Comments on: An Oft-neglected Combo: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II/2X III/7D II… https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2016/09/26/the-oft-neglected-combo-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii2x-iii7d-ii/ The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:00:17 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: Tim Clifton https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2016/09/26/the-oft-neglected-combo-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii2x-iii7d-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1738497 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:30:19 +0000 http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=35692#comment-1738497 Good mornign,

For me the shadow has a big impact on the image. Due to the hard light, the shadow shows the detailed shape of the foot.

If you were lower, I suspect the foreground might have had a hump, and you wouldn’t see the bill entering the sand. Also you probably would look the contact of the shadow to the bird.

Handheld and standing gives you great flexibility to move and get the shadow, position of the bird, and foreground/background in the most positive position.

The DOF keeps the impact on the bird searching in the sand and keeps me from wandering into the background.

Nice work,

Tim

]]> By: Elinor Osborn https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2016/09/26/the-oft-neglected-combo-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii2x-iii7d-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1738496 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:57:58 +0000 http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=35692#comment-1738496 Should I have gotten lower for this image? Why or why not? How would it have helped? How might it have hurt? What is the biggest advantage of staying on your feet?
If lower, sand humps in front of bird may have cut off bill tip and feet. If things farther behind the bird were not wanted, they would show from a lower angle. The shadow is in the perfect place. (Mal clued me in to this.)
On foot, one can move around quicker and more easily.
Needed dof since the camera was not in the same plane as the bird. Tail farther away.

]]>