<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Nature Photography IS like a Box of Chocolates &#8230;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/</link>
	<description>The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:28:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/comment-page-1/#comment-1948709</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2022 20:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=80237#comment-1948709</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/comment-page-1/#comment-1948705&quot;&gt;Cliff Beittel&lt;/a&gt;.

Thanks, Cliff.  I always love the slim-to-none depth of field look. For a very small aperture I would have need to be on a tripod; I am not sure that she would have like that ... 

with love, a

ps; The background was her carapace. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/comment-page-1/#comment-1948705">Cliff Beittel</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cliff.  I always love the slim-to-none depth of field look. For a very small aperture I would have need to be on a tripod; I am not sure that she would have like that &#8230; </p>
<p>with love, a</p>
<p>ps; The background was her carapace. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Cliff Beittel		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2022/05/20/nature-photography-is-like-a-box-of-chocolates/comment-page-1/#comment-1948705</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cliff Beittel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2022 19:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=80237#comment-1948705</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The frontal view and lips I like, as I&#039;ve always shot these turtles in profile.  Would prefer the nostrils sharper though.  With the 100-400, I often go to f22, f32, and even f45 for DOF (less optically sharp, perhaps, but fine with Topaz), and the background here is simple enough that more depth wouldn&#039;t be a negative.  Even at f22, though, it might be necessary to focus somewhere between the nostrils and eyes, or even (with a still subject) combine separate frames, one for the nostrils, one for the eyes (a case where you would need to turn off eye detection).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The frontal view and lips I like, as I&#8217;ve always shot these turtles in profile.  Would prefer the nostrils sharper though.  With the 100-400, I often go to f22, f32, and even f45 for DOF (less optically sharp, perhaps, but fine with Topaz), and the background here is simple enough that more depth wouldn&#8217;t be a negative.  Even at f22, though, it might be necessary to focus somewhere between the nostrils and eyes, or even (with a still subject) combine separate frames, one for the nostrils, one for the eyes (a case where you would need to turn off eye detection).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
