Are the feet necessary? Many bird photos are always complete birds and while that does make a great image, can a bird without feet hold a viewer’s interest long enough to appreciate...

clickety

Many bird photos are always complete birds and while that does make a great image, can a bird without feet hold a viewer’s interest long enough to appreciate the detail and the setting? I enjoyed watching this older juvenile strike out to rejoin his parents. I hope this captures his controlled urgency to catch up. I welcome any comments and suggestions for improving.

clickety

I’m sorry about posting the double image, it’s happened twice now and I don’t know why.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Not in this case, cool shot

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

clickety wrote:

Many bird photos are always complete birds and while that does make a great image, can a bird without feet hold a viewer’s interest long enough to appreciate the detail and the setting? I enjoyed watching this older juvenile strike out to rejoin his parents. I hope this captures his controlled urgency to catch up. I welcome any comments and suggestions for improving.

In some cases, like this the legs and feet are natrally not seen. Like wise a swimming bird would not have legs and feet visible.

capmike Loc: New Bern, NC

If the feet are not visible, as in this instance, it is, IMHO, a better photo if you show where the feet should be, as in more of the bush.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I don't interpret urgency in the bird's body language; possibly it would come across if parents were shown in the frame also?

The position of the "break" is a little awkward IMO. Sometimes cropping more helps, but for this photo I like capmike's suggestion as solution for next time.

Re double photo, just click the edit button (visible below your opening post for an hour after creating) and see if there are two in the upload area. If yes, there is a "remove" button you can apply to one of them. Then be sure to click the update button to save changes and return to topic.

hettmoe Loc: Rural ND

Very nice!

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

It certainly depends on what the bird was doing. Also, portrait-type images don't require the feet to be shown.

clickety

capmike wrote:

If the feet are not visible, as in this instance, it is, IMHO, a better photo if you show where the feet should be, as in more of the bush.

Re-cropped, I see what you mean. Unfortunately this is all there is due to the focus point limitations of the RF 800.
Thank you for the advice.

clickety

Curmudgeon wrote:

Not in this case, cool shot

Thank you I appreciate you looking

clickety

robertjerl wrote:

In some cases, like this the legs and feet are natrally not seen. Like wise a swimming bird would not have legs and feet visible.

Thanks for looking and the comment

clickety

Linda From Maine wrote:

I don't interpret urgency in the bird's body langu... (show quote)

My sincere thank you for the help, if my memory doesn’t fail me I may have solved three issues as a result, you are one of the generous members. (See my repost to Captain Mike as well)

clickety

hettmoe wrote:

Very nice!

Thank you

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

clickety wrote:

Many bird photos are always complete birds and while that does make a great image, can a bird without feet hold a viewer’s interest long enough to appreciate the detail and the setting? I enjoyed watching this older juvenile strike out to rejoin his parents. I hope this captures his controlled urgency to catch up. I welcome any comments and suggestions for improving.

Not here being hidden by the grass
👍👍😁👍👍

clickety

joecichjr wrote:

Not here being hidden by the grass
👍👍😁👍👍

Thank you