Well, it was almost pretty good :-(. N70, sigma 400, gold 200

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), July 29, 1999

Answers

ouch!

-- Pete Dickson (dickson.pn@pg.com), July 29, 1999.

Better a picture than none at all.

-- Alan Yeo (nature_sg@yahoo.com), July 31, 1999.

Larry, this one wasn't meant to be as you envisioned it. Based upon how little distance before landing, you could have shot a landed bird with tail feathers in the mate's face. Or you could have changed to vertical in order to get more wing space for the incoming bird, but you would have had to cut out the mate or the offspring. Or you could have shot from a little further away and furnished magnifying glass to find the offspring and the food. I'm thinking that this is the correct choice, whole fish and the mate is really eye-balling the landing strip. In a perfect world, it would have been perfection to have the whole bird; but hey, I once read that Audubon magazine after failing to find a sharp image of an eastern coyote, but lots of excellent images of western coyotes, decided to go with the inferior quality but authentic eastern coyote rather than the higher quality image of a western coyote.

-- Chris Varner (Johnny_Pinto @msn.com), August 01, 1999.

I dont quite understand this taboo against "clipped" wings. While unclipped photos do have what you might call more balance, I often prefer this style of tightness which affords a much more detailed and powerfull view of wing attachment to body, conveying the strength the Osprey required to bring the fish to nest.

I only wish that little stick infront of the chick was gone, would have been nice to see all thre sets of eyes looking at dinner.

All in All a very nice shot of the clipped variety

Regards Steve

-- Steven Sisti (stevesisti@aol.com), September 05, 1999.