A feeble attempt to emulate the GREAT Arthur Morris.

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), September 21, 1998

Answers

Nice attempt. Good exposure and great reflection. It may have helped to have a little bit lower perspective that wouldn't have cut through the bird. Unfortunately the background may have been too bright, and distracting.

Keep up the good work. You've got the "f8" down, now you just have to work on "being there".

-- Joe Boyd (boydjw@traveller.com), September 21, 1998.

The exposure, reflection and pose all look very good, as well as the color and light!

If you could have only not had the shoreline cutting through the bird. A higher perspective, or the bird farther from the shore line would be the only thing I would like to see changed.

-- brad mills (dbradmills@aol.com), September 21, 1998.

The main problem with this otherwise excellent image has already been pointed out: the shoreline is in parallel with the neck and body of the heron. I would shoot from a higher perspective so that the background is all blue water, kind of like the cover shot of John Shaw's first book. I really like the lighting, reflection and exposure.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), September 21, 1998.

I'd be happy for someone to show me the error of my thinking, but it seems to me that the sharp shadow cast by the wing across the base of the neck and the dark shaded areas on the legs and the top of the beak are strong evidence of point-source sidelighting, or possibly 3/4 light from over the (photographer's) right shoulder. However, if that were the case, I would also expect to see a shadow of the bird falling on the water, the absence of which seems to indicate diffuse light.

-- Randy Wilson (randy@uafphpl.uark.edu), September 21, 1998.

Randy, For whatever its worth, this was taken in full morning sunlight, about 9:00 a.m. two weeks ago or so, with the sun behind and slightly to my right. No artificial light was used. I hope someone else can explain the lack of shadow - probably because the shadow was cast on the substrate under water, and the water's surface reflected blue sky from behind. Does that make sense?

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), September 21, 1998.

Peter, it makes sense that the tonality of the water, due to its highly reflective nature, should depend much more on the sky reflected in it rather than any sunlight falling directly on it, or not falling on it, as it were. I have seen shadows on water, though, and so this image struck me as a little odd. I'm far from an expert on the universe of lighting conditions that may apply, though. Thanks for your response.

-- Randy Wilson (randy@uafphpl.uark.edu), September 21, 1998.

Generally the problem with bird pictures lies not with the photographer, but the darn birds. It would have been nice if the bird would have stepped away from the shore, so that the frame was only bird and water, and caught a fish, and held the pose so you could focus. I've tried to educate the birds in my area about being better photo models, but they just squawk at me and fly off. I think this is a very good picture, but I curse the bird (and its Florida relatives) for not making it perfect. Good job on your part Peter.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), September 23, 1998.

It looks so artificial - is that reflection real??? If you say it is I take your word for it, but this is the problem of the digital age: If it looks unreal we automatically assume it is manipulated even if it isn't. From this high perspective I would have expected the reflection to show more of the underside of the bird, but I may be wrong. Very unusual anyway.

Regarding the shoreline cutting through the bird, I differ from the other viewers. I try to imagine were else I would like to place it, but it always cuts somewhere, so it may as well cut where it does. Completely removing it leaves only the bird and its reflection within an amorphous blue mass, which would be boring in my opinion.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), September 26, 1998.

Andreas, It's all real. I'm barely competent enough with digital technology to stick the slide into the scanner. Forget about adding a reflection... Thanks for all the comments.

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), September 28, 1998.

Larry K, you mean that this bird is real? Damn stupid birds. Don't they know how to model right. We spend all this effort to get there and take the picture, the least they could do would be to get into the right spot for us. Ingrates.

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 01, 1998.