I’ve taken the low-road with this beautiful hawk and done some significant image manipulation in one version of the photo.
1/2500, f/6.3, ISO 500, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, canvas added for composition, not baited, set up or called in
This bird, photographed five days ago in Box Elder County, is making his second appearance on Feathered Photography. A few days ago I posted another image of him in flight but this photo was taken immediately after liftoff from a power pole. I like the splayed feet, flared tail, excellent eye contact and the good look at almost his entire ventral surface.
But there were two things I didn’t like about the original image so I held my nose and made some alterations to this version of the photo that I don’t normally do.
- The hawk was too close to the right side of the frame for pleasing composition so I added canvas there.
- The insulator on the power pole that the bird took off from was still visible at lower left so I removed it.
This is the image before I removed the insulator and wire (it includes the added canvas).
To be honest I don’t know which version I prefer. In the first version his takeoff posture suggests the presence of a perch that isn’t there but on the other hand I sure don’t like insulators and wires in my images. Since I don’t like to do this kind of image manipulation and I can’t decide which version I prefer anyway I probably should have just left the insulator in the photo and let it go at that. But I’m curious about what others might think so I’ve presented both versions.
When it comes to image manipulation I believe that full disclosure is always the best (and the only honest) policy.
Ron
Ron , Subject is the bird and i believe what you have done is perfectly acceptable to accentuate the subject removing unnecessary distractions..
Beautiful roughie. I vote no insulator, to me it detracts from the bird.
leave the insulators…. don’t leave the viewers hanging about where from while you make up space as to where too!
Well, ok…
Ron,
The manipulation you did is minor in my mind.
Cropping is often used to removed distracting or unwanted parts to the image. Ansel Adams often manipulated his photographs!
Ted, I have no problem with cropping out unwanted image elements if I’m still left with a pleasing composition. Ansel Adams I’m obviously not, in more ways than one…
Better as BIRD, and ONLY bird. Didn’t deliberate long with this response. Rationale behind it seems to be that one’s more directly available to the bird this way — a full sense of its being. From feet to beak. Every aspect.
That’s an interesting way to put it, Thomas. I especially enjoyed your first two sentences – concise and direct.
If you had asked me without the photo I would have said to take the line and insulator out, but I prefer the one with it in?
Hard to figure out, isn’t it, Ken? 🙂 I waffle back and forth…
I don’t think I’ll be any help. I like the context that the pole/insulator/wires give, so I can see from what he pushed off. However, I also like the added canvas in front of the bird. Either way, a fantastic shot of a gorgeous bird.
I feel like Charlie Brown (wishy-washy). 😉
Don’t feel bad, Marty – I’m a-wishin’ and a’washin’ right along with you!
Is there a way to take off the wires but leave the insulator? Just curious as to what that would look like.
The pattern on the insulator mimics the light-dark pattern on the Roughie for me and I kinda like that. 🙂
I often like to see ‘context’ in a photograph, but this time I am going against my usual tack. I prefer (and marvel at) the first photo. And revel in all the detail in the plumage, and the feather curl and and and.
The wire is a distraction. Small distraction, but my mind is small.
Your mind is far from small, EC. Thank you for your input.
Ron: Speaking as a semi-serious bird photographer, I think it is important for photographers to decide what they want to accomplish: record the scene as it is, create true-to-nature scenes that are beautiful, make beautiful images with all the tools at hand, or … In my mind, all approaches are valid approaches. Yes, they must be presented for what they are (boy, you are good at that!)
So, if I am competing my images as wildlife or nature, I cannot clone out anything, nor can I add canvas. Such manipulation is against the rules. If I am doing a print, however, such manipulations are perfectly allowed.
Bottom line, I do not think insulators and wires are beautiful, I think birds are very beautiful, I like your first image: a beautiful shot of a beautiful bird. Impressive.
“If I am doing a print, however, such manipulations are perfectly allowed”
For me there’s a caveat to that rule, Richard. If I’m doing it for myself, I agree. But if it’s an image I’ve posted online and someone wants to purchase a print of it I absolutely don’t want it to be an image I’ve heavily manipulated – especially if they aren’t aware of what I’ve done. So with rare exceptions I don’t do it at all.
Good morning Ron.
What you have done here is open the door on a philosophical discussion of what photography is to different people. Some considering it to be a recording device, like a tape video recorder in a parking lot, while others consider it an art form. You’re a biologist, a scientist. I come for a similar background, getting to working on a Masters Degree in the Celestial Orientation and Navigation of the Western Whiptail lizard in SE Oregon. So, I can relate to a scientific approach to photography. On the other hand, I was an avid fan of Ansel Adams and the beautiful landscapes he “created” of the western US. Some may consider his photography recording, while others considered it art. For me, its art, therefore the photographer is an artist. Artists use the tools available to them to create images. In film days, compared to today, you had limited tools, but a good photographer could affectively use those tools to be creative. For example, look at the various iterations of Moonrise over Hernandez. Same negative, VERY different versions of the print. So, coming back to your photograph of the Roughy. To me, you are creating an image of the bird, so the insulator has noting to do with the image of the bird. It has to go, for me. And your comment about the lack of a perch to take off from, the bird as easily could have been breaking for a landing. Either way, it doesn’t matter. The beautiful image is of the bird; wings spread and feet extended. And the presentation results in the viewer saying, “Wow, what a beautiful bird!” Not “what a beautiful insulator and wire. Isn’t the first statement what you are trying convey in the photograph? So for me again, the insulator goes. And actually, if the image were mine, the bird is still a little tight in the frame and I would add more canvas. So, there is my $.02. Have a wonderful day.
Thanks for an important contribution to the discussion, Frank.
Actually, I think my view of “photography” might be a little different from yours. Apparently? you lump all types of photography together. For me, nature photography is a different animal than many of the other types. Nature is nature, it is what it is, (or isn’t). So when I clone out elements, natural or not, I’m interfering with the laws of nature (physics and optics in this case) and I just don’t like to do it. I also think cloning borders on dishonesty in nature photography (not necessarily in other types of photography) even when it’s disclosed. I know I’m in the minority about that but it’s how I feel. And apparently the most respected nature photography contests agree with me when they forbid cloning in their competitions.
IMO, the best nature photographs can also be art, without significant photo manipulation. That’s often my goal (though not always) and I don’t like to severely manipulate my images in an effort to achieve it.
It isn’t easy to be good. If it were everybody could do it…
The most challenging, difficult, and rewarding part of photography is the capture. The right light, subject, etc. The next part is the presentation. Different folks will have different opinions on the best presentation, the the most important however is opinion of the one who created the image. I agree with you re the photo competition restrictions. I read the instructions on Audubon’s 2017 contest. But, there are many, many, many wonder images of natural history that have had quite a bit of “stuff” done to them in post capture. That manipulation doesn’t mean I don’t “like” the “image”. Fun conversation this AM Ron, and once again, appreciate your efforts to initiate it.
I like the both shots, but the first a little better…the second provides context, but also distraction…I like looking, being able to focus, on the beautiful image of the bird without the distraction of ugly wires…
I agree, Patty – the wire, even more than the insulator itself, is unpleasant to my eye.
Ron the insulator and wires are just fine and I don’t think they distractions at all. The perception or idea that these objects aren’t “natural” in nature is only slightly true and would only be true if man weren’t around to manipulate nature in many different ways. What you see is what you get and that is the reality. We see peregrine falcons living in the city and that is their choice, yes nesting habitat has been compromised and lost but that is the falcon’s response to its natural environment and its mode of adaptation. All I’m saying is not to beat yourself up with regard to “man made” objects because they are not a fixture within nature and the birds have made their choice albeit a forced choice this is what they do to survive.
Thanks, Rich. To my mind there’s man-made and there’s butt ugly and I think insulators and wires are both. I just don’t like them in my photos. I find many, many other man made perches to be less objectionable. Just my opinion of course…
Beautiful shots! I vote for the insulator, because, as you say, the posture indicates a take-off perch. But also, raptors in open country use power poles as a look-out, and in some cases, this is dangerous for them. Here in Central California, we see raptors almost exclusively on man-made objects. The California power folks are, under the urgings of the public, trying to replace the dangerous poles with designs that are safer. It is a long, slow process. There are raptor groups constantly on the alert.
Sallie, Utah has come a long ways in making power poles raptor-safe. But as you say it’s a long process.
Given that the bird has just taken off, I prefer the second photo, the one with context. The full view of the ventral feather patterns is wonderful. So are the britches and the toes…
You make an important point about context, Susan.
Remember eye contact. The first thing a person sees is the Raptor, but then the eye instinctively looks at the insulator. The important thing in the photo is the Roughie, and the insulator detracts from that. Just saying.
Agreed. Lee – there’s no doubt that the viewer’s eye finds the insulator. I guess it’s a question of the lesser of two evils – the presence of the insulator or cloning out elements in the image.
But then there’s also the issue of – where is the perch that we expect might be there given the obvious take-off posture of the hawk?
Mornin’, Ron–I struggled for years to achieve “acceptable” image quality. Slowly, as my keeper rate rose, like a dog with a bone, I had more time to chew on other things and started looking at composition.
As we all know, it is incredibly hard to get everything “right” in-camera, and truth be told, I always have to have a healthy dose of luck thrown in to get there. I do a lot of work in the deep woods, so I’m always fighting exposure variances and shutterspeed. What I personally use as a guideline is that if I have an element that consistently leads my eye away from the main subject, I’ll remove it. Or, tone it down. I got over beating myself up about the addition of canvass long ago, but like you, it’s still a “burr under my saddle”, but as time goes by, the itch is decreasing.
If you were submitting this image for a contest or an assignment, the insulator would probably have to go. For a documental presentation, like this one, it’s…..perfect. 🙂 As far as I’m concerned, you can’t lose; either way this is a great shot, and another thought provoking conversation. Oh, I almost forgot, the bird is pretty cool, too. 🙂 Best…Mitch
That’s a thoughtful and insightful comment, Mitch. Thanks for providing it.
Spectacular shots Ron! Thanks for sharing!
Charlotte
Thanks, Charlotte.
Oh Ron … gorgeous ….. I’m a cloning fool … but in your instance I don’t think it matters one way or the other the bird just dominates the scene ..
Thanks for that feedback, Marina. You make a good point about the bird dominating the scene.
Beautiful shot, Ron. 🙂 There are times when a bit a manipulation improves things even if one prefers not to do them!
That’s right, Judy – an ethical dilemma (for me at least). In the end I’ll probably just leave the insulator in and let the chips fall where they may. I have less of a problem with the added canvas but it’s a fine line…
Awesome, just awesome. I can’t decide but if I had to, I like the story.
Sounds like you and I are in the same boat, Cheryl!