This shot should make you wet your pants ;-) It is a lot steeper here than at the puffin shot. I was really impressed by the man claiming freight of heights.
Jostein is a sensible man, so I guess he has gone to bed now. I'm not, so I'll answer your question for him. The near black background is the sea. The gannet is a very light (read near white) bird. So he had to underexpose to avoid blowing out the highlights. The colour of the sea is a positive side effect of this underexposure, is my guess. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 8. mai 2006 23:42 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PESO - Gannet > > Well, of course, I didn't get your first post... then some > commented without > including link... > > Nice grab - and this one doesn't give me vertigo :) :) > the serious crop is interesting kinda abstract. > > was the black background the rock face? a dark cloud? > > ann > > > Jostein wrote: > > > > Thanks to all who took a peek at the piccie: > > > > > http://www.oksne.net/paw/runde/gannet.html > > > > And more thanks for the comments! Only a few have reached my inbox, so > > I'll do a C&P from the archive and reply to all here: > > > > Tim Ø. wrote: > > "Is it cropped? IMO, the bird needs a tiny bit more gliding space. > > This said: It's an elegant and efficient photo of an elegant efficient > > bird." > > > > Thanks Tim, I see what you mean. I had another look at the cropping, > > but unfortunately I have no leeway in the vertical with this > > particular shot. > > > > Paul S. wrote: > > "Very nice. Good job catching him in flight. How sharp is it at 100%?" > > > > Thanks Paul. Here's 100%-sized crop: > > http://www.oksne.net/paw/runde/gannet-crop.jpg > > As you can see, there's some CA. Cyan on the left side of the neck and > > golden on the right. Edge definition is quite nice, but there isn't an > > awful lot of detail in the plumage...:-) > > > > Christian and Bruce D commented on the perspective. > > Thanks for the kind words, guys. You're quite right. I had serious > > vertigo problems during the whole damn session. It was about 150m > > straight down. The gannets were flying about 100m below us. > > > > John F wrote: > > "Lovely pic, and great technique in the Stenquist mould. 1/500 is very > > slow with an effective focal length (35mm) of 1:1275." > > > > I have a sturdy tripod with a big ballhead and a Kimberley Sidekick > > mount. The Sidekick really is a good help for wielding those big > > lenses. No way I can compete with Steady Stenquist...:-) > > > > Ken Waller wrote: > > "Very nice but the black background detracts by "hiding" the wing > > tips." > > > > Ouch! On my monitor, the dark gray wings stand out from the deep blue > > water. Maybe some shadow/highlight work required... > > > > Marnie, Rick W., please try again. It must have been temporarily. I > > think my space provider sometimes have maintenance in a time window > > that disfavours american viewers. > > > > Cotty, Gonz, P.J., thanks for the kind words! :-) > > > > Cheers, > > jostein >
