f8 or even f16. When and if you see another one of these, try taking shots at several different f-stops to find out just how flexible your flash is. Best of luck.

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 03, 1998.

The minimal DOF is just perfect. It gives a sense of movement to this image - one gets the feeling that the snake just emerges out of the blur. Even the eyes slightly out of focus add to this impression. Very nice! (Except the color cast: it's really awful. Since it differs from your slide you should color correct it in Photoshop. Even if it were like this on the original slide, you should still color correct it!)

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), August 04, 1998.

Greg, This is a very unconventional snake shot, and for that reason alone you are to be congratulated. Any idea what kind of rattlesnake this is (I'm guessing Crotalus lepidus, the rock rattlesnake)?

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), August 04, 1998.

again, thanks for the comments. i think this is a diamondback rattlesnake, but i am not sure. as for the comments on the depth of field- i am glad some of you liked how the shot turned out. for those who don't- all i can say is that i did the best i could with a tough situation. i had to work fast because the light was failing and i didn't want to get bit!

-- greg rothschild (gnr@toast.net), August 13, 1998.