Little Natrix natrix

JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).

By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.

OK, I confirm

You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here

Accept Cookies

Customize

Refuse Cookies

Galleries
Wildlife (no birds)

21.1 MEGAPIXEL

Resize to fit window

Prime foto View gallery (50 photos)

Little Natrix natrix sent on May 23, 2020 (23:34) by MilosVf. 3 comments, 134 views.

at 200mm, 1/2500 f/3.2, ISO 640, hand held. Specie: Natrix natrix

View High Resolution 21.1 MP

What do you think about this photo?

Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?

You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!

There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.

Elleemme

sent on May 24, 2020 (10:41) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)

Definitely too small and impalpable because of the imprecise maf and the impractical choice to use such an open diaphragm :-/ .
It was preferable to overexplic a hair to make it stand out, checking the whites of the petals in the water.
In outdoor situations, if naturalistic shooting is occasional, it's still worth giving a 1.4x extender to the 70-200mm or better still opt for a more suitable s.zoom as a range.
(imho)
Hello, Lauro

MilosVf

sent on May 24, 2020 (20:28) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)

Hello, thanks for the tips, I'm really at the beginning I can ask you why it is an impractical choice and why would you advise me the extender, would 'approach' the animal?
To be trying to develop a critical eye, I'm taking a look at the forums but would there be some more specific resource to figure out when is a photo done well, at least in the technical part?

Elleemme

sent on May 24, 2020 (20:54) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)

There are two problems:
a) the subject moves
b) the photographer sways with the torso
Syswewe up the movements we have a continuous remodulation of the exact point of maf
200mm are very short for fauna-birds, a 1.4x extender would allow you to enlarge the subject a little bit and this waiting for a more dedicated optics.
The maf is not severed but anticipated and the reducottisima pdc has made the problem even more obvious.
I'm going to take a shot... it's very high, if you closed to f.8 extending the depth of field and maybe also including its head as a narrow but clear area.
In these situations, with subjects in micromoving or movimemto always uses a single af ai-servo sting.
Hello, lauro ;-)

Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info)

Some comments may have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator.