We saw a few of these. Usually they were so high up on the mountain, without binoculars it was hard to tell if it was a sheep or just a bit of rock. I used my 200mm with 2X tele. Would have been nice to have had more lens.

Posted by Linda Frey on Mon, 05/24/10 10:54
[ Back to Index | Home | Previous Image | Next Image ]


Comments by Linda Frey on Mon, 05/24/10 10:57

At the wider end of the lens:


Comments by Linda Frey on Mon, 05/24/10 11:08

Oops, I think this is a goat, not a sheep. I always confuse them.


Comments by Paul Bracey on Mon, 05/24/10 11:18

Nice work! (...regardless of what they call 'em!)


Comments by Jeff Dye on Mon, 05/24/10 11:22

Does look like a very long range shot but I like the OP. It's got a lot home of environment vs.
the tight shots I've been doing at the zoo. I like the wide shot too but I wish it's head was up
so it was more clearly defined as an animal. +


Comments by Jeff Dye on Mon, 05/24/10 11:26

My comment, for some inexplicable reason, seems to have picked up one of the + signs Paul
often uses to comment. Your photo is much better than one +.


Comments by Jan Bjorklund on Mon, 05/24/10 12:46

I like that opening shot with the mountain goat nibbling on the grasses, or lichens... very nonchalant especially one sees the goat in the wider shot and one wonders how it managed to get to this position on the mountain.

When you see the wider view you think the lighter patch on the rock to the left of the mountain goat is another goat until you see what you are actually looking at in the closer view. Without binoculars one would really be at a lose as to what they were viewing.


Comments by Sandi MacDonald on Mon, 05/24/10 13:39

That's a lot of stairs for the goat to climb! Nice capture.


Comments by Ruth Rittichier on Mon, 05/24/10 14:31

A beautiful animal. Just enough lens IMO, to show the surroundings.


Comments by Alias on Mon, 05/24/10 14:57

The option of more lens and tighter shots is always a good thing.

But I agree that the OP shows the goat in it's environment.

Still, if you want more creature to environment, cropping is perfectly acceptable.

I think you could lose some from the left top, and right and move the beast into a more
powerful position in the frame for instance:


Comments by Alias on Mon, 05/24/10 15:00

PS: Still like the OP as presented,

And here are a few of Paul's +s he carelessly left scattered about

+++


Comments by les perry on Mon, 05/24/10 16:01

How do you know he's called Rocky? :@}}}


Comments by Alias on Mon, 05/24/10 16:03

His cousin, the raccoon, said so ! ;-)


Comments by Tom Manson on Mon, 05/24/10 21:09

Just beautiful. You may have wished for a longer lens/tighter shot, but I really like the space
around the goat......it hints at the vast landscape around you. Sounds like a great trip.


Comments by John Wise on Mon, 05/24/10 21:31

Great to see this beautiful animal in it's natural environment. The second pic shows that well.


Comments by Harry Liston on Tue, 05/25/10 10:13

I'll volunteer to carry your equipment, should decide to take a paparazzi lens with you...


Comments by John Long on Tue, 05/25/10 12:24

Difficult photography, well carried out!


Comments by kathrn on Thu, 05/27/10 23:02

guessing that it must be an old goat by the look of the fur.


Comments by Maria Salvador on Wed, 07/07/10 07:23

I like both, although my preference goes to the OP, just as it is. A rough beauty out there!