They say that a little motion blur can be a good thing because of the action it implies. I’m far from convinced that’s true but opinions may (or may not) vary.
1/4000, f/7.1, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed this female about three years ago at a local pond. Here she had just swallowed the fish and then moved to this branch on the tree in order to clean her bill. I wanted to present this photo first just to prove that I do occasionally get the heads of my birds sharp… 🙂
The two photos that follow were taken a few moments earlier while she was trying to stun or kill the fish (a weather loach). I’ve never posted them before because of an issue that will become obvious.
1/1600, f/7.1, ISO 500, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
She was furiously beating the fish against the branch. The wet spot on the branch is the spot where she was slamming the fish into it.
My shutter speed of 1/1600 – 1/1250 sec just wasn’t fast enough to get either her head or the fish sharp because both were moving so fast. I knew my SS was slow for the action but I chose not to take the time to change my settings for fear she’d fly off or something else would happen that would cause me to miss that proverbial “million dollar shot”. That was a mistake.
1/1250, f/7.1, ISO 500, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
Here she’d moved to a different spot on the branch and her head was completely upside down as she twisted her neck to get the leverage and speed necessary to effectively dispatch her slimy, slippery prey. The head of the bird and the loach are a little sharper but they’re still soft and that drives me nuts.
Some folks claim that motion blur similar to this can actually be a positive because of the action/movement it implies but my tastes have always been different and they continue to be. My instinct requires the parts of the bird involved in the action to be sharp and that’s why I usually error on the side of too much shutter speed rather than too little. I wish I had this time.
That said I still like seeing the behavior, even when in my eyes the photos have significant flaws, and that’s why I’m including them in today’s post.
Viewers may or may not agree.
Ron
Thwack! Take that! And that! And that! (poor fishie…) Put me in the motion blur camp — this series is sooooo cool! I don’t think a tack sharp shot (especially the first fish one) would convey the ferocity of her movements in the same way. The closed nictitating membrane in the last shot enhances that excitement! As lovely as she is in the first shot, I keep going back to the action and her contortions.
I hope you come across her or one of her sisters again — I remember enjoying your Lady Kingfisher posts from a while ago.
Thanks, Marty. Interesting how many comments mention liking seeing that membrane. I’ve avoided posting lots of shots in the past because it shows. Looks like I should rethink that strategy…
I drive by some resident Kingfishers at least once a week but can’t stop because the road is narrow with no shoulders, so it’s birding at 40 mph. Not surprisingly, I’ve never seen them catch anything. Now I can say I have (if only in photos), although I imagine it would take a lot of patience to catch one in the act. I wouldn’t have questioned the blur if you hadn’t mentioned it; would have assumed you meant to show it that way. Sharp or blurred, they are wonderful photos.
Thanks, Lyle. Nope, I didn’t intentionally get the motion blur. I’m not really a fan of it most of the time, including here.
Ron, I am glad you included #2 and #3 because it gives me an idea of how difficult it can be for birds to kill and swallow their prey. This Kingfisher is certainly an example of that. I hope that she was successful.
Blurry or not, I so much enjoy your blog – both photos and your teaching moments. I learn so much from you and your readers as well.
Thank you
She was eventually successful, Alice but she had to work over that fish for quite a while first. Thank you.
I do occasionally get the heads of my birds sharp…
You are a stranger to the truth.
Your blog, your photos, your rules.
For my tastes, the motion blur in the second is perhaps a little too strong, but the third definitely conveys some of the speed, which a static photo doesn’t. That said, I loved seeing the nictating membrane closed in the final shot- which in itself is a strong pointer to the action involved.
“Your blog, your photos, your rules”
That’s true, EC – up to a point. But if my “rules” are too far off of what most people prefer I won’t have any viewers to speak of and my blog will lose any relevance it might have. Thankfully, what I prefer is usually what a lot of other folks also appreciate. Thanks.
Well Ron my only disappointment is I had an early Doc appt so I’m just seeing your blog now!! Love, love, love the action and of course that speedy Gonzalez – the Belted Kingfisher!! Just makes my day!!
Just looked back at the 3 captures & realized in the 3rd photo you caught the Kingfisher with it’s nicatating membrane protecting the eye we can see!! So KOOL!!
I got a fair number of shots of her with the membrane closed, Jo Ann. Some folks appreciate seeing it, others don’t. Thank you.
Cool pics! Love the nictitating membrane. Lots of kingfishers in Florida!
Thanks, Tana. I’m jealous of any place that has “lots of kingfishers”.
I’ve been trying to envision what your photos would look like without the motion. I don’t think the photos would be as effective. You need motion to communicate the rawness of a kingfisher killing its prey. That rawness is essential. A perfectly frozen-in-time shot doesn’t communicate the passion. It would be antiseptic.
You’re not alone in holding that view, Jack. Thanks for providing your opinion and particularly for explaining why. I think you’ve presented your case well even if I have a different viewpoint.
Ron, I agree with you that even if it’s only a matter of taste, I don’t dig blur. In this case, I might have gone out anticipating or hoping for the kingfisher and set my ISO higher – a thing I learned while shooting leaping guitar players and rock drummers in their native habitat. The little fish, by the way, appears to be a king of loach. . . I very much enjoy the sharp and clear shot of the kingfisher’s nictitating membrane. The bird is protecting her eye from the possibility of being whapped by the fish.
“a king of loach”? Not sure what you mean by that, Martha. Perhaps it’s just a typo or maybe you’re saying it’s a species of loach other than a weather loach?
Kind of loach and curses on spellcheck.
Have to disagree with you on this one! The gift of a fast shutter is that it allows us to see actions that are impossible to capture with our eyes. On the other hand it can create images that make no sense as a static posture. If you only see the image of the bird with his head upside down, one could think that Kingfishers stand around that way. I’d have no problem with the whole head blurred by action. IMHO!
Interesting and valid point, Mikal. You’re not alone in that view.
All three are great shots in my book. I do find the motion blur a little distracting in the second shot, but I think you’re being awfully hard on yourself (as usual 🙂) with the third one. It’s a great behavioral shot, and a good look at the nictitating membrane. The little bit of softness at the beak tip and fish bothers me not at all.
I agree that the motion blur in that last shot is much less bothersome. Thanks, Robyn.
Love all three photos. #1 is perfect and #2 & 3 do have a wee bit of blur but knowing how this bird operates I guess in my mind it is ‘normal imperfection’. For me they are more difficult to capture than most any other bird even a hummer or kinglet. I love trying to out wait them and find myself chuckling at their irritable call if I stick around too long. They do have attitude!
I’d say “wee bit” is an understatement, particularly in that second photo. But I agree that it’s a pretty “normal imperfection” for kingfisher actions shots. Thank you, Kathy.
It is so rare to see this behavior from any of the wading or fishing birds. Kingfishers are particularly shy in my neck of the country. Thank you for some amazing stop-action photos that most of use will never witness in person and could not see anyway because of the speed of the movement. Love your skill and tenacity, Ron!
Thanks, Melanie. Maybe they’re “stop-action” enough… 🙂
Beautiful and interesting photos! I guess we are always striving for the masterpiece where everything works in the picture. But the 2 “soft” photos are real nice, especially as behavioral shots! Thanks for sharing – love learning about the photographic process.
Thanks, Joanne. Appreciated your last sentence because sometimes I’m fearful of boring any viewers who may be only interested in the photos and not in the process of getting them.
These are so wonderful, Ron! What amazing birds. Glad I’m not tiny, wouldn’t want to meet up with one of them! Thanks for your photos and comments. I rarely reply but always appreciate! Happy New Year!!
Thanks, Mary. Nice to know you’re “out there”.
I like it but I’m not an art critic. 🙂
Nor am I, Arwen. I am however a critic of my own work and I can’t help but apply those same standards to the photography of others.
I’m with you Ron. A little wingtip blur is one thing, but to have the critical part of an image either out of focus or a little soft due to motion is not acceptable from my perspective. I may have mentioned, I have been trying to catch Vermillion Flycatchers and/or Black Phoebes launching off their perch. For me, the only way to catch these guys is spray and pray. I have gotten a few good images, but still not quite sharp. IMO, there is only one definition of sharp. A bit of wingtip blur is fine, but if the eyes are not there, it is unsuccessful. I am still trying.
That’s the way I look at it too, Frank. I still enjoy seeing images like these but their flaws are like sandpaper to my eyeballs…
I have mixed feelings on the blur tho in this case I can definitely tell what the purpose is so it’s fine. Amazing set of photo’s and I KNOW too well what stopping to adjust setting will often do! 🙁 Kingfishers are a challenge under the best of circumstances! 🙂
Exactly, Judy. Birds ALWAYS seem to choose the moment I’m fiddling with my settings or checking exposure on my screen to do something interesting – rascally little devils that they are… 🙂
I love all of your pics but the kingfisher is my fav.
Thanks, Cheryl.
OK, I understand your desire to have your shots be perfect. But, to a lay person and amateur photographer like me, I like your images. Your explanation of what is going on is all that is needed to fully appreciate the blur and softness. To be truthful the body and head are sharp enough to my eye, and you show the nictitating membrane covering the eye, which amplifies the slamming the Kingfisher is doing to the loach. In all three very nice pictures! Also, thank you for the comment “My shutter speed of 1/1600 – 1/1250 sec just wasn’t fast enough,” which underlines some of what I’m doing wrong.
Dick, as you know, birds are fast. Even when they’re static they could break out into an interesting behavior at any moment and usually it will be fast. So given my love of behavior/takeoff shots and preference for sharpness I nearly always try to err on the side of too much SS rather than too little.
I’m on the fence with these shots. I like the sharp one because I know the backstory and I now know what it’s doing and why it’s in that strange position. I also like the blurred one because I not only know the backstory and what it’s doing…but I can actually see what it’s doing…it’s bashing that critter. And while you can understand what it’s doing in the sharp pic, you can’t “see” it was well as you can with the motion shot. Either photo works fine I think for telling the story…viewer/author preference.
Thanks for providing your view, Zaph. If it’s interesting behavior I’d rather see motion blurred photos than not see them at all but in a perfect world the image would be sharp.
Beautiful photos whether movement or not. Love these guys and gals with their irritating raucous rattling as they fly away before I can even get my camera into a ready position. I always take it that they are laughing at me mocking me, but I still pursue them with passion whenever near. I remember a photo class I took years back where the instructor talked about the motion blur being a positive in some cases, but I’m with you – I prefer clear sharp images. Yesterday I watched a little Pied-billed Grebe wrestling with a fish about twice his size. I never did see whether he got that thing down. It was way too cold to stay there and watch till the conclusion.
Everett Sanborn, Prescott AZ
Yup, you describe that irritating kingfisher behavior perfectly, Everett.
In some cases they’re talking about motion blur being a positive particularly in the wingtips of a bird in flight but I’ve seen the same concept applied to other parts of the bird. Motion blur is only rarely a positive in my way of looking at it.