Letters

A Fudged Photo?

One of the things I enjoy about Shooting Sportsman is the quality of the photography. Consequently, I was disappointed to see a cover photo (Nov/Dec) that I am fairly certain is an amateurish digital manipulation in which a photograph of flaring geese was superimposed over an image of a hunter. Several things are suspect about the image: the incorrect proportions of the geese relative to the hunter, the perspective and relative depth in the image of the geese and the hunter, and the relative clarity/contrast of the geese and the hunter. In addition, the hunter's gun is not pointing at any of the geese. The nearest goose is not in line with the hunter's gun and actually appears to be between the hunter and the camera. I have no objection to digital manipulation of photos (except for scientific or journalistic purposes). However, this appears to me to be a very low-quality composite image.

Dave Krohne
West Point, Indiana

Photographer Dusan Smetana responds:

On the day we shot it was 20 degrees below zero with a very strong wind, as you can see by the blowing snow in the bottom of the photo. The only way for geese to land was to approach very low. I was using an 80-to-200mm lens because I was about 40 yards behind the hunters, hiding in hay bales with a video cameraman. The large zoom lens has a tendency to make the background appear closer than it is. However, the geese were really close to the hunters. As far as the hunter not appearing to be aiming at a goose, the cover image is a cropped version of the larger shot shown here, in which seven more geese are above and behind the closer-in birds.

This is one of my favorite images and one of the best I have ever taken, but I can understand the hesitancy in believing it. It was a special experience.

Stanbury v. Churchill

I greatly enjoyed Michael McIntosh's column on shooting incomers in January/February. I would like to point out two things, however.

Although the article states that the shooter should transfer his weight from the front foot to the rear foot when shooting incomers (the Churchill method), the photo accompanying the text illustrates the Stanbury method-wherein the weight remains on the front foot throughout and the rear heel is lifted slightly. Both methods work, of course.

Michael correctly points out that even with the gun in front of the incomer (with the bird below the barrels), the bird can be kept in sight when the shooter keeps both eyes open. This is possible even when the shooter has a dominant eye. John Bidwell teaches the method of starting the gun ahead of the bird and watching the bird below the barrels on both incoming and teal-type targets. My experience is that, with practice, this is a highly effective method.

I also would like to compliment Douglas Tate for his fine article on Boss in that issue and Clair Kofoed for seeking out and reporting on Philipp Ollendorff and his guns.

Michael Spies
Via e-mail

While enjoying and reinforcing the information I've learned through years of reading and watching books and videos featuring Michael McIntosh, Jack Mitchell, Michael Yardley and others, my understanding of McIntosh's instruction is to move your whole body-not just your head-and shift your weight from your leading foot to your opposite heel. This is an excellent technique to position yourself for a successful shot to kill the incomer (a Churchill method). Your picture seems to me to show the Stanbury method, which is to maintain your weight on your leading foot while you lift the heel of your right foot, which is another technique to gain a solid position for success.

F.J. Isgro
Via e-mail

A phone call to Michael McIntosh affirmed that the photo was appropriate. For incoming targets, Michael teaches a combination of the Churchill and Stanbury methods (among others), in that the shooter's weight remains on his front foot until the target is at a 60-degree angle or more. The photo showed a shooter taking an incomer far enough in front that his weight would have just begun shifting.

Double Allusions

Douglas Tate's connection of Joe Manton with Thackeray's Vanity Fair ("Heritage Guns," Jan/Feb) reminded me of a slightly later allusion in Richard D. Blackmore's first novel, Clara Vaughan (1864). At one point Blackmore's narrator, a young woman who is not familiar with firearms, mentions a "double-barrel gun" by a "famous maker, Joe something." In Blackmore's next novel, Cradock Nowell (1866), the title character is led to believe he accidentally has shot his twin brother in a hunting accident. The mystery hinges on the range at which the young man was slain. Eventually, Dr. Hutton, a

physician familiar with fieldsports, is able to trace the true murderer by the nature of the load. In the course of the tale Blackmore provides a short dissertation on ammunition, and his characters compare "your pet Purdey" to "my Lancaster." This is not one of Blackmore's more widely read books, but the author's next one, Lorna Doone (1869), has never been out of print. Unfortunately, it's set in the 17th Century-long before the golden age of the double gun.

Bob Madison
Via e-mail

Old Interests, New Avocations

About 10 years ago a friend invited me to an opening-day pheasant hunt in Mitchell, South Dakota. This hunt was great and revived two interests that I had neglected for more than 40 years.

As a child, I hunted with my father and brother. Daddy always let me clean the guns, and one never forgets the fragrance of Hoppe's No. 9 or the pleasure of hunting with his father.

Shortly after the pheasant hunt with my friend, I discovered your magazine, and since then you have been my guide for all things concerning guns, hunting and dogs. I have acquired several fine guns from your advertisers; been to Argentina on dove hunts; been to Spain with my wife for a bespoke gun; and had work done on my guns by Jack Rowe, Briley, Abe Chaber and others. I acquired a great dog and have enjoyed myself immensely under your tutelage.

The guns required cases, cartridge bags, belts and other leather items. As a teen, I made things out of scrap leather that could be bought by the bundle for 50¢ at the hardware store. I was approaching retirement at the time of my epiphany and had time for a hobby. Since then I have covered my family and friends with all manner of leather gun cases, glasses cases, suspenders, belts, camera cases, purses, bags and other articles that can be made from vegetable-tanned English bridle leather.

A simple invitation and your magazine have given me a new avocation. You may have unleashed a monster, but my wife encourages me and even bought my first side-by-side when I balked at the price. She also has the bird dog sleeping in the house. Honest, I didn't plan this! Please let me know if Michael McIntosh shoots as well as he writes. If he does, you also have provided me with a new hero.

Bill Quillen
Knoxville, Tennessee

We appreciate receiving your comments, criticisms and suggestions. Please send correspondence to Letters, Shooting Sportsman, PO Box 1357, Camden, ME 04843; editorial@shootingsportsman.com.

Do you like what you read? Subscribe to Shooting Sportsman»