Testing the water....

Quite an effective counterpoint to last week's discussion about capturing time and motion. Perfectly caught. I wonder if the photographer saw this before it was captured, or saw it during editing.

So great capture. It's really so dynamic and energetic. Its caption is so excellent too. In fact every thing about the photo is very good and very well done. The gray color of the background made the bird so lively.
congratulation dear Jody. Wish you success. Warm regards to you, Saleh

Beautiful presentation and strong shot,according to details,well light managing and reflex...the subject choosing and composition is nice .

Good title for this shot...Regards(Bobby).

That wing tip touching the water really takes this image to another level. Without it, it is still excellent but with it we are shown something very special. It is certainly an effective counterpoint to last week, congratulations Jody.

At first sight, this is a great shot. But when you look at it more closely you might ask yourself some questions. Why is it that we don't even see a feather of the right wing nor its reflexion ? You can see some wave effect in the reflected wing, and the water is totally flat ? It is a lovely composition, and i might be wrong, but it seems to me that this result could not have been reached without the use of PS.

As much as I like the picture, I like the title better. Water's so still. Wonder what time of the day was this taken at. Anyways, congrats on a great picture. 7/7 Definitely.

Jody's bird photographs are stunning and amazing, especially for being caught at a precise but exceedingly fleeting moment. This is no exception. I hope Jody will respond to Michel's questions -- they seem reasonable observations and could have a natural or PS explanation.

Perfect timing with a great title. Beautifully exposed through the cloudy day. Congrats on POW

IF this is a real photo it's a tremendous capture. I don't think it's real. I'd like to see the negative or raw file. Water absorbs light as it reflects and no water reflects 100% of original. There is no difference between the duck's wing and the reflection, therefore I think it's a fake reflection. Plus, where is the reflection of the right wing? The background is too perfectly seamless, it's just too perfect to be real. BUT, if I am wrong, then bravo. But I remain dubious. This photo is bogus.

I have never touched any of POW before, always been so scared of people taking bad ideas about myself and where they might thing I am a trouble maker.
This time, I just wanted to try adding here what my personnel opinion is which is not necessary is right or been taken into considerations by others.
This image of the bird been freezed and made stationary in the middle of the frame with no sign of even been in flight.
If not the little wave, even the reflection does not show real effect of reflections in water.
I must admit that the exposure value is of a correct nature, so the details and the well saturated colors..
I am so sorry for my comment here and so sorry for the photographer, nothing is personnel. Best regards to everyone contributed to this POW.
Rashed

From what I have seen of birds in flight this seems unlikely. Dipping a wing is a great way to crash, at the speed of flight, the water would cause too much resistance. And ultimately there is not reason to do it, its not like there are nerves out to the end of the feathers. The surgical slice into the water, and no splash. So I have to put it in to the fantasy realm where I find it less interesting. The reflection and the foreground/background not a hint of motion and it looks cut out to boot. I miss a background that would suggest to me that this was in anyway real.

It does come across with a constructed and artificial flavor. Sort of a conceptual duck,like the swans in Swan Lake. Pretty though. It is going to be strictly a matter of taste and I can see loving and also rejecting it as a nature study at the same time.

Without any response from Jody, I've come to conclude what Jon Hallberg so ably described. Ducks just don't do this, and there are so many other possible artificialities, along with Jody's statement that this is not an unmanipulated photo, all lead me to believe that this is primarily a concept that was created on a computer rather than a natural event that was captured by a camera in the field. To some that matters, to others it doesn't. To me, it matters. Nevertheless, it does not detract from other amazing field photographs that Jody has made, at least one of which is in my favorites folder.

. The duck is too bright for the light conditions Jody describes. The "water" isn't water. I live around too much water and know well what it looks like in all conditions. The duck looks like a painting to me. But what do I know, except that I still love it. It IS art to me. Well done Jody.

I have now studied this image over several days and have looked over Jody's online portfolio. This image does not differ from a fair number of her creations. Although she has a fair number of captures of birds she presents with their original context, there seems to be perhaps 15% that are cut and pasted, presumably because there were other contexts of the image she felt detracted from the overall image, or did not have a certain look she was after. Though this may be a sin to the purest, it is not to all.
As far as concerns over a wing dip. True that there is no need or desire to dip a wing while cruising in flight. However, the wings frequently do come into contact with the surface during the struggle of "lift-off" from the water.
Jody never presented this image as a pure capture, as stated previously, she was truthful in it manipulation. This image is a portrayal of a humanism into the natural world. I believe the bird, the refection, and possibly a portion (if not all) of the "wake" is real, well captured, and lovely to look upon its new backdrop.
-Dave

I can't believe how many of you are falsely accusing me of faking this photo! This is straight out of the camera, saturated, curves, and cropped.
Obviously many of you don't know what you are talking about, as I have seen many birds have a wingtip or two in the water while flying. None of them crashed. Look at the reflection. Think of a mirror, the rest of the bird would be further down in the frame. The other wing is on the other side of his body and since you cannot see it in the bird himself, what makes you think you would see it in the reflection?
Pretty sad that I have to justify this photo. What a society we live in.
The RAW file is for sale for $500.00
To answer someone who asked if I saw this before it happened or envisioned this, no. This is a male Bufflehead Duck. He is about the size of a can of pop with wings. He flies at about 70mph. You have no time to plan anything other than to try and keep the little bugger in the frame!
To those of you that complimented the photo, thank you. To the rest of you, I feel sad for you that you go through life looking for the negatives instead of enjoying the positives.
Wow. :(

Jody-
I am glad to stand corrected, my knowledge of birds and their ways may not the strongest. I still love your photo.
-Dave

Undoubtedly an excellent shot, I find that the absence of a true horizon takes something away from the image.

An excellent image Jody. While I have little knowledge of birds, I do have a slightly better than average knowledge of photography, and imho this is a superb image. Don't let the detractors ruin it for you. This is an image to be proud of. Congradulations on a superbly captured bufflehead.
All the best,
Neil

You've done a fine job of keeping " the little bugger in the frame ! " .

I think it's reasonable, though a little unfortunate, that the conversation about this photo got sidetracked and became about the so-called "reality" or "unreality" of the shot. I guess in some instances, and nature would be one of them, that seems a legitimate question. There are times when I wonder, in all genres of photography, whether or not something was done in camera or in post processing. Especially in a forum of photographers, and especially with a shot like this, it seems a reasonable thing to wonder. Asking questions of the photographer is often a good start. Nevertheless, assumptions are often made and they can be telling as well.

I think regardless of how this was made, there are things that are attractive about it, most noticeably the exposure, which has captured the color, the detail, and the texture quite breathtakingly.

That being said, it's not enough for me. The photo hasn't much life, for me. Artificially created or natural, it looks and feels still and sterile. Knowing how it was created doesn't change that for me. I feel little dynamism or energy. Even though due to existing weather conditions, the lack of environment and the seeming isolation of the bird makes it, for me, more clinical than emotionally or visually appealing. The lack of movement adds to that.

I've long been an advocate of the point of view that "natural" isn't everything, no matter what kind of picture it is. Sometimes "natural" doesn't translate to a compelling image, sometimes it does. Certainly, it may be a consideration in some situations, and the fact that something is "natural" will help us appreciate it. But that's really just a bottom line. The photo still has to stand on its merits of content, interest, composition, etc.

There are many photos in Jody's portfolio that reach me more than this one . . . not because they are more or less manipulated, but because they have more life and spirit.

I can tell you that I tried several times to photograph these guys in the spring and yes they are like pop cans with wings that go like hell.I was unsuccessful in getting anything worth while and will have to wait until next year.This is one top notch image the fact that the wing just barley hits the water really adds to it.As usual Jody (Who is a male) great shot.

Chris

 
 
None of the arguments put forth convince me that this photo has been manipulated. I am not categorically stating that it is genuine however I will say that the reasons for doubting its authenticity are far from compelling.
 
Birds do indeed hit the water with their wings while taking off and landing on water and I have plenty of photos of their wings doing exactly that.  I have never seen a duck or shorebird crash as a result of clipping the surface during take off or landing. Some are less than graceful, but a full out crash landing, nope never seen one.
 
When panning a rapidly moving object  ( Jody quotes 70 mph ) at an f stop of 5.6 with a 400mm lens the background is indeed going to be remarkably uniform.
 
If you take a knife blade or a flight feather tip and slice the water with it there is not going to be any splash so the absence of a splash is to be expected.
 
I can see the shoulder of the rear wing which is simply in a different flight motion ( straight out )  to the forward wing. From the angle the photo was taken there would be no reflection of the other wing.
 
In most instances I find these recurring and painfully redundant exchanges about the degree to which something has been photo-shopped , at best tedious. With this photo the issue actually has some relevance for me.  The single thing which this image has going for it , in my opinion , is the success with which the photographer rose to the challenges inherent in this type of photography and the one off shot he walked away with. I can admire the workmanship even if the photo does not speak to me on any other level. If I were to become convinced that this is a duck cut and pasted onto a gray backdrop with a filter effect ripple then the whole thing comes down like a house of cards for me.
 
 
 
 
 

There is nothing wrong or deceptive with the image. It is a beautiful bird. It does seem to come down to how one interprets this type of image. It is certainly not a logo type image. I find "conceptual images" - if I am allowed to call it that-interesting in their way. They reveal essentials which the mind accepts and actually enjoys. Photography has wide boundaries I mean . The duck photo falls within the category of honest nature photography. And whether it succeeds in representation is a matter of judgment where we all have different reactions I have not looked at the gallery, so I comment on it only a solo image,where I can agree some with Gordon that it "does not speak to me." It is a good looking image of a waterfowl. I like to think one can evaluate it a POW on many levels without insulting the intent of Jody or his integrity.

One downside to showing manipulated photos, as Jody does in her portfolios, is that people will assume all of your images are manipulated. This image certainly does have the feel of manipulation and since it is not an activity the author objects to, such a conclusion seems reasonable.

To purists, manipulation is a big no no. Nature photography aficionados may only be surpassed in their intolerance of manipulation by photojournalists.

For the rest of us, we just look at photos and they work or they don't. Some genres don't really hit us. I actually got my first thoughts of getting into photography by some bird photographers I worked with. But by the time I actually started shooting, it was not of much interest to me anymore. I toyed with the idea of nature photography, but quite honestly found it kind of boring. So, when I look at an image like this, I look to see if it works artistically. What happens here is that, like others have said, there is just a keen sense of sterility. This looks like a specimen on a museum table that is ready to be studied. The background a perfect studio gray with not a grass or twig or any disturbance. Not even a gradation of any sort. The colors and the detail are wonderfully captured, but I just am left feeling that it is something to be clinically or scientifically studied rather than something that inspires and I would want hanging on a wall.

I am not duck expert or water fowl scientist, so I don't know if this captures detail or activity that would be of value to them. Although I appreciate what it might take to capture such an image, and can enjoy the detail on some level, I am just left a bit cold.