Dragons in Flight - For Mike...

[Uncle Kevriano]

In order, Brilliant Emerald, Southern Migrant Hawkers, Common Darter (the red one), Southern Migrant Hawker.
All shots are handheld and single centre point focus, aimed at the thorax, which is the way I've found to be most successful. I deliberately shoot lower shutter speeds as I like wing blur, it shows movement, rather than freezing everything at 1/3200th or so. Or these the hardest to get is the Common Darter, they rarely hover for long, followed by the Brilliant Emerald, who are incredibly erratic. SMH are easy by comparison, one you get your eye in they hover a few seconds at a time, giving you chance to lock on.

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 236.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 1600

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 202.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 452.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 565.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 400

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 326.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 382.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7RM4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 315.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 640

 

[garuda]

I think the word is “flabbergasted.” I thought these DIFs were next to impossible to capture. But you proved me wrong. You're cranking them out cookie-cut style. They’re beautiful shots!

And I agree, the motion blur on wings gives it more realism, emphasizes the flight movement effect. Kev… you’re setting the bar kinda high here for us Americans. So now I have a new challenge. Ughhh.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I think the word is “flabbergasted.” I thought these DIFs were next to impossible to capture. But you proved me wrong. You're cranking them out cookie-cut style. They’re beautiful shots!

And I agree, the motion blur on wings gives it more realism, emphasizes the flight movement effect. Kev… you’re setting the bar kinda high here for us Americans. So now I have a new challenge. Ughhh.

Thanks a lot. It takes some practice, and I get rusty over winter of course. I'm sure I'll get some more this year though.

 

[Tim Mayo]

Superb shots Kev! You are definitely setting the bar very high with these!

 

[Ivanturas]

Amazing pics indeed! I'd just do a teeny weeny tweak: wings' motion blur doesn't seem intentional on all shots, and proof of that is that you felt you had to explain it was. Your current shutter speed on those few shots is "in between" frozen v/s motion for the wings, so for those specific shots you could try going "all in" and lower your shutter speed just a little bit, in order to get more blur. That way it'll be clear it's the intention. you can check this by looking at your shots that already feature "blurrier" wings; they feel just right.

I'm aware though... this involves risking a blurry dragonfly, and I do reckon what you already have is hard to achieve; don't really know if what I'm suggesting is easily achievable, and I'm pretty sure it'd be real tough for me... but from your shots, I'm betting you'll nail it almost right away.

 

[Ralph]

I have only one shot of one of these in flight and it wasn't got by great photography it was a lucky shot.
You have proven these are not lucky shots but great timing and being in the right place at the right time.
I sit here and give you full credit for top shot after top shot.
Great work and if I get half as good I will be smiling so much.

 

[Ivanturas]

Ivan, after reading your comments...

Gosh... I don't even know where or how to approach this reply... I'll do my best to keep it clean.

"Do you have dragons in Chile?"

Yes, we do. They are actually a cosmopolitan species, meaning they're found worldwide, except of course Antarctica.

too much ayahuasca.

Seriously... do you think South American countries are all jungles and huts, with people drinking ayahuasca & peyote, while smoking some weird pipes? No offense if you do, though... but a such humid environment would actually bring quite a diverse set of dragonflies, so, make up your mind.

These little boogers fly at break-neck speeds and their direction of flight is totally unpredictable....

I know. I've seen them. I'm actually a big fan of them. I've taken pictures of them, unsuccessfully most of the time. I'm aware of the challenge.

totally unpredictable.... you know... like one's wife's behavior. (just joking girls).

So, we expand mocking foreigners to mocking women. Cool.

We all (me too) must reserve our criticism, at least, until we've proven our own merit at tackling the task for which we are judging.

No, we must not. As previously said, I've taken pictures of dragonflies, I know how challenging it is, and Kev's pictures are waaaaay beyond anything I've achieved with them; I do believe I made it pretty clear those skills are way beyond my grasp at the moment. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't give advise if I believe it can help get even better results. Maybe you're not familiar with that mindset, but it's what professional creatives do. I'll happily share my stills and reels to my colleagues, expecting their input. And they do the same, vice versa, including footage I couldn't ever achieve, but that doesn't stop me from telling them, say... "that shot's amazing! but it's so powerful, everything after that pales in comparison. Maybe place it as your closing shot... it's perfect to leave the audience with their jaws dropped".

 

[Ivanturas]

And perhaps the more flagrant violation might be this. To contend or suggest that Kev was untruthful in claiming that some of the dragon shots with blurred wings was his intention. And secondly, you claiming that when Kev stated that he intended the wing blur, served as evidence in your mind Ivan, that Kev’s claim was a falsehood. That to me was crossing the line, by lingering into the area of psychoanalysis or mind-reading.

Ivan, I interpreted your commentary like this, in which my impressions might be summarized as you saying: “Kev, I don’t believe that your claim of intentionally blurring the wings in certain photos was actually intentional, but rather it was actually accidental; and you, Kev, verified my assertion (suspicion) when you bothered to mention in the post that it was intentional. Otherwise, why would you, Kev, even bother to mention it?”
(That’s what I heard you saying Ivan… and that was what prompted my earlier reply, in which I tried to insert a bit of humor along with it — although it seems to have caused you some disdain…. sorry).

And I thought I was supposed to be the one on hallucinogens. I have absolutely no clue as to how did you infer I was saying he was lying. I'm suggesting a way to make the intention more explicit, and have it feel "just right". It's called feedback. It's usually what these message boards are for, sharing thoughts, knowledge and experiences. Everything else is beyond this thread's scope, so I won't pollute it any longer the way we already have. If you say "everyone except Ivan should read this", then I'll tell you of a really neat feature on this board, it's called "private messages".

PS: I did edit out those smileys, because you weren't being funny, at all.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Well that was all interesting to read! As they are my images I'll respond this way.
I appreciate any critique and suggestions, as everybody has a different viewpoint on any photo posted, and some like blur, some like the wings frozen in motion. I never intend to freeze the wings in motion, which is why I don't shoot over 1/1000th for these, which also keeps ISO down, so the shot that has almost frozen them is a freak really. Most of the time, depending on species, I will shoot at 1/500th-1/800th, which is enough to capture them, as you can see.
So, I don' t take either persons view as right or wrong, or either of them being a criticism at all. I genuinely appreciate the compliments which both have paid too, so shake hands virtually and all is well

 

[Ivanturas]

Well that was all interesting to read! As they are my images I'll respond this way.
I appreciate any critique and suggestions, as everybody has a different viewpoint on any photo posted, and some like blur, some like the wings frozen in motion. I never intend to freeze the wings in motion, which is why I don't shoot over 1/1000th for these, which also keeps ISO down, so the shot that has almost frozen them is a freak really. Most of the time, depending on species, I will shoot at 1/500th-1/800th, which is enough to capture them, as you can see.
So, I don' t take either persons view as right or wrong, or either of them being a criticism at all. I genuinely appreciate the compliments which both have paid too, so shake hands virtually and all is well

I'm glad you took it the way it was meant to, thanks for expanding on the setup/process. Now that you mentioned it, I checked EXIFs and they absolutely match what you describe... 1/500-1/640 seems to be the sweet spot! (although my faves are those of the colorful dragonfly against that green background).

Will definitely exercise with those settings next time I'm dancing with the dragonflies out here in the rainforest, on my monthly ayahuasca spiritual trip