|
Blake Island, WA this weekend. American Goldfinch (male, mating plumage)  Great Blue Heron in the early morning on the docks  Barn swallow fledglings were sitting in small groups on driftwood on the beach, while their parents periodically brought them insects to eat. It wasn't as hard as you might think to line up a shot like this (I got at least half a dozen similar to this) because before the parent arrived with a meal the fledgling would go nuts, squawking and flapping its wings  Juvenile American Goldfinch (I think)  One of the barn swallow fledglings  Dark-eyed Junco  Snuggling barn swallow fledglings 
Kenshin fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 28, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Wow! I stopped at Clear Lake during the middle of a long road trip today to see if I could get any decent shots of the grebes that are spending the summer there, and I met a sassy Osprey.  sassy-osprey by Redwood Planet, on Flickr It's doing that head-swiveling thing raptors do when they're curious about something and keeping its mouth open to stay cool in the 100º weather. I had to walk under its tree to get back to my car and I was expecting it to fly away, but it seemed more interested than scared. I also had my first sighting of a wild Green Heron in the U.S. I was hoping to find a position where I could get a clearer shot of it, but it slunk away and hid while I was photographing the Osprey.  green-heron by Redwood Planet, on Flickr From Friday's filming at the kite nest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6gqZQXih7o That exchange, translated into English, is more or less: "FEED ME. FEED ME. FEED ME." "You're not even guarding the nest! gently caress off and catch your own vole!" "I'm guarding the nest now. FEED ME. FEED ME. FEED ME." "You ungrateful sack of crap! If we didn't have a nestling right now, you'd be on your own!" "So, you're going hunting, right? Good. I'm hungry." Then the feeding session that followed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK17Q8puDVk
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Wish I'd have double checked my settings before taking this, but I think it still came out half-decent. 20140723 - DSC06169.jpg by d4damson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Wow! I'm jealous of your green heron sighting. EDIT: Since we're in the middle of breeding season. Does anyone else in the Northwest have tips on how I might find Tufted Puffins to photograph that aren't on an inaccessible island on a Federal Wildlife Preserve? ...or who I have to suck up to to let me go with ornithologists to one of said Wildlife Preserves? Looking around the web there isn't a whole lot of information out there. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I love the comedy of this shot. Beautiful and funny! There are some on Haystack Rock in Cannon Beach Oregon. You can shoot them at low tide, but it's still pretty far and the angles bad. They seemed like they were being when I was there in May so they might be done? I think all their breeding rocks are probably protected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Btw, love the guillemot and puffin pics. Where were those taken? Thanks! They were from Iceland. I was surprised at how close we could get to breeding seabirds - I don't think they have the same protections as they do in the US. I'm leaning toward the Canon 400/5.6 instead of the Tamron 150-600. The zoom looks really bulky, and I'd prefer the sharpness of a prime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Thanks! They were from Iceland. I was surprised at how close we could get to breeding seabirds - I don't think they have the same protections as they do in the US. Sharpness on both lenses looks pretty comparable. The Canon is a bit sharper at 400mm and f/5.6 but once you start putting teleconverters on it, center sharpness is worse than the Tamron. I wouldn't exactly call the Tamron bulky, considering the size and weight of every other non-reflex 600mm lens on the market, but the Canon is pretty much the smallest and lightest lens suitable for shooting birds. A few more recent shots  godwit-in-flight by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  avocet-liftoff by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  wild-turkey by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  ibis-flock by Redwood Planet, on Flickr  osprey-beak-clean by Redwood Planet, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Really heavy crop, bad picture in general, but this is an important milestone for me. My first birdeshit.jpg making GBS threads Bird by RottenCookies, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:
Pinny posted:Wish I'd have double checked my settings before taking this, but I think it still came out half-decent. Rotten Cookies posted:Really heavy crop, bad picture in general, but this is an important milestone for me. My first birdeshit.jpg I haven't been able to get much lately. Here's a Common Merganser I found while kayaking: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
 Egret by RottenCookies, on Flickr 300mm feels just not long enough. Also, my 2x teleconverter is poo poo. I got better results just cropping on 300mm instead of using 300mm + 2xTC, and I'm really not comfortable cropping further than this. This also is probably a morning spot rather than an evening spot, seeing as I was facing west from about 4-7pm. This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. Anyway, I did have a good day, seeing more than a few great egrets, great blue heron, forster's terns (making GBS threads  ), and some mallards, mute swans, robins, a blue jay, and other common stuff. *This picture is perhaps not the best example, since at ISO 320 I could have bumped up the shutter speed and ISO, and reduced the aperture and most likely have gotten a sharper picture. But this is one of the better photos of the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
ibis-flock by Redwood Planet, on Flickr Complete with duck groupies! InternetJunky posted:All great stuff as usual, but I'm jealous of this guy especially. There's supposed to be some in Alberta but I've been unlucky so far. You can have some of ours, there are so many around here at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they allowed people to hunt them on the street. Bubbacub posted:Thanks! They were from Iceland. I was surprised at how close we could get to breeding seabirds - I don't think they have the same protections as they do in the US. Here is an example of the 400 5.6 with a 1.4 TC I recently got:  White Breasted Nuthatch by justincook5376, on Flickr I honestly think the shot would have been sharper without the TC cropping down to match at 560mm. That's the good thing about the 400 5.6, even wide open it is so sharp you can crop it down to match even up to 600mm, low ISO, no missed focus and no motion blur help. I think the 1.4TC may still be usable in really bright ideal conditions, I'm still going to mess around with it a bit. Rotten Cookies posted:This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. Can that Pentax shoot RAW? If so, and you will be post processing anyway, then shoot in RAW and use noise reduction after the fact. I use Lightroom for noise reduction, but I try to keep noise and shake as low as possible and just do minor touchups. I use a monopod for walk around shots, and a tripod for shots where I am going to be sitting around waiting for a while. Monopod helps immensely to get usable shots at lower shutter speeds than you normally would use handheld. Sometimes though, there just isn't enough light to use a fast enough shutter and thems the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Anyone in here got any pictures of birds making sweet love that they'd feel comfortable sharing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Anyone in here got any pictures of birds making sweet love that they'd feel comfortable sharing? Ha, this reminds me of a story. I have a friend who's a woodcarver. He saw my bird shots and asked if I had any of the backs of their heads, since apparently outside of captivity, the only good way to get a really good look at the backsides of birds for painting/carving reference is to find them dead (which sucks). So he asked me if, when I found a good angle, to shoot the backs of birds so he could use them as reference. No problem, happy to do it for a friend. A few of those shots turned out OK, so I threw them up on flickr, and some guy found them and asked if I would post more to a series of groups like, "Birds and Animal Butt Shots!" and "Animal Bums From Around The World." Which, my first reaction was, "man, that's weird." And my second was, "Oh poo poo, this is a fetish isn't it?" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. Most of my shots with my 120-400mm lens are at 400mm, f/8 (sometimes f/7.1 but I swear I can see a sharpness difference so I normally stick with f/8), with a target shutter speed of 1/1000s (or 1/500 in crappy lighting) and a maximum ISO of 3200. If I had a better camera body I'd raise the ISO, but with my D3200 that's about as high as I can go and still get good, usable results. The vast majority of my shots are also handheld; I can't remember the last time I used my monopod or tripod for bird shots with that lens and I don't generally bring either of them with me anymore either. The lens itself has what Sigma calls optical stabilization (OS) which helps as well. I also shoot exclusively in RAW, so Lightroom's noise reduction can certainly help on anything above ISO 1600 or so. All that said I really should start bringing the monopod with me more often, there are a lot of times when I'm waiting around for little birds to get used to my presence that it would help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. - faster shutter speed (I typically shoot in shutter priority @ 3200/second as a default) Don't dismiss your 300 + 2x TC until you are able to get that combo on a tripod. Keep in mind even the tiniest of movements/vibrations at that focal range can translate into a soft shot. Most people completely underestimate how much certain factors can affect a shot at long focal lengths (for example, your egret is standing on a big rock, and if this is anything but very early morning there's probably tons of heat waves coming off that rock that will make it look like you have camera shake/missed focus). I do leave some in-camera noise reduction on when I shoot, but that's because my camera seems to do a great job with the NR. I don't really know how well a Pentax handles noise, but the easiest way to find out is take two similar shots and compare with and without.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Anyone in here got any pictures of birds making sweet love that they'd feel comfortable sharing? At home I've got a picture of a couple of Swainson's Hawk's doin' it, and another picture from another day of a different Swainson's Hawk pooping, along with a duck on hard take-off from a pond. I really need to process some pictures, there's poop to spread around! **** Rotten Cookies, shoot RAW, and turn off in-camera noise reduction (I can't remember if Pentax cameras do noise reduction on RAW as well as JPG, but it's a waste of time anyways). Noise reduction on a proper computer is always going to be way better than anything automatic built into a camera's firmware. I don't know about the K-30, but my K-10D's owner's manual (and some relevant discussion on PentaxForums) advised turning OFF shake-reduction when the camera is on a tripod - the SR system is designed to compensate for typical hand/arm movements, and a tripod wobbling is a different set of motions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Shooting raw and boosting the ISO and shutter speed will help a ton. The K-30 is recent enough that Lightroom can remove all the nasty grain. I get decent results with my A100 at 400/800iso and cleaning it in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. I shoot with the Canon 400mm 5.6, so I'll leave it in AP mode and set to 5.6. I think the wide aperture alone has helped my photography tons, since I don't have to sacrifice ISO and shutter speed as much. Previously I was shooting with a NEX and various zooms, which needed f/8+ to get reasonably sharp images. I shoot RAW, leave ISO and shutter speed auto and I just keep an eye on them and make sure the auto values are reasonable. Then I just take thousands of pictures and find the good ones later. In Lightroom, I usually apply a little luminance de-noise, moderate chromatic de-noise, and a moderate-to-fair amount of sharpening. If I have to choose, I tend to increase ISO over decreasing shutter since noise can be partially fixed in post-processing...while motion-blur cannot. Although more often than not, if I pass 3200 ISO i'll just pack up and go home, since the shots will not turn out well past that point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Anyone in here got any pictures of birds making sweet love that they'd feel comfortable sharing?  IMG_7278 - Version 2 on FlickrBonus pervy onlookers. This is the best I have on Flickr right now- I'm sure I have some more close up shots somewhere. Ended with some cock-blocking  IMG_7281 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Hey, thanks for the tips and advice, everyone. I wish the advice about using a tripod would apply to me, but I was already using one. I didn't think about heat distortion, though. That might be a thing. I'll try turning off in-camera NR, turning off in-camera shake reduction, and if I have to, turn up the ISO to get myself some shutter speed. While the explanation makes sense, turning off shake reduction when you're on a tripod seems counter-intuitive. I would think it would only help. Rotten Cookies fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I haven't actually tested it. My K-10D has a big switch on the back to turn off SR, but my K-5 buries it in menus. It's probably not a big deal. Just shoot more. Like I need to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
My Sony camera also says to turn off SSS when you use a tripod, but I don't know what difference it makes since it also automatically disables over specific shutter speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
The shake reduction hunts wierdly when it's mounted on a tripod. I believe the overall effect is to counteract the net movement in the scene, so if any of your image is moving then the shake reduction will act to unblur that movement. If it's a background movement then your foreground will come out blurred. Try taking a 1-2 second exposure using shake reduction on a tripod of an image with any movement at all (trees, river, ocean etc) and you'll see it will come out unacceptably blurry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
I'm going to head to Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge very early on Sunday morning this weekend. Anybody have any advice for me since I've never been there before, and/or any other northwesterners want to join me? I'm planning on being there right around 6-6:30am.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Just shoot more. This is probably the rightest answer for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:This may be more of a question for a different thread, but how are you all reducing noise/shake in your photos? I'm trying to reduce my iso, increase my shutter speed as best I can*. I'm using a remote shutter release, and I was fairly shielded from the wind. My camera also has shake-reduction in it, so I'd think that would help. The noise part goes for post-processing too? I realized that Noise Reduction is turned on in my settings on my Pentax K-30. That is, I assume, a bad thing, since the camera is processing pictures that I will be processing later. Reducing shake and motion blur has been largely covered but I'd like to mention that a lovely tripod isn't really going to be much of a help to reduce shake. A decent manfrotto/gitzo/benro with a solid ballhead will make a big difference for a smaller telephoto lenses like a 70-300 zoom, 300 f4 prime, or something like the Canon 400 f5.6 (which doesn't apply to you obviously) over a cheap, generic plastic tripod. Bigger setups need bigger tripods, of course. That said, I don't generally use a tripod with my 300 + 2x TC unless I'm in a setup. At 1/1000 or so motion blur should pretty much be a non-issue. I've said this before in the thread but it bears repeating: getting closer is key. Its very common when just starting out to take a bunch of photos from waaaaaaay too far away. I did it a lot and I have a bunch of bad pictures to prove it. All of your photos will be sharper, cleaner and more detailed when you can get closer to the bird. Motion blur and heat haze become far less of a problem as well plus you won't have as big a problem with noise since you won't have to crop as deep. Yes, they are birds and they can be skittish but learning the tricks to get closer is the single best thing you can do to improve photo quality. One of the easiest tricks is "get there at dawn, sit still, be patient" and its also one of the most effective. Kenshin posted:I'm going to head to Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge very early on Sunday morning this weekend. Anybody have any advice for me since I've never been there before, and/or any other northwesterners want to join me? I'm planning on being there right around 6-6:30am. Have not been to Nisqually but the shorebird pics I posted a bit ago were from Bottle Beach, not too far from there (about an hour drive or so west from Oly). If you're in the area, you should check it out. Migration is just now starting up and that's a good place for weird rarities plus just tons of the more typical species.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:
But yes, the answer generally is "get closer". The closer you are to your subject the better your bokeh will be, too! 800peepee51doodoo posted:Have not been to Nisqually but the shorebird pics I posted a bit ago were from Bottle Beach, not too far from there (about an hour drive or so west from Oly). If you're in the area, you should check it out. Migration is just now starting up and that's a good place for weird rarities plus just tons of the more typical species. Unfortunately a bit far for what I'm planning that day (I live in Seattle-proper, so Nisqually is already about an hour drive), but I'll keep that in mind for the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
So when are we doing a migration season PNW birdshit fetish goon meet? It seems like a place between Portland and Seattle on a weekend could draw quite a showing.  I saw some Village Weaver colonies, but never got a clear shot of weaving action. These were right next to a restaurant, so I could at least get decently close.  Village Weaver by Icybacon, on Flickr  Village Weaver by Icybacon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've got a picture of a couple of Swainson's Hawk's doin' it  SD 136 Sexy Swainsons 8 by Execudork, on FlickrThe foreplay and afterglow pictures are in the set on either side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
I put these up last night but I didn't have time to put them here. Sorry for the apparent double-post. First, making GBS threads birds as per thread title:  SD 136 Duckpoop by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Hermit Thrush 3 by Execudork, on FlickrSecond, some bird pictures that I'm happy about for non-internetty reasons:  SD 136 Yellow-headed Blackbird 2 by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Northern Harrier 1 by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Two Wires One Bird by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Final Approach by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Blue Jay by Execudork, on Flickr SD 136 Hermit Thrush 8 by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Found this on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbli8lh9Pcw Good advice for newbies for sure, and it at least helped confirm to me that I'm on the right track with things. (I'm very much still learning, I only bought my D3200 last year September!) The camo tip is interesting. Anybody else here wear camo while birding? I'm contemplating buying some inexpensive camo gear. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Hi, I'm not a photographer but I just wanted to thank you guys who are for all these awesome pictures of birds, because they're pretty cool and birds are cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Good advice for newbies for sure, and it at least helped confirm to me that I'm on the right track with things. (I'm very much still learning, I only bought my D3200 last year September!) quote:The camo tip is interesting. Anybody else here wear camo while birding? I'm contemplating buying some inexpensive camo gear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I can recommend The Handbook of Bird Photography as a good introduction to various aspects of bird photography. The people in the video seem to only cover their white Canon lenses with it--I can't imagine why someone would bother covering a black lens in camo (unless you're doing shooting in the arctic!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I think people also do it to protect the lens from minor knocks and keep the resale value up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:The camo tip is interesting. Anybody else here wear camo while birding? I'm contemplating buying some inexpensive camo gear. Yeah, I've got a good bit of camo gear but I suit up maybe half the time. Depends on where/what I plan on shooting. I think its good for water fowl, herons, raptors like osprey and harriers that have a specific hunting ground, etc - basically if I think I'm gonna be hanging around one spot and not moving much but I'm not gonna set up a hide. It works pretty well; I have a similar story to the guy in the video where a GBH flew within 20ft of where I was sitting and never saw me. Its also good just to have clothes that you feel comfortable getting dirty in. Suiting up in camo is kind of like putting on your game face and you might be more inclined to wander off the path or lay down in some mud to get a shot. I wear (camo) waders a lot to crawl around in mud and beach sand. That semi palm sandpiper shot I posted above was taken while I was laying down flat in a literal bog covered in disgusting bog water. For the other shorebird shots, I was crawling around on the beach in waders and a rain shell so I wouldn't get totally hosed by sand. Waders are really great for those kinds of situations. Also for wading. That video was pretty decent. Its nice seeing people talking about options for those of us without unlimited budgets. I don't know about that Tokina 300 though, I'm guessing since its Nikon that its screw drive? I've never seen an EF mount AF version of that lens, they're always manual focus. Pablo Bluth posted:I think people also do it to protect the lens from minor knocks and keep the resale value up. I got a lens coat for my 300 because it helps a bit with light rain as well as concealing the white. Makes it easier to grip too, imo. My 300-800 came with a lens coat and it seemed like it was easier to clean the sand off it after I got off the beach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:That video was pretty decent. Its nice seeing people talking about options for those of us without unlimited budgets. I don't know about that Tokina 300 though, I'm guessing since its Nikon that its screw drive? I've never seen an EF mount AF version of that lens, they're always manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:The people in the video seem to only cover their white Canon lenses with it--I can't imagine why someone would bother covering a black lens in camo (unless you're doing shooting in the arctic!) Anything white in the arctic is assumed to be a polar bear until demonstrated otherwise. We carry shotguns to go to the toilet, walking around in white is a good way to disappear (and I don't mean temporarily or in a purely visual sense).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
I have camo on my big whites because I had heard that most birds can see in the ultraviolet spectrum and a big white lens looks like a flare to them. Since then I've heard conflicting advice about this, but I'm still glad I got the camo covers because you don't want to be that one guy who shows up in a group of big lens shooters with a big white lens. You can see everyone eyeing each other in a way that suggests "get a load of the new guy". Also, I don't baby my lenses and as a result they get banged around a bit. The camo does a good job keeping the paint intact, which for some reason seems to be a selling point when buying used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Work has been killing my ability to get out and shoot lately so I've resorted to going back through some old photos from this winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 22:25
|
|