Yes - checking online, in English that would be “red breast”, and Redbreast was probably the original English name. Then, being English, someone added an person’s first name, Robin Redbreast, and then it just became Robin (and other English birds have people’s names, e.g. Tom Tit, Jack Daw, and Jenny Wren).

Nice crisp photo, and you just feel from the photo why the robin’s fluffed up.

I can’t resist photoing them: today’s Robin for me:

That’s a nice crisp and vivid photo :) You’ve got sunlight - that beats dead trees!

Finches, such as the chaffinch, tend to eat seeds - thus the thick short beak for crunching them - but they will each insects, etc.

Nice dream.

Mmm, you want that much sky and that sort of width, so I can see why you end up with that amount of blurred stuff at the bottom to balance the sky.

It’s pointless saying "Take the shot from somewhere else with a foreground that works better: the swans will be where they will be, and having the headland fade into the sea between the two swans seems right, setting the angle.

My only suggestions are to trim the bottom as much as your artistic sense allows (but I guess you’ve done that), and perhaps brighten and flatten it towards the photos average to de-emphasize it. Maybe vignette?

There’s something curiously balanced (or something) about this photo - I can see why you might post it.

Still lots of details, so I’m jealous - roughly where did you take this?

Thank you - I was wondering whether I was missing some specific historical references, but your explanation makes your thoughts on this interesting collection clear.

There’s a significant melancholy to these, but I’m confused by your title of “Echoes” - echoes of what? Times past, or something more?

What did you use to shoot this? If a “normal” lens, it’s good, if with a macro lens, start playing with luminance histograms/tools on a RAW format form, as I suspect you’ll find detail lost in the “light”.

Mmm, I wondered if the 2.5s was from wanting to play with tripods :)

You probably know anyway, but the true joy of slow speed shots from a stable platform comes with flowing “broken” water. Fireworks and stars also have their moments.

Now play around with aperture (and then the other settings to keep the light right) to get greater depth of field, for compare and contrast purposes!

I am surprised you needed a 2.5s shot - were the panels essentially unlit?

“Quite Soft” - hah - for birds in flight, especially with my monster lens, your “Quite Soft” is more of an goal than an criticism for me. There again, I can rarely go faster than 1/1250s in the UK’s light, which doesn’t help.

Well done on the heron in flight being so sharp: I’ve a very similar photo, except of a UK Grey Heron - they look remarkably similar to yours.

No! A lesson I learned a long time ago: you definitely take this shot, it is interesting enough in its own right (more than enough!). Then you continue to watch the birds, finger on the trigger, and if you are lucky there will be a later better pose, but just as likely, they fly off :)

Always take what is put in front of you, and then optimistically ask for “More!”

P.S. it’s this sort of discussion I most miss from my days on the photography subreddits, but I really went off the site owner’s policies, and decided “no more of my photos for you” (even if they are not of the best).

This is really interesting to compare and contrast with the original, each has its considerable virtues.

This one has the bird really pop the moment you look at it, but then a realisation creeps up behind saying this looks a bit false, a bit like a model of a bird that you’ve lit and photoed in a studio, rather than a live bird out in the wild. In contrast, Tempus Fugit’s edit takes a little more time to appreciate, but then feels far more like a bird in its environment, with its colours more in tune with the background, and the wider crop helping with that.

Now, magazine photos (or, as you say, scrolling on a phone) need that “pop”, they’ve so little time to keep you on the page.

It’s the “in its environment” feel that I personally prefer for my bird photographs (if I did, e.g., portraits, my choices would be very different), and so I’ve not invested the effort in learning how to get birds to “pop”, but it’s very much a matter of taste and purpose. I still mess with global luminance, but that’s because I might know better than my camera a good light curve.

In passing, I feel a little regret you didn’t have the RAW format form to play with (which might well be why your edits saw the colour noise).

Mmm, yes, my gear does help a lot (except for the challenge of pointing the weighty pair in just the right direction), though it would help someone with more skills than me even more.

That is just Canon’s own Digital Photo Professional to crop and play with the global luminance curve, and a woefully under-used ACDSee Photo Studio which I only use to add keywords and catalogue.

So, really, just the joy of decent sunshine and a bird that was still and not that far away.

Drat, I’m sure I saw some other user’s name than Tempus Fugit - I know your good from many posts, and its excellent!

If you think those are bad, I’m longing to see what you think “good”!