how was it possible to catch the kingfisher?

[gyuri]

Dear all,

 

I am just got the latest National Geographic, and I have read the

Mayflies article. (online:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0305/feature3/index.html)

 

 

I found there a picture about a kingfisher, flying in front of the

lens.

(http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0305/images/pc_sent.3.2.jpg)

I can not understand, how is it possible to get perfectly sharp

picture about the fast flying bird, like the kingfisher! I could not

find any information for the technical details. I have a Canon EOS 5,

and a 100-400L zoom. I tried to focus on birds many times, but almost

never got sharp focus if the birds was flying in front of the lens.

 

It has some trick to get sharp focus, with such a short DOF? Have You

got any idea, how was this picture made?

[benb]

I don't know... that's for sure! It is a fantastic picture, I saw it last night when I got the magazine, it is stunning.

 

I know that I have tried to focus on small fast moving birds and it seems almost impossible. I would guess the camera was set up and focused, and the photographer just waited for the bird to come along at the right moment, maybe a blind was used. I'd be amazed if autofocus could track the bird.

[NK Guy]

In all likelihood they set the camera up in advance, prefocussing on the point that's in

sharp focus. They used flash to freeze the motion of the bird rather than relying on a

mechanical shutter. And they used a laser beam or two for bird detection. ie: when

the bird flew by at the right point it triggered the camera and flash automatically. So

the bird would've taken its own photo.

 

I don't know the details of that particular shot, but that's the usual way you take

photos of bees, hummingbirds, etc.

[ligia_dovale]

With all my respect, this Kingfisher is not flying, it is just about to, which makes it easier to get his/her picture. You just need a fast AFS lens, get a good vantage point, wait and ... voila !

 

Pictures of birds in flight are very easy to get, you just need the right equipment and some practice, there is no secret about it.

[bkpix]

Ligia:

 

You ever try to get close to a kingfisher?

[gyuri]

Thank You for the answers!

 

So it means, if I had an infra beam remote controller (set up properly), the right camera (EOS1nRS for example) and I wait for a long time focused to a point, sooner or later, I can get a flying kingfisher?

Is the camera (and the whole system) enough fast to react under 0,003 sec?

As I counted, the bird is flying about 50km/h (31mi/h). It means, that the DOF here is about 4 cms, so the bird it pass trough the right DOF under 0,00288 sec.

 

I think I have to buy about 1000 rolls of films ;-)

 

Seriously: is there any right resource on the net for this practice?

[alan_woolnough]

Hegedus,

 

The image is quite small on my screen, so its difficult for me to see it properly.

 

It is clearly a european kingfisher and a superb acion shot. Although these birds are usually thought to be fast fliers, they not exceptionally fast compared to other small birds. When taking prey from the river "surface" they will sometimes hover for split second.

 

There is probably a large number of ways this shot could have been taken, and most likely it would involve a lot of time setting it up. It is extremely unlikely this was a chance encounter and grab shot. Once these birds have been located and observed for a period of time, it soon becomes clear where their favourite perches are, and because of their daily routine and predictability, these birds give a photograher a good oppotunity to prepare and set up these types of shots {if the photographer is prepared to put in the time and effort}.

 

These birds are very wary in some places in the UK {although i have heard stories of kingfishers sitting on anglers fishing rods}, but the use of a hide allows very close views. Although i have only used a 500mm lens to get shots of kingfishers perching, it is quite possible to use a shorter lens if enough preparation is done and the situation allows, and take advantage of the increased depth of field. I have had a kingfisher sitting very happily about six inches from me {on the other side of my hide}.

 

It looks like a great image {pity i cant see a larger version on my screen}

[scottconners]

If you click on the link to photo (lower right, says "send a postcard") , then click again on it, then scroll down and hit the "Preview" button, you'll get a better image - at least viewable size. Hope this helps. And it is an incredible shot.

[mats nilson photography]

There is som info on camera traps on another NGM photographer's homepage: <a href=http://michaelnicknichols.com/article/camera_traps/>Mike Nichols</a> as well as on some manufacturers home pages, e.g. <a href=http://www.phototrap.com/frames.html>Phototrap</a> and <a href=http://www.woodselec.com/>Shutter Beam</a>

[gyuri]

Thank You for the answers! I think not the correct focusing, and the right release the problem here. The light balance could be pretty tricky too..

[wildpicture]

Hegedus, what is often done in this kind of photography of kingfishers is not just adapting the bird to the photographers presence, but merely controlling all aspects. I have once seen this demonstrated on a BBC documentary. After finding and habituatinga bird, the photographer will start feeding it with small fish. He places a bucket with small fish right under a branch where the kingfisher often rests. This bucket with fish is submersed, but the fish can't easily swim away. Once the kingfisher starts feeding from these fish, you have the exact position and can easily pre-focus. I have even once seen this with a "bucket" with a glass bottom, where a movie camera was placed under the glass bottom. They film the dive and catching of a fish by the kingfisher from the fish's perspective.

 

A nice article on kingfisher photography is this one by Fritz Pölking. Akthough is dates back a few years, it is still up to date.

http://www.poelking.de/wbuch/199911/index_e.htm

 

Regards,

Hans

[peter_bedo]

I'm very sad to report this, but there are many things that lead to the conclusion that this beautiful photograph is a fake, or in other words, the kingfisher in the picture is not a living bird (just like the mayfly it's looking at..). Unfortunately, there seems to be quite solid photographic and biological/ethological evidence to support this, but at the time of writing, the majority of these is not yet made public. The web page where the evidences will be presented (in English too) is said to be under construction.

 

The most unnerving fact is that the author so long did not react to these accusations, and did not reveal what techniques/equipment he used to shoot the picture, even though he was explicitly asked to do so (and these things never used to be secret).

 

There's a discussion on this matter at http://forum.index.hu/forum.cgi?a=t&t=9094129 (in Hungarian, but most people there speak English, so you may get answers).

 

I would be VERY glad to be proven wrong, Hungarian nature photography does need more publicity, but not by scandals..

 

Please note that I don't have any further insight into the matter than I've written above, and given the sensitivity of the matter (the credibility of the author, the responsibility of NG editors/experts), I tried to be as careful as possible. Again, I do hope that all that now believe that it's a fake, will be proven wrong.

[les_gyug1]

If you look in the eye of the kingfisher there are two highlights indicating that a side-by-side flash set up was used. That's where the lighting came from, and probably balanced with ambient for the sunset or sunrise red all around(?). The photo could be just plain luck from a blind, but more likely a light beam trap (or crossed light beam triggers). However, on a water surface with millions of mayflies everywhere, and just hoping a kingfisher comes along to the right spot where you are set up (no matter what the outfit is) is either just plain luck, a resident kingfisher that comes back to the same spot predictably over and over after flying from a favourite perch(?), or a set up that I don't quite understand.

[les_gyug1]

Looking at the whole NATGEO article shows ghosting in the wings of any moving mayfly where fill flash was used or where ambient light was balanced with the flash. There is no ghosting whatsoever in the kingfisher or the mayfly in this one. So where did the red background come from? Another flash and gel setup?

[gyuri]

Les,

that is why I wrote, that the correct light balance could be tricky. I can not understand, how can the background perfectly exposed, and the end of the wings did not got a "ghost" effect, or how can they such a freezed.

I am not the expert of the bird photography, but it seems so strange. (the AF speed, the correct lights, the behavior of the bird, etc)

I do not want to write down, that it is a fake, or a studio shot, until I do not know, how was it taken. As Ligia was mentioned before: "With all my respect, this Kingfisher is not flying, it is just about to, which makes it easier to get his/her picture"

 

As Peter told, we have to wait for the official statements.

 

Regards,

Gyuri

[peter_bedo]

Do I see it right that there's an ugly big fingerprint on the very left edge of the image (in he middle, just opposite of the mayfly)???

[alex_lofquist]

Kingfishers hover almost as well as hummingbirds. So, except for the wings, they are usually not difficult to photograph if you can find them.

[mats nilson photography]

You are right, some of you, that it does look a bit stuffed. However, the lack of ghosting is, IMO, not a good proof of that. The mayflies were photographed with the flash synced at the rear curtain and with a fairly slow shutter speed to convey a sense of movement. NGM is so full of it that what was once a fresh approach is now just plain dull. (And why do they have to use 800 ISO film everyone of them) However, IF the photo is of a live and flying kingfisher, then it is almost certainly caught with some kind of light beam with the camera lens focused at the beam (no time for AF here). Now, with that magnification and subject speed, there is no room for elaborating with slow rear sync. If you did, you would be far too likely to have the bird fly out of the DOF before the flash fires. Thus, a safer bet would be to try and freeze the bird with a very short flash duration and hence, no ghosting. Well, it does seem the bird was frozen alright... Of course, that leaves the question about the background light. Maybe in this case it is actually the daylight that balances the flash instead of the other way around, if you get what I mean. To balance a powerful flash on a stopped down camera, you would need to shoot into, for example, the setting sun? What do I know?

[pvp]

Getting back to the kingfisher photo, consider the benefits of a fast motor drive: the photographer may have taken 10 shots over the course of a couple seconds. The one we are shown may be the only one that was good.

[gyuri]

Now we are pretty sure, that the picture is fake!

 

Read carefully this: http://www.naturephoto.hu/home/index_eng.html

[phule]

Is it possible for anyone (i.e. regular folks) to contact the NGM staff and ask them to re-investigate the photo?