Didereaux wrote in post #17315210
Soft? LOL yeah a 400mm hand held in very low light might introduce some blurriness even with Image stabalization. Oh yeah, and the animal is moving to bootrr. I take it you don't do much much wildlife photography outside of zoos?
Soft? LOL yeah a 400mm hand held in very low light might introduce some blurriness even with Image stabalization. Oh yeah, and the animal is moving to bootrr. I take it you don't do much much wildlife photography outside of zoos?
Wow, I don't think I've seen such a defensive response. Just pointing out what I noticed in the shots, AFTER saying something nice about it too. And you're right, I don't do much wildlife shooting outside of zoos as I live in the city and have a full time job. Cheers.
PS, if you don't want constructive criticism and are only expecting praise comments, this forum is not the place. If an image is soft, don't expect people to ignore that. I did not intent my response to be offensive, so if it came across that way, I apologize. Insulting me back isn't the way to go about things though.
) Now as for critique: I am ALWAYS grateful for good critiques. But a critique without thoroughly analyzing the shot, the equipment, the scenario, etc is not useful. In my response I listed those circumstances which to me seemed implicit with the shot. This is something I always try to keep in mind whenever I see 'problem' in a pic that someone has posted. Of course a poorly composed shot is rarely mitigated by outside influences...of that I am all to often guilty. 
