BFRO / What's New - America and Canada / Archives / 03-01-2008 / I\'ll Share One - Page *2

Topie: I'll Share One - Page *2 Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
December 18th, 2007 12:52 AM
Ammi Ok, I said I had some more, so here they are.....

I got a couple shots of this one... so I will post them both.
I changed the focus slightly, so I hope between the 2, it is more helpful...





December 18th, 2007 12:57 AM
CKnaub Wow Ammi, the 2nd foto is great! I see a face with eyes, nose and looks like no facial hair. Can you tell us what you saw when you took this shot, or were you just following movement?
December 18th, 2007 01:05 AM
Ammi I saw the baby in the bottom right side, his movement, and zoomed in on him.
The area behind the big one was back lit with the morning sun, and I saw in the pic, the outline of the bigger one, so i changed the focus a bit deeper.

The baby moved towards me closer, in the second pic, and disappeared in a shrub, just after.

I was basicly following movement at first, but have started to look more for the outlines, while I am still in the area, and take more pics of the same places...if I think I see anything...
December 18th, 2007 01:05 AM
Ammi I think these will tweek out alot better than the others have.
December 18th, 2007 01:10 AM
deadshooter Ammi
Pretty soon one of those babies might just climb in your lap :)
December 18th, 2007 01:10 AM
CKnaub So, is the baby the tiny little face right on the copyright(on the bottom right)? I see it in the 1st picture and then in the 2nd all that is visible is the top of a round little head. Also in the first, I can't make out the larger one, but it is visible in the second one.

Thanks for the quick reply. Looks like you are getting your technique with the camera going, good job! I have to sign off until tomorrow morning, so good night. Looking forward to all our tweekers in residence to work their stuff :p
December 18th, 2007 01:22 AM
Ammi I'm looking forward to that too...
The baby is my focus on the first shot, and is under the X branch. The big one is fuzzy, because he is further back, and out of focus.
2nd shot, focus is changed to get he big one, and the baby has moved forward, and is at the copyright.... just his head.

That is a very young baby....

I ain't babysitting...
I got 2 people coming here helping to photograph, Loubob and Jon.
I got Dr. Timbo in here for overall animal advise, and he is loaning his video right now.
I think I should be able to find a sitter for em.... heh heh

That is the 2nd close baby in 2 days now...
No growls or bad reactions from them.
I hope that means they are trusting more.
The younger ones know I have the goodies..... they are getting bolder, to get to me, when I come out. I think the older ones are just coming in closer to keep up with them.
That or they are just as hungry.
A little of both?

December 18th, 2007 01:31 AM
Mega Monkey Ammi,
Was the little one walking on two feet or crawling?
December 18th, 2007 01:37 AM
Ammi Crawling when I took the first one, but moved quick, and I was looking at the pic, and then refocusing, and his lil rump was moving toward a bush quick.... by the time I snapped the 2nd one and looked again, he was gone....
They are super fast, and slick.... I usually just see a little blur, so I was thrilled to get the pic on him.

I am zoomed in on both shots, so these guys are not as close to me as it looks in the pics.
December 18th, 2007 01:43 AM
Southman Tweaks of the latest pics.



Southman :)
December 18th, 2007 01:49 AM
Southman
A little darker version of #2

December 18th, 2007 01:49 AM
Ammi Thanks southman... for everything dude....
What do you think of these new ones?
December 18th, 2007 01:50 AM
Ammi That darker version brings the face out better.
December 18th, 2007 02:01 AM
Mega Monkey I think it's one of the best pictures yet.
I'm having trouble making out details on the "momma". I think I'm gonna need red lines and circles from someone.
December 18th, 2007 02:30 AM
Southman
My outline leaves a lot to be desired! But this is what I see(approx.)!!!

;)
December 18th, 2007 02:30 AM
Mega Monkey Are you sure there wasn't TWO little ones? Twins maybe?

December 18th, 2007 02:37 AM
Mega Monkey Thanks Southman. That confirmed I was looking at the same thing as you guys.
Is it just me, or does it look to be staring in the same direction the little one/ones were looking in the first picture?

Maybe one of Ammi's dogs were in that direction?
December 18th, 2007 02:40 AM
Southman Ammi,

Your photos are gettin' better 'n' better! I saw the face "come out" when you focused on it, and the leaves disappeared. Objects in the foreground can really be hard to see through if they are in the focal plane. But if you focus beyond them, like you did in photo #2, they aren't a problem.
You get a BIG "done good" from me!

Southman
December 18th, 2007 02:48 AM
Southman Mega Monkey, I am going to confess that I don't see any little ones, so I can't answer that. Someone will have to point them out to me.
Guess I'm goin' blind.
December 18th, 2007 03:00 AM
Mega Monkey It's only their heads in the first pic. Then the top of one's head in the second.
My outlines ain't any better than yours.

December 18th, 2007 03:08 AM
Southman Mega...

Everybody is looking in the same direction.

This place is "crawling" with little ones! Pun intended!

December 18th, 2007 03:11 AM
Southman If I were that dog, I'd head for the hills!
December 18th, 2007 07:37 AM
jemack9852

Here is my interpretation of the first image. It looks like the larger one is looking down at the young one. You can see the head crest, brow ridge and eyes. Again this is just what i'm seeing.
December 18th, 2007 07:39 AM
jemack9852

Here is what I see in the second picture. In the upper right I see a face looking straight at the camera and half hidden behind a branch (In yellow circle). I also see the same large individual looking down at the infant. I can see a head crest brow ridge, eye sockets and top of nose/nostril. You can really see this if you plug it into a photo editor and zoom it up. Again, these are just what I saw when I studied the images. I'm curious to see what others think of my interpretation. Ammi, keep up the good work!
December 18th, 2007 07:54 AM
want to see 1 Hello Ammi,

All i can say is that your hard work is well appericated. You are doing an awesome job!! This is FANTISIC!!!!!!! Maybe someday you can get a family photo!(lol)

Thanks again,
Howard
December 18th, 2007 08:45 AM
jimws
Quote:
Christopher Noel wrote:
Exactly, Bossburg. If Sasquatch exists, it logically follows that it's been expertly evading us for thousands of years. Would that lead one to suppose it would be a straightforward matter to snap an unobstructed portrait of one?


Respectfully Christopher, I have to disagree here. If bf were as stealthy as you believe, it seems to me he'd never been seen by people, yet he's seen thousands of times. So I don't see it that way.

I have no problem the thread, but it sounds like what some want is no skepticism at all. Look again, I am a bf believer, just don't buy every piece of evidence. It's the skeptics in this thread which can draw attention to the fact that the pictures are not compelling and that a better picture is need to persuade us skeptics.

I can't imagine there's anything wrong with that.
December 18th, 2007 08:56 AM
jimws I'd like to ask a question. Many of you see 3 or 4 young ones in the pics. I am not a primate expert, but don't young chimps or gorillas play and move around most of the time. I know my 7 year old twins are on the move constantly. I guess what I am asking is, wouldn't you be able to detect some significant play and thrashing in the brush as they're playing?

Wouldn't a great camcorder be more germane. I'd think you could catch movement rather than still shot images which show an inanimate image versus a video which brings the object to life. Even the eyes blinking for that matter.
December 18th, 2007 09:44 AM
Christopher Noel Seems to come out a bit better in sepia tone.
December 18th, 2007 09:50 AM
Christopher Noel jimws, good point, and I'm glad you feel free to debate on here. My view, in response, is that almost all cases of Sasquatch sightings represent either 1) mistakes, when an individual is unaware that humans are present in a spot (this creature is not, of course, infallible; maybe 99.9% infallible, but not 100%), or 2) deliberate power plays, such as when they step out in front of cars and freak the people out; though a car is dangerous, these encounters still seem to be on the Sasquatch's terms. In the case of a habituation site, though, the Sasquatch "knows that we know," that it's being watched and that, so to speak, "the heat is on." Even if a certain level of trust is attained, the subject reamains, it seems, highly aware of the perameters of the game, engages in its eons' worth of evolved concealment strategy. These layers of caution may be thinning in Ammi's case. Thinning to transparency...?
(Edited by Christopher Noel)
December 18th, 2007 10:10 AM
Kate1980
Quote:
jimws wrote:
I'd like to ask a question. Many of you see 3 or 4 young ones in the pics. I am not a primate expert, but don't young chimps or gorillas play and move around most of the time. I know my 7 year old twins are on the move constantly. I guess what I am asking is, wouldn't you be able to detect some significant play and thrashing in the brush as they're playing?


They play and rough house constantly and you can even hear their laugher, which sounds alot like a normal human child.

Kate
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17