Taken at Mayflower Beach, Cape Cod. Minolta 600si camera, Sigma 400mm APO Macro lens with polarizer, mounted on a Kirk shoulder brace. For a similar shot, see http://rosswarner.com/Tern1.html

It's pretty hard to see a tern's eyes -- black on black!

-Ross http://rosswarner.com

-- Ross Warner (ross.warner@East.sun.com), November 03, 1999

Answers

Hmmm. For some reason, the colors and definition are a lot better when you look directly at http://rosswarner.com/Tern2.html than when you look at the linked picture on the forum page. I don't know why that would be...

-- Ross Warner (ross.warner@East.sun.com), November 03, 1999.

Problem solved -- I should have linked to http://rosswarner.com/tern2.jpg, rather than Tern2.jpg. Tern2.html includes tern2.jpg. Just goes to show you that you should avoid using any uppercase in filenames to avoid getting confused.

Well, this is an education in how different two different scans of the same photo can look! Here's the right picture

-- Ross Warner (ross.warner@East.sun.com), November 03, 1999.

The density of the second scan seems right on.

But the cropping is better in the first example, IMO.

What shutter speed dir you use (if you can remember)?

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), November 03, 1999.

The second post is much better, good dof, I like the composition, it gives the bird flying room and keeps the eye in the picture. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), November 04, 1999.

I don't remember the shutter speed -- this was before I got my Maxxum 9. (With the 9, I record all camera settings and dump them out to a spreadsheet, which is a feature of the DM-9 data back.) It was probably about 1/500 sec.

I used continuous focus, starting tracking the bird about 30 yards away as it flew along the shoreline, then took the shot when it passed in front of me. I did with this lots of different terns over the course or half an hour or so, and these two shots came out best.

I think a shoulder stock really helps in this type of situation. I think even a Wimberley tripod head would have been more cumbersome.

-- Ross Warner (ross.warner@East.sun.com), November 05, 1999.

I agree, a shoulder stock is much more helpful for tracking flying birds than anything else I've used (haven't used a Wimberly). I've had more success getting black-on-black eyes to show up with light overcast light. See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt/BLSK.HTM

-- Douglas Herr (71247.3542@compuserve.com), November 05, 1999.