![\"red-tailed](\"http:\/\/featheredphotography.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/12\/red-tailed-hawk-8518-ron-dudley.jpg\")
<\/p>\nMany raptors are “sit and wait” hunters, which means they often hunt from an elevated perch instead of “on the wing” and Red-tailed Hawks are well-known for this practice.\u00a0 An elevated perch provides good views over a large area and no extra energy need be expended in flight while looking for food.\u00a0\u00a0Typically these birds will use the same productive perch repeatedly over long periods of time, which presents a challenge to the photographer – poop (hereafter referred to as “whitewash”).<\/p>\n
Whitewash consists largely of crystalline uric acid (it’s more complicated than that but I’ll try not to stray into a discussion of the functions of the cloaca), which tends to be bright white.\u00a0 That whitewash can create some aesthetic and ethical conflicts between a “natural shot” and an image that has\u00a0been “Photoshopped” to death, primarily by use of the clone tool.<\/p>\n
Many photographers routinely clone out\u00a0whitewash and\/or droppings and I’ll admit that I’ve done it before, but for me it’s an ethical\u00a0dilemma\u00a0because I much prefer to leave my images as\u00a0natural as possible since I consider myself to be a “nature photographer”.\u00a0 In fact, right now I’m struggling with a\u00a0series of Horned Lark images that I really like, but there’s a large, fresh and very conspicuous\u00a0dropping right in front of the birds foot\u00a0that most would find distracting.\u00a0 I could clone it out but every time I looked at that image I would\u00a0know what I’d done.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Canon 7D,\u00a01\/4000, f\/5.6, ISO 640, 500 f\/4, natural light, not baited, set up or called in <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A couple of days ago I found this juvenile Red-tailed Hawk hunting from one if its favorite perches, a\u00a0massive rock on the side of a mountain that overlooks an expansive valley that’s crawling with their favorite prey – voles.\u00a0\u00a0 Seconds after this shot was taken, the hawk pounced on a vole from this perch.\u00a0 The bird allowed a very close approach (this image is almost full-frame without use of my tc) but as you can see, the perch is covered with whitewash, which for many people detracts significantly from the image.<\/p>\n Personally, I’m becoming more immune to the distractions of whitewash.\u00a0 In fact, when I don’t see it (particularly with a perched raptor) it often doesn’t look natural to my eye and\u00a0I sometimes become suspicious about how much cloning may have been done to the photo.\u00a0 I’m to the point, in my own images and those of others, that\u00a0I prefer a\u00a0shot that has whitewash over one where significant cloning has been done.<\/p>\n Ahhh, preferences…\u00a0 How do you account for them?<\/p>\n Ron<\/p>\n Note:<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0Talk about coincidence!\u00a0 Just now, as I was composing this post, I got an email comment on a Prairie Falcon image I posted yesterday\u00a0to a bird photography critique forum.\u00a0 The falcon is on a perch that has some whitewash and one person had commented about the “poop”.\u00a0 The comment I just now\u00a0received said “it wouldn’t\u00a0 look natural without the poop”.\u00a0 The whitewash in that image could\u00a0have been cloned out very easily.\u00a0\u00a0 Maybe my views on this subject are more mainstream than I thought…<\/p>\n