portrait of a killer

A Cooper's Hawk bringing breakfast to the kids:

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/L1000724_.jpg">

<BR>

<B>Cooper's Hawk</B> - Sacramento County California<BR>

<I>Leica R8/DMR, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt</I>

<P>

</CENTER>

The latitude of the DMR continues to impress me. I spent the morning observing a pair of Cooper's

Hawks in a heavily forested area in Sacramento County. The lighting in the forest is extremely harsh

and contrasty: full sunlight at the upper canopy, deep shade on most of the forest floor except at

breaks in the canopy. Anyway the DMR handled the lighting quite well.

Superb combination of fine detail on the bird and a soft, out-of-focus background that works very well with the colors of the bird. How elegant!

Thanks Gib... as I'm sure you know, the Cooper's Hawk likes these dense forests and

getting a decent background along with an unobstructed view of the bird isn't easy.

Lots of <A HREF="http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds3/

Coopers.html">pictures of Cooper's hawks</a>. In southern California, this species is quite

common in suburban and even urban neighborhoods with plenty of trees. We had a pair rear

4 chicks in a nest in a street tree two houses down from us last year.

Hm. Sorry, but apart from being technically superb, it lacks. What I see is a standard in animal photography that has become almost boring.

 

I know you guys hate to hear a different view, so feel free to call me a troll or whatever.

I don't think it's a boring picture at all. I think it's well composed, well executed, as well as interesting. It also shows something about the character of the animal.

I like it. The out of focus background is really nice, not at all like I'm used to seeing. Don't know if it's just the natural background or the special qualities of this lens, but it's very nice.

Zapata,

 

Why don't you show us some examples of your fine work to compare with Doug's technically superb but lacking images ?

Another great picture! I will share it with the group of bird watchers and photographers (and wildlife enthusiasts) who meet every Wednesday in Dhaka (Bangladesh)

It is, like all Doug's efforts, technically superb but I can understand Zapata's viewpoint as well: if you're not a bird fancier, then it's a bit static. I'm sure there's room for disenting voices here without someone having to pick a fight with them.

Nice snap but, to quote Leica legend Ted Grant, "when you photograph a bird in black and white, you photograph its soul, when you take its picture in colour, you photograph its feathers."

Great, Doug.

It seems a lot of bird potography experts shed their knowledge here, I'm impressed. I admit that while I saw many photos of animals (and birds) I rarely have seen any where the predator is presenting his prey like in this pic. That makes it special - for me, the bird photo layman - and together with composition and lighting I'd call it an excellent picture.

 

Doug, thanks for sharing your photos here! I also appreciate to see results of the DMR used for real photography, as opposed to the usual snaps of someone's cat, BTW

It seems some folks would like this photo better if Doug had set a big deep dish reflector to the bird's left, added a bit if eyeliner, a droplet of blood from the beak and some starburst reflections from the talons -- but its so hard to get a hawk to stand for that much bother.

 

If we only showed the 3 perfect pictures we'll make in our lives we wouldn't have much to look at now would we? This is a very, very good wildlife portrait.

 

Excellent picture as usual, Doug!

 

Zap, are you the same one from the bicycle magazine industry or did you just borrow that name?

Serve em some scrambled eggs. That\'ll keep the fuzzy little dinosaurs where they belong.

Doug: as far as I am concerned, your work sets the standard for wildlife photography on

photo.net. PN would be a much poorer place without your postings. Thank you for your

contributions - I know that I have learned much from them, not to speak of my enjoyment.

Please continue.

I'm not sure if there are no other lenses or camera that can do as well or better ... just playing devil's advocate here ...

<p><p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3274599-lg.jpg">

Thanks for all the comments. Zap is entitled to his opinion, there's room enough for all of us here and when I'm in my nit-picky ultraperfectionist moods comments like Zap's push me to do better. Likewise the DMR and 560 aren't nessesarily the bee's knees for wildlife photography; there's lots of good equipment on the market, new and old, that will do a good job in the right hands.

Excellent, Doug! Not only the image you posted here! :-)

"Zapata,

 

Why don't you show us some examples of your fine work to compare with Doug's technically superb but lacking images ?"

 

That kind of bullcrap is par for the course on forums like this but here's a news flash: there are a lot of people in the world who are very, very capable of judging a photograph who don't know one end of a camera from the other. Some of those people include photo editors, gallery owners/managers, and the general buying public. If you want to work in the photo biz it isn't smart to respond to negative criticism with taunts to see the critic's own work. Doug obviously recognizes that. That said, there's nothing wrong with the shot, it just doesn't go with the title. It could read something like "Portrait of Sitting Cooper's Hawk with something in its talons". The title "A Cooper's Hawk bringing breakfast to the kids" makes me want to see it coming in for a landing with a recognizable prey in it's talons, with the babies looking up gape-mouthed from the nest. Or something like that, you get the idea.

This is one I wish I had taken

Dang, I'd even settle for being there when Doug took it !

I think John Graham really had a point here. Just in order to clarify:

No, I do not come here to put other people's work down.

In fact I have more than twenty years experience in photography, studied photography, and my work is exhibited. I do not really care for the technical quality of a picture but rather respond to the content. I am also not a bird watchers and definitely not a wildlife enthusiasts. And yes, I am well aware of all the difficulties and hard work that stands behind such a picture.

 

Because superficially it seems sound I try o be really hard on it:

So what I feelis, that it is a static, almost formal portrait. Formalised nature. It is definitely too bright (a picture lives on its blacks). But most of all, there is nothing hidden, nothing to discover, no wonder, no mystery.

 

I am even more critical about my own stuff...

I collect photographs even more so than cameras. Most photographers are interested in critiques from non-photographers, because few real photographers (or painters) shoot/paint only for the admiration of their peers.

I classify Zap's first post as a drive-by shooting. Calling something "boring" doesn't mean much. The second time he wrote something that might qualify as a genuine critical comment.

 

"that it is a static, almost formal portrait. Formalised nature. It is definitely too bright (a picture lives on its blacks). But most of all, there is nothing hidden, nothing to discover, no wonder, no mystery."

 

Explaining is important to convey meaning. Dismissive one and two word swats don't do that.

 

And I'm not picking on Zap. The "drive-by shooting" is all too common here. They are of benefit to no one. If you can't supply a useful comment why not just sit on your hands?

Zap's comments are well-taken, he (?) has expressed a missing quality I'm constantly

looking for when photographing wildlife. OTOH I believe it's inappropriate to evaluate all

photographs by the same standard. For example I wouldn't expect to find in a photo of

wildlife the same dynamic geometry and balance of spaces, forms and colors one might

find in Bee Flowers' snipets of the urban landscape; likewise one would use different

criteria for evaluating formal portraits vs. street photos.

<P>

In the case of wildlife photos you have in addition to the technical challenges a subject

which under all but the best of circumstances defies cooperation and does its utmost

to avoid the photographer, and often prefers dimly-lit tangles of brush where uncluttered

backgrounds are a wild fantasy. I certainly would like to incorporate a sense of mystery, a

hint of things not clearly illustrated and include a dynamic geometry over the entire

picture area as well as creating ecologically sound illustration of the animal. Among the

many thousands of wildlife photos I've seen made by hundreds of skilled photographers I

can recall only a scant handful of photos meeting all these criteria for excellence.