Not Nature?

So this is a philosophical discussion because I think the photo below is clearly Nature, but it does not qualify for the Nature forum and would be subject to deletion according to their guidelines. That's fine. I am ok with parameters. The birds feeding along the man made levee drainage ditch are not nature? What are they? Where would you have me post this photo?

I saw this bird splash down into the water, not prepared to shoot that. I waited to see which direction she would fly after picking her prey out of the water and, fortunately, she flew in my directions. Camera set to birds in flight so I could not do much about the quality of the photo. Perhaps it should have be post processed in B&W.

There is a "Nature Unlimited" forum where manmade objects are allowed in your nature photos. Here is the current week's thread:

Nature Unlimited, January 25, 2019

There is a "Nature Unlimited" forum where manmade objects are allowed in your nature photos. Here is the current week's thread:

 

Nature Unlimited, January 25, 2019

Sorry, I must have missed that forum. Thanks for the heads-up

So this is a philosophical discussion because I think the photo below is clearly Nature, but it does not qualify for the Nature forum

It’s true there are threads in the Nature forum where this photo would be welcome and threads where it would not. I agree, it’s clearly a Nature photo. But it simultaneously would not fit more rigid characterizations of Nature photography that are sometimes used for Internet forums and photo contests as well as magazine submissions. Such rigid characterizations have their place and purpose but don’t determine what a Nature photo is in all places and at all times. There may very well be threads limited to head shots or 3/4 shots, but “portrait” encompasses much more than these subsets. No matter the categorization of art genre, there will often and perhaps always be some fuzzy lines at the boundaries. What is or is not a portrait, what qualifies as “landscape” or “still life”? Artists may creatively stay within very defined lines in some cases and in other cases will seek to brazenly transgress those lines and expand them.

If there’s any merit to the image, it’s probably in the straight lines of the electrical wires contrasting with the vibrating flame like green foliage in the background. I don’t know if I want the eagle’s head and fish to be crisp sharp or if I want them as hazy as they are now, but there’s something about the streamlined almost straight sharp line abstraction formed by the eagle’s spread out wings and the curve of the fish underneath it.

Can I just mention that it is an Osprey, not an Eagle.

And I have to admit I keep tuning in to the Decorah Eagle's nest because of the ridiculously looking squeeze-huggable eaglets, with their cute mannerisms (which remain the same season after season, but each one each time has an individuality). Last year was a downbeat year when the male eagle of the family went missing (either attacked and killed by another male eagle or died in an accident) and was replaced by another one (which is good for the continuation of the nest and he helped with the survival of the eaglets, though it may be the same adult male eagle who killed the original male eagle).

 

Millions of people around the world have followed this family of Eagles (I think it's the most watched stream). Something that wouldn't have been possible without the use of technology.

I saw this Osprey nose dive into the water with a big splash. It was too far away to get a shot. Fortunately, it flew back in my direction. I recently saw a program on PBS, I think (but cannot remember the program name), which featured eagles living in the Chicago area. It is amazing what goes on with nature in and around towns and cities.

Actually the rules for Monday in Nature are long established and as follows:

Basic Guidelines: In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include "hand of man elements". Please refrain from images with buildings or human made structures like roads, fences, walls. Pets are not permitted. Captive subjects in zoos, arboretums, or aquariums are permitted, but must be declared, and must focus on the subject, not the captivity. Images with obvious human made elements will likely be deleted from the thread, with an explanation to the photographer. Guidelines are based on PSA rules governing Nature photography which also cover the Nature Forum. Keep your image at/under 1000 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc Are you new to this thread? We post one image per week.

I got caught by the forum terms once or twice a few years ago. It is not a big deal, since you can post under Nature Unlimited or just under Nature. Shouldn't be a big deal to have one place where there is "no hand of man" ex the results of the observer / photographer with a camera and shutter button!

Just to satisfy my curiosity, question is why we limit res @1000px max.

With recent screen, full HD is rather mundane and nature photo usually needs big file for better view.

Guideline is just guideline. It can be changed accordingly.

For any inappropriate post, a cordial reminder first is always highly appreciated.

Just to satisfy my curiosity, question is why we limit res @1000px max.

Interesting question - will see if I can get a definitive answer. Guessing, as a relative late comer to the "digital era", it may be something to do with "carrying capacity" or other actual image size issues.

IMHO, you're being 'holier than the pope' with your concerns. My advice is just to post the photo and see whether it's deleted or not. If it's deleted, there are other forums (alreadt mentioned) where you you can post the photo.

I’ve found a photo posted to Monday in Nature that has “human hand” elements will be deleted pretty quickly, which keeps the agreed-upon rules of that particular thread intact. I learned a while back that it extends a bit further than I thought when I posted a photo containing some farm animals and was told only animals in the wild could be included in that more restrictive thread. At first, not having much experience with nature photography, and being one who tends to question both restrictions and authority, I was put off. But I was given a respectful explanation and have come to see the rule’s use in that context. I was also made aware that most regular contributors to the Nature forum liked and wanted that restriction. I was also glad to see that enough people wanted to start an alternative “unlimited” thread on Fridays that would be more flexible.

For any inappropriate post, a cordial reminder first is always highly appreciated.

As I said just above, when a couple of my photos were deleted, I did receive a personal message and moved on from there.