> I think picking up movement in peripheral vision is a huge asset for
> capturing critters. It was what led to the hawk
> photo I recently posted. Our attention was all on the rotten deck about to be
> torn down and what would replace it. Had
> the hawk been simply been sitting in the tree, in plain sight, I'm sure I
> would have missed it. But I registered
> movement as it flew in, looked for and found the cause, and shot it.
Yesterday, something caught my eye out the window. I turned to look
and it already disappeared. About 30 seconds later, I saw it again,
but missed any form of identification. So I stopped what I was doing
to pay attention. A minute later, an owl swooped down and grabbed a
shrew or something out of the back yard. No pictures, of course.
The bear are thick this year. Fortunately, we haven't had too many
dangerous encounters as the food sources seem adequate, but I see one
almost every time I go for a hike or even a walk in my neighborhood.
I've seen them in the yard or behind the house several times. But not
in the last two weeks since momma moose calved and planted themselves
right back there, and she's chasing the bears off. There's another
momma/baby moose hanging out near the other end of my street. We
thought it was the same ones, but nope. They are far more dangerous
than the bears.
If they are not moving, they really are hard to spot. The bears are
actually pretty easy to spot, not by looking at them, but in your
peripheral vision, you spot the "hole" in the forest. Moose have a
weird shape and texture to them that make them nearly impossible to
spot in a forest.
AK Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|