Testing the water....

Jody, it's not just the society we live in. It's the technology we live with. Sometimes it's difficult to tell what has been captured and what has been created. This is especially true of exceptionally difficult captures. What is needed in these cases is an explanation from the photographer as to how the photograph was taken and the degree to which the photograph was altered to add or subtract elements that may not have originally been seen by the camera. Given today's technology, I don't think that's asking too much, especially if the photograph involves wildlife. Some photographers offer a fair amount of detail, and this is greatly appreciated by viewers who are aspiring to improve their own photography.
I'm a wildlife biologist and have seen a fair number of buffleheads on the wing, and I've never seen them dip a wing in the water. But now I know that it can happen. This and your photo of a great gray owl about to pounce on a vole (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5207902) are two of the most amazingly precise firings of a camera shutter that I've ever seen.

Great work. Amazing capture of the wing touching the water, perfect timing and title. I admire the details and the technique. Congratulation.

Jody, thanks for answering my question about whether you previsualized this beforehand, or first saw it in editing. In either case, it must have been an exciting moment when you first saw it.

I think what a lot commentators are reacting to is this picture's perfect expression of timing, sharpness, motion and exposure. I mean, look at it! It's glorious! (In other words, it looks too good to be true. How many of us have tried to accomplish a shot of this caliber only to fail miserably?) These days, it's too easy to challenge a picture's authenticity because perfectly taken pictures can be so easily explained, and dismissed, with references to Photoshop-type software.

Setting aside technical matters and origins, as a picture I think the composition presented a big enough challenge in itself. I wonder if you would answer one or two more questions: First, the crop is barely vertical, almost square. Did you shoot this horizontally in the camera and then crop the sides out? I'm curious how large the duck was on the sensor. 2nd, I'm sure this wasn't your only shot. How many exposures did you make in obtaining this one gem? And 3rd, is there anything that you feel would have made this shot better for you, for example, bigger (or smaller?) image size on the sensor, more or less blur, better compositional options, etc. ?

Thanks.

MODERATOR NOTE: Posts claiming this is not a photo have been edited or deleted.

Please note that this photo was chosen for discussion. On photo.net we have manipulated and unmanipulated photos and they are all acceptable as a pick for the POW which is not a contest but - as stated - chosen for discussion. The discussion should take the form of a critique.

The critique can be - what you like and why and what you don't like - and why. We don't discuss if you 'like' that a photo was manipulated. We do discuss "if" it was manipulated why it works or does not work.

We also don't accuse someone of manipulating a photo..... We ask.

Comments that are not critiques are also deleted unless you are asking the photographer a question.

Thank you.

From a very uncritical eye, this says "Peaceful" to me. I like it a lot.

TO THE MODERATOR:

No one is criticizing THAT it is manipulated, we all are simply making the observation that that is our opinion. If you are going to invite comments and critique, knowing if it is a real photo or a Photoshop creation is germain to that discussion. The photographer has a history of posting manipulated photos, thus the reason for the direction of the thread. The issue can be readily put to bed by the OP posting a screen shot of the original RAW file in a RAW converter w/ image number reflected. She wont' do that, so the debate continues. Make us all recant and apologize; post the prooof and she is vindicated.

Jody, to use a golfing term, this is a hole in one. And like a hole in one, some people will never believe you have one. It is quite simply a stunning shot. Congratulations!

Good Evening Dear MaryBall Pierson , when I added my comment on this image, it was not just for

Manipulation work on the image which his to me is obvious but I have stated that the image looked to me so stationary for a flying bird, it miss that feeling.

I understand that when someone post his image for the community to share he should by all means respect other people input to his image, not necessary all of the inputs are right but everyone will do in according to his capabilities and understanding of this media.

I do a lot of Manipulation work myself and there is no shame out of that as long as I post an image which makes the viewers pleased with it.

I do not understand why there should be a selective critique on this image or on any other images, to me the people here added their critique with full explanations and in details where are the good points and where are the bad points, and all participated in bring this POW a live and worth posting on the first page, so they should be thanked for this and not been punished.

I am so sorry for my poor English, I did like the even exposure value of this image , the sharpness factor and the well saturated colors and I do apologize to the photographer in case my critique been too hard on the image itself while I have a full respect to the photographer.

Thank you and wishing you all of the best.

I am new here and apologize if this is in the wrong place, but I just noticed that my post had been slightly modified(first time to my knowledge). In this case, it didn't really change my meaning. However, since I have no ability to delete or re-edit my own words once posted (or externally edited), I think it would only be polite and proper that a notice, at the bottom of the post, be attached that indicates that there has been external modification of the words. This in case the edit changes the author's meaning and let's others know it may not accurately reflect same. I don't doubt that every effort is taken to keep the original spirit of the post, but I am sure there are times, as others have noted these past few weeks, where the meaning is not left as the author intended.

Such an "edit" notice would at least be an indication that the words are not as the author wrote them.

Thank you.

John;
I think that you have a good suggestion. Having had some of my past postings edited to the point where they became incoherent has left me at times frustrated and reticent to post any further comments. While I do not envy the moderators the tough job of keeping this forum on topic and I do appreciate the efforts involved, a simple notice that the post had been edited would seem appropriate.

This is not the place for such discussions. The forum regulations suggest that any comments regarding the pow forum be posted to photo.net Site Feedback Forum

I'm sure you could start a new thread over there as this post and yours will need to be deleted.

What a stunning and spectacular capture! Funny that it's generated the comments of disbelief -- don't take it personally, Jody! Your work is phenomenal. This is a superb image. Congrats on such an amazing accomplishment.

The only complaint I have about this image is name and copyright in the lower right. In my mind it is just a little to close to the main point of interest which is the wing hitting the water. Also it looks like the text was over sharpened which I also find distracting. All that said I understand why you put the copyright on it. Overall, It's a Keeper!

For the others, you can often see very still water in the early morning when the wind is typically at its calmest. The camera is pointed down very slightly so all of the background is water. Given the size of the bird and lens used most of the background is also out of focus. A smooth out of focus water background gives it a very smooth look. The really hard part about this shot is spending the time to wait for bird and to have the skill needed to quickly respond to get the shot.

PS: I also appreciate all the detail you put into the details page. Although I would cut it down to lens, camera, shutter, aperture, and iso. I find this information helpful in understanding what was done at the time the picture was taken. Often I don't see that. Thanks.

Very good crop , and perfect timing ,the wing touching the water gives a nice touch ,
my only real knock is that I did not take it ! :)

the painterly impression is fantastic - beautiful example of what was once printmaking 7:7

I posted my comment first and then read over the comments and I'm a bit amazed at how narrow minded they are. Whether the image is straight from a raw image or a combination of an image and what an artist brings to the work seems to me to be such a silly comment in the face of the history of nature studies.
If this is straight from a raw image with only photo alterations to saturation, contrast, and levels, it's even more of an amazing capture then most are likely to capture in a lifetime. It embodies the hand of the artist in the representation beyond the cold image typically produced by a machine.
Good for the elves - it's truly an amazing work and an outstanding choice for the POW!!!

John, you contradict yourself regarding this image. First you say you're a bit amazed at how narrow minded some of the comments are. You suggest that whether the image is straight from a raw image or a combination of an image and what an artist brings to the work seems to be such a silly comment in the face of the history of nature studies. Yet in the second paragraph you state that "if this is straight from a raw image with only photo alterations to saturation, contrast, and levels, it's even more of an amazing capture then most are likely to capture in a lifetime." That's precisely the point of many of the previous comments. It's often difficult or impossible to tell the extent to which an image has been captured or created. If an amazing image has been captured, that is a very significant accomplishment; most would agree it's more significant than if the image had been largely created. That's what much of the discussion was about (at least that's my interpretation). I'm glad Jody finally responded and assured the viewers that it was a captured rather than created image (i.e., the bufflehead's wing barely dipped into the water and Jody captured that precise moment when a small wake in the water was formed). That makes it an exceptional image, IMO. The moderator stated that we do discuss "if" it was manipulated why it works or does not work. Well, we first have to know whether it was or was not manipulated, and Phil Hawkins articulated this very well. There has been a lot of value in the discussions, and I think the moderators have as much to learn from this experience as do the viewers. Finally, my congratulations to Jody Melanson; this is not the first incredible image I've seen from Jody, and Jody is on my "favorites" list because of those images.

well put Stephen -- I completely agree that this is "exceptional" but you see it as an image and I as a work of the artist. I find these comments relate more to the tools you understand then the result we should be critiquing.
I find it silly to worry about the "extent to which an image has been captured or created" when asked to comment on its merit.

To Phil Hawkins who said:

Phil, I can see many differences between the wing and its reflection, all of them consistent with a real reflection in real water. I think something must be going wrong at your end.

Marvelous, perfect photo!

Perhaps posting the raw file might help clear some of this discussion. The edges appear overly sharp on my screen as if cut out (even though they are not). Personally, I would like to see if there is more subtle textures in the water from the wing penetrating the surface.
Otherwise, the photo was interesting enough for me to notice it. Out of the thousands of photos I view each week that's saying something- very nice capture.
Good luck surviving a POW thread. I had one too and they can be brutal.

This is a remarkable capture, and Jody was very lucky to catch it at the perfect moment even using continuous exposure mode. The image does come across as a bit overprocessed. A bit too sharp to be real is the feeling I get. There are those that like the style, but it doesn't always work for me as the viewer.

The composition is effective, but as has already been mentioned a complete reflection would really have placed this image into a special category. I feel the vertical format works well.

The lighting is deceptive. It gives the impression of an overcast day rather then one that is cloudy bright as you describe. That may have more to do with the angle of incidence of the sun and the location of the camera. No matter, the light definitely enhances to overall tone of the image.

For those suspecting a constructed shot, I feel you may be off base in your assumptions. Sharp, hard edges are nothing more then effective use of USM and a few other auxillary sharpening techniques.

Jody, my compliments on superior work.

Real or not, this is a very nice work

Wow, after a lot of gazing, I'm right there with that duck. What an image!

After looking at it again I realized what was bothering me. There is no hint of the other wing. It would have to be in the down thrusting position closely mirroring the wing on this side. The wings have to be balanced to maintain the straight and level flight as shown. With the slight turning of the body away from us (and the slice in the water moving left and up) I would expect the right wing to be visible behind and to the right of the foreground wing. There is also no reflection of the missing wing.

Also the the underside of the bird's body shows no hint of reflected light as one would expect considering how bright and even the light is on top of the birds body. Also some slight fluttering of the tail feathers at the tip which also would be more spread out to increase their stablizing effect at slow speeds. The languid pose of the wing supposedly reaching down to the water, as if it were not even necessary for flight. The only hint of a shadow in the entire image is under the photographers name.

Fred, I agree. The shot looks more like an engineering rendering than an action-packed, "bird in flight" photo. Jody implies that the bird is doing abot 70 mph. There's nothing in the shot that implies ANY motion at all. Is the bird stuffed and mounted in someone's living room with a gray cyc (sic) and a wingtip wake and reflection thrown in ? If I have to ask...............

Bill P.