|
Swans
Jan 2, 2006 9:11:02 GMT -5
Post by kamera on Jan 2, 2006 9:11:02 GMT -5
There is a local fancy restaurant named "The Black Swan" and located on(opps...along the shore) of a lake. They have a couple swans on the lake and who habitate rather close to the shore and walkway by the restaurant. Their pride was a black swan, of course, and they had it for several years. Unfortunately some kids decided to catch and kill it. Now there are just two white ones. I took a 24 frame roll a couple summers ago and the two pics posted here are my keepers. Nikon N80, Tamron 20-300, and Fuji Sensia 200... These were my favorites from the roll as they showed a lot of immediate environment detail. Hope you enjoy. Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Swans
Jan 2, 2006 10:13:51 GMT -5
Post by PeterW on Jan 2, 2006 10:13:51 GMT -5
Thanks for showing these, Ron.
Swans are photogenic creatures, they always look so graceful. These are both good shots, and I had a job making up my mind which of them I like best.
I like the second one for the way the bird is highlighted against the dark background, and for the reflection in the deeper water.
In the first one the side/back lighting has brought out better detail in the feathers and given a rim light effect on top of the head and down the back of the neck which I like, and the exposure is short enough to bring out this detail without bleaching out, and at the same time long enough not to lose all the detail on the side of the body. Also I think the neck is at a better angle.
The only distraction is the small white feather floating on the water as the angle of the swan's head takes my eye straight to it. But on balance I think the first is better.
Shame about the black swan. I wonder if someone at the restaurant had upset the kids or if it was just mindless vandalism for kicks. They were lucky not to be injured as I understand that a blow from a swan's wing is strong enough to break an arm or leg.
I don't know what the position is in the US, but in the UK I believe swans are protected under some ancient Royal Charter as well as the normal wildife protection acts. Deliberately harming a swan can bring a fine of £5,000 and/or a six-months jail sentence.
Peter
|
|
|
Swans
Jan 2, 2006 12:27:58 GMT -5
Post by John Parry on Jan 2, 2006 12:27:58 GMT -5
Hi Ron,
Lovely pictures - the first caught the light beautifully, and the graceful sweep of the neck is shown to perfection. The second is almost mystical with the contrast between the white swan and the almost indigo highlights in the water. The rings of the ripples add to the effect. I have a few pictures of swans, but have learnt that contrary to what you would expect, you actually need a lot of light to show them to full advantage.
Only The Worshipful Company of Dyers and the Worshipful Company of Vintners are allowed to own swans over here, and they have to mark them as theirs by putting nicks on their beaks. All other swans in the country belong to the Queen, although only those on the River Thames are marked as such.
These look like Mute Swans which originated over here. The name just means that they don't sing, although they will hiss, bark and growl. There is a legend that says that Mute Swans sing, just once, before they die...
"Swans sing before they die - 'twere no bad thing should certain persons die before they sing."
Regards - John
|
|