 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Capturing a Killer...Worth a look...(Hey Bret!)
I'm sure this will never happen again this way... Went to the beach to discover a flock of crows dive-bombing a tree-top. Why? They were after this guy... Though not sure why, since he wasn't eating...a crow... -Ran back to the condo in my bathing suit to grab my camera... Ended up ruining my shirt and getting leg-cramps while climbing the tree he sat in, but wouldn't have missed this for anything... Ended up an amazing 5-6 feet away through the whole thing...at eye-level. Have a look: -Oh...and these are NOT crops. These are all full-frame, except for ONE shot. 100% on the eye is a crop, but the rest are full-frame shots (OK, there's one other where I included a partial crop, and noted it): First, a tame one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66725426/original And another tame one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716142/original Shadow of things to come... http://upload.pbase.com/image/66727617/original It gets VERY NASTY from here... http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66718270/original This one IS a crop, but not by much (the full-frame version is included in the gallery): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66725099/original Killer Profile: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716132/original Checking on me...What a stare!! http://www.pbase.com/image/66723625/original Eerie...Yes, those are the eyes looking up at his own killer through skin: Nature can be rough: http://upload.pbase.com/image/66727411/original Waste not... http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716140/original Looks that Kill...What a GLARE!: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716136/original Vice-Grips: http://upload.pbase.com/image/66726793/original The Aftermath: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66716144/original Now for the PRE-QUEL: Setting the table #1: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66724740/original Setting the Table #2: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66724741/original Setting the Table #3: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66724742/large Killer with a heart--He hung the left-overs up for the flies: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/66726960/original 100% Crop of Eye: http://upload.pbase.com/image/66727810/original I have no idea why he let me get this close. I was very cautious, and moved only after he gave indication that he was continuing with his business. I doubt I'll be able to get this close to a wild hawk in action ever again. I sat in the tree with him no less than 40 minutes. -Quite an experience. Just goes to show you that you've got to be ready for opportunity when it knocks. By the way... These are quicky-jpegs. I haven't had a chance to convert RAW, but that will be next. These were a bit dark, so RAWs will adjust nicely. I was amazed at the out-of-camera sharpness of the 5D. While flash use wasn't ideal, it was either flash or nothing at all. Additionally, there were spots of sunlight shining through holes in the tree canopy--a typical shot-ruining factor. I lowered ISO to 50 and decided to rely on flash more in order to reduce the effect of the bright sunlight spots. This is always a challenge when shooting in the shade under trees in bright sunlight. -Mark² -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > By the way... These are quicky-jpegs. I haven't had a chance to convert > RAW, but that will be next. These were a bit dark, so RAWs will adjust [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is always a challenge when shooting in the shade under trees in bright > sunlight. Mark, I hate to say it, but the flash has ruined these images. It makes them appear very flat and it is very obvious that a flash has been used. Why didn't you go for higher ISO and no flash?  Signaturewww.nikongear.com September Challenge prize is $50 B&H GiftCard >> By the way... These are quicky-jpegs. I haven't had a chance to >> convert RAW, but that will be next. These were a bit dark, so RAWs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why didn't you go for higher ISO and no flash? I explained that in the post. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> By the way... These are quicky-jpegs. I haven't had a chance to >> convert RAW, but that will be next. These were a bit dark, so RAWs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why didn't you go for higher ISO and no flash? Dark shade...mixed with bright spots from sun poking through meant I had to work with flash to avoid the shot-ruining effects of dark shade mixed with random bright sun. Also...when you're only 5-6 deet away (less than 2 meters), and at 100-280mm, you have only a tiny DOF. I needed to stop down, or most of the shot would be a blur. Flash isn't ideal but the setting was otherwise highly problematic. I haven't seen detail like this in any wild Hawk photos, so I am OK with the results. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> In article <23sNg.12322$c07.9213@fed1read04>, "Mark²" >> <mjmorgan(lowest [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > problematic. I haven't seen detail like this in any wild Hawk > photos, so I am OK with the results. They're better than "OK", I think they are just fine. You went to great lengths to get these and I think you've been rewarded nicely. >>> In article <23sNg.12322$c07.9213@fed1read04>, "Mark²" >>> <mjmorgan(lowest [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > They're better than "OK", I think they are just fine. You went to > great lengths to get these and I think you've been rewarded nicely. Thanks, Peter. Part of the fun in shots like these is in knowing they aren't easy to capture. Without flash...the background would have been (in addition to the above) horribly blown out, as this was a super-bright beach-scene backdrop. I did what I felt I needed to do...but there are ALWAYS things to improve upon. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > They're better than "OK", I think they are just fine. You went to great > lengths to get these and I think you've been rewarded nicely. Agreed. Work to be proud of. I think sometimes you go a little bit overboard in showing the "dinner" itself. But that's just a matter of individual tolerance, of how much each person can stomach, no pun intended. But I have no quarrel with the technical proficiency. Just hope that sumbitch don't know where you live! >> They're better than "OK", I think they are just fine. You went to >> great lengths to get these and I think you've been rewarded nicely. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think sometimes you go a little bit overboard in showing the > "dinner" itself. It was a brutal scene, and it seemed that taming it down simply didn't do the bird justice. -I did try to warn of the roughness in my little "introductions" to each image... :) > But that's just a matter of individual tolerance, of > how much each person can stomach, no pun intended. > But I have no quarrel with the technical proficiency. > > Just hope that sumbitch don't know where you live! As I reviewed these images, it occurred to me that we are all very fortunate that the HUGE version of these birds shown in "The Lord of the Rings-Return of the King" don't actually exist at that size (OK, they were eagles, but they're very similar). If they did exist, they wouldn't be carrying us to safety from evil wizards...rather, we'd all be in as deep o' doo-doo as this squirrel. The power and hunting prowess of these carnivores is truly impressive, if not terrifying. I say paint the picture the way it really is... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev: > It was a brutal scene, and it seemed that taming it down simply didn't do > the bird justice. I agree. Birds of prey are majestic creatures, but they look and behave the way they do because they feed the way they do. There is no point in trying to tone down or Disneyfy this. Maybe I'd liked a couple more of shots showing the entire bird with his dinner, but that's a subjective opinion of composition, not of content. And carnivores are an essential selective force in evolution. Without carnivore pressure, we wouldn't be close to what we are today. Essentially, we have to be grateful that predation exists. The arms race between predator and prey is the only significant selective force in favour of developing intellectual faculties. A hypothetical biosphere without predation would be populated by slow and dull-witted creatures. There would certainly be no place for us there. > As I reviewed these images, it occurred to me that we are all very fortunate > that the HUGE version of these birds shown in "The Lord of the Rings-Return > of the King" don't actually exist at that size (OK, they were eagles, but > they're very similar). If they did exist, they wouldn't be carrying us to > safety from evil wizards...rather, we'd all be in as deep o' doo-doo as this > squirrel. Most certainly. So it's very comforting that not only don't they actually exist, they can't exist for purely physical reasons. A bird large enough to regard us as prey would be far too heavy to lift off the ground on its own, let alone holding a human being in its claws. But of course also the existing birds of prey can be dangerous to us. The way I interpret the reaction of your hawk from your story and your images, he couldn't figure out what the heck you were doing, but as long as you didn't seem to pose an immediate threat to his dinner, he prioritised his dinner over you, however bizarre you behaved. He probably was quite hungry - carnivores usually are, when they eventually get a chance to feed - so that priority may have come quite easy for him. In my experience, birds of prey are in general much more aggressive protecting their nests than when feeding off a kill. Jan Böhme > In my experience, birds of prey are in general much more aggressive > protecting their nests than when feeding off a kill. Basically, that's why falconry works -- you send the birds after game they can't pick up and fly off with and you go in and take them off the kill and let them eat some of it. I was wondering if this particular Redtail had been manned at one time or if the original human/hawk connection came about first from getting hawks off their kills and only later had people taming hawks to fly them at game more predictably. Very cool pictures. Most certainly. So it's very comforting that not only don't they actually exist, they can't exist for purely physical reasons. A bird large enough to regard us as prey would be far too heavy to lift off the ground on its own, let alone holding a human being in its claws. I know a pterodactyl is not a bird but these creatures were bigger than a breadbox were they not and they flew? Jean jean skrev: > I know a pterodactyl is not a bird but these creatures were bigger than a > breadbox were they not and they flew? Well, we suppose they did, anyway. It's a bit difficult to prove for certain :-)Now, ptereodactyls could be quite big in terms of length, and wing span width. But quite another question is how _heavy_ they could be. Their wing structure was very light, and their bones even more hollow than those of today's birds. There is no reason to expect that any pterodactyl ever would have weighed all more than the heaviest flying extant birds - the Mute Swan and the Great Bustard, which both occasionally can attain 20 kg. Besides, most paleontologists who have dealt with the problem presumes that the largest peterodactyls didn't really fly, only soared, and that they must have been unable to take off from flat ground. This assumption isn't based as much on the estimated weight, as by the very frail construction of the wing of a large pterodactyl. Unless the pterodactyls had connective tissue with significantly more tensile strengt than we have, a large pterodactyl wouldn't have been able to take off by wing flapping without breaking its wing membrane. Jan Böhme I think pterodactyls would have been sitting ducks if all they could do was glide down. Granted they could have been fairly light but given that dinosaurs of all size existed and some we can't even imagine how large they were makes me think they were probably bigger than current large birds just like a brontosorus is larger than an elephant. All this is moot if you don't beleive in evolution ;-) Just think how amazing it would have been to take pictures of these creatures. Jean jean skrev: > I know a pterodactyl is not a bird but these creatures were bigger than a > breadbox were they not and they flew? Well, we suppose they did, anyway. It's a bit difficult to prove for certain :-)Now, ptereodactyls could be quite big in terms of length, and wing span width. But quite another question is how _heavy_ they could be. Their wing structure was very light, and their bones even more hollow than those of today's birds. There is no reason to expect that any pterodactyl ever would have weighed all more than the heaviest flying extant birds - the Mute Swan and the Great Bustard, which both occasionally can attain 20 kg. Besides, most paleontologists who have dealt with the problem presumes that the largest peterodactyls didn't really fly, only soared, and that they must have been unable to take off from flat ground. This assumption isn't based as much on the estimated weight, as by the very frail construction of the wing of a large pterodactyl. Unless the pterodactyls had connective tissue with significantly more tensile strengt than we have, a large pterodactyl wouldn't have been able to take off by wing flapping without breaking its wing membrane. Jan Böhme jean skrev: > I think pterodactyls would have been sitting ducks if all they could do was > glide down. As long as nobody else could do much better, this would have been fair enough. And nobody has suggesed that all pterodactyls were so restricted, only the biggest ones. > Granted they could have been fairly light but given that > dinosaurs of all size existed and some we can't even imagine how large they > were makes me think they were probably bigger than current large birds just > like a brontosorus is larger than an elephant. The laws of physics limit the size of terrestrial animals much less severely than that of flying animals. (And the size of aquatic animals is essentially not restricted at all.) This is, of course, moot if you don't believe in the laws of physics.... > Just think how amazing it would have been to take pictures of these > creatures. Wideangle lens... Jan Böhme > All this is moot if you don't beleive in evolution ;-) Don't think that's true. Some people who don't believe in evolution believe that man co-existed with the dinosaurs. You know, like Fred and Wilma. > jean skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > flying extant birds - the Mute Swan and the Great Bustard, which both > occasionally can attain 20 kg. That's about 44 lbs, a california condor can reach 31 lbs and a 9-foot wing span. I Saw (and photographed) a pair in the grand canyon where they look tiny. But apparently pterodactyls were as big as a 40-foot wing span! > Besides, most paleontologists who have dealt with the problem presumes > that the largest peterodactyls didn't really fly, only soared, and that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jan Böhme SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > As I reviewed these images, it occurred to me that we are all very fortunate > that the HUGE version of these birds shown in "The Lord of the Rings-Return > of the King" don't actually exist at that size (OK, they were eagles, but > they're very similar). If they did exist, they wouldn't be carrying us to > safety from evil wizards...rather, we'd all be in as deep o' doo-doo as this > squirrel. I'd have thought that they would be in trouble. Imagine what would happen the first time one of these things killed a human: Large numbers of them in the vicinity would be exterminated by angry people with guns (unless there was some arrangement to let them live unharassed in parks etc). Think about it: Who is more of a danger to the other, sharks or us? >Mark, I hate to say it, but the flash has ruined these images. It makes >them appear very flat and it is very obvious that a flash has been used. >Why didn't you go for higher ISO and no flash? If those pics are ruined then bring on the bad times ;-) All I can say is well done Mark, what a great set of images, and all taken under challenging conditions as well. You was definitely lucky to get so close, as they would normally take flight if you was to come within 100 yds from them, let alone 6 ft! Keep up the good work, all the best. Mick Nice shots! thanks for sharing. Jean > I'm sure this will never happen again this way... > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson > I'm sure this will never happen again this way... > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Just goes to show you that you've got to be ready for opportunity when it > knocks. these are shots of a lifetime! really great job. > By the way... These are quicky-jpegs. I haven't had a chance to convert > RAW, but that will be next. These were a bit dark, so RAWs will adjust [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson >> I have no idea why he let me get this close. I was very cautious, >> and moved only after he gave indication that he was continuing with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > really great job. Thanks, Bob. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Great! JL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.