shot in Colorado

I agree with Bruce Wilson. While it's a nice shot, I want to see something of WHERE the owl lives, of its ENVIRONMENT. It may not have been possible given technical requirements, but we're critiquing for what would be the "perfect" shot, right? >>> Natural environment and perhaps not so symetrically placed in the middle.

Our reaction to this picture engages our thinking about art along three axes, in my opinion, not two: beauty, originality, and creativity. It is worthwhile to preserve the distinctions among them. Let me go out on a limb to attempt to define them as follows: beauty is simply the visual appeal in itself, although here I do not oppose beauty to ugliness, but to banality. Diane Arbus?s pictures can be both beautiful and ugly, even simultaneously, because they are never banal. Originality is how different the image is from other images we have seen, and creativity is how much the image reveals the unique talent of the creator to organize visual elements in a beautiful and/or original way. Mr. Gaffney?s photo of the barn owl in flight reflects beauty and originality, but not creativity. In my opinion this does not diminish the photo, but it is a useful distinction to maintain nonetheless. People who dislike birds may not find the picture beautiful while to those who are not interested in bird pictures, it may not seem very original since it reminds them of all the other bird-in-flight shots they have seen in the past. Those making such judgments, however fair in their way, are simply not the intended audience for this image. I find the image very beautiful because I like birds. It also seems original to me, because, while I have seen many birds-in-flight pictures, I haven?t ever seen one of a barn owl. Barn owls in repose don?t appear nearly so dynamic or interesting as this animal. It often seems to me that a bird in flight is fundamentally a different animal from the same bird on a perch. Those of us who watch birds through binoculars are likely to be more impressed by this shot, rather than less, because we know we have never actually seen a barn owl like this.

 

Other examples of originality that makes for powerful photographs are the first bullet-breaking-glass or pictures-of-the-earth-as-seen-from-space shots that appeared when suitable technical means became available for the first time. We have all seen these pictures. The first time we saw them it told us something unforgettable about the world that was not available until photography reached that level of technical means. Who could possibly fail to find them interesting? Original pictures like these are powerful, but many are also inevitable. If the photographer in question did not take them then someone else would have not very long after. They are important because they tell us something about the world, not something about the photographer.

 

Creativity is a different quality although we only see it through the appearance of beauty and originality. Richard Avedon?s revealing photos of celebrities (e.g. Ike Eisenhower with a face made terrifyingly blank by a stroke or the older Truman Capote staring dully into space, worn out by a life of excess) are highly creative because they peel off the cliche of the celebrity face and show something else underneath that all the other photographers missed. There was a wonderfully creative picture as the critique subject on photo.net a few days ago of a person in a dark coat and umbrella crossing a snowy street. It was somehow exquisite while appearing simple. We have all walked by that shot thousands of times and this photographer showed it to us and showed his or her creativity. We remember the greats because they were creative: Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Atget, and so on.

 

I believe that thinking about aesthetics is useful and even fun although others may find discussions of any kind tedious. The most important point to me is that, contrary to some assertions, these distinctions are not purely in the eye of the beholder. If they were so completely idiosyncratic, all discussions about art would amount to no more than I-like-pistachio vs. I-don't-like-pistachio and we would have nothing informative to say to each other on the subject. I don?t think this is the case, fortunately. Recently I looked at Philip Greenspun?s female nude exhibit and was disappointed, although I like Greenspun?s other work a lot. One of the commentators pointed out that they lack sufficient tonal contrast. I hadn?t noticed that, but I think it is true and I think that is a deficiency in the photographs, not merely a purely idiosyncratic taste on the part of the commentator which would therefore be no interest to me. The eye seems to like tonal contrast although this observation does not rise to the stature of an inviolable rule among other reasons because the eye also requires novelty and is likely to get tired of a steady diet of even well-wrought contrast.

 

While we can make the case that we can sometimes say something meaningful about an image based on paying attention to our reactions, it does not follow that everyone?s reactions are equally valid. For example, if someone tells a joke in Swahili, some people will not get the joke because they lack the minimum language competence to be among the audience. Others will get the joke and laugh while still others will get the joke and be offended. Only those who actually get the joke can offer reactions that tell us anything about the joke itself. In looking at art everyone may have his own reaction, however powerful and honestly put, but not everyone?s reaction is equally informative since not everyone ?gets? it. It is not important to ?get? it all the time, but it is desirable to know when you have ?got? it and when you have not.

 

In sum, I find Mr. Gaffney?s owl in flight to be both beautiful and original. Since I myself am acquainted with both birds and bird pictures I consider myself competent to judge this photo and am reasonably confident that my judgment says something about the picture and not merely about my own ineffable tastes. Such creativity as Mr. Gaffney may muster will be available to us in his other photos; I do not miss it in this particular image.

Wow!Beauty!!!Relly nice picture,great composition,light,sharpness...I love it.

I like!

{{I'm glad the owl does'nt represent anything from WWII }}

 

Actually the Luftwaffe had the Heinkel He 219 (Night Owl) which was a deadly night fighter produce in too small of numbers to make much difference in the war.

 

Those of you complaining about this shot are losers - seriously. There's a powerfull statement of grace in this image which the owl conveys by his profile and perfect wing placement. It's a fantastic shot by any standards, and a pleasant departure from the cliche pictures of eagles and wolves peering behind trees.

 

I was driving to work the other day and saw a red tail hawk annihilate a running rabbit in the median between the two highways. He took off with his dinner at just enough pace to convey "Raptors rule, humans drool".

 

I think that Phil G should be getting the idea here that the originality rating is ludicrous. Maybe he should remove it and put in technical merit and keep aesthetics. Also, it should require a blurb. so that people wont just post an rating and leave. Use one of those things where if they don't fill up a couple of lines in the comment box it'll give them some smartass comment like "maybe if you wrote a reason for your opinion, i'd actually post your reaction to this photo, punk." Or maybe a little less sassy. something more like the warning blurbs throughout the rest of this site.

This shot reminds me of a stobe shot of a bullet piercing an apple, or of a baloon half way busted. Alot of energy frozen in time. Cool.

i would take this shot in a second, but i have to disagree with the elves in regard to composition. It would be better if the owl were placed more to the left with more room on the right i.e. flying into the frame.

You got it right on.tack sharp!!

To emulate art a photograph must evoke feeling in the viewer - this is incredibly fine work to anyone who is a bird lover.

This rather seems, to not quite please anyone.

 

The wildlife guys don't like it because it shows a bird with no real reference to its surroundings or habitat/lifestyle.

 

The image guys don't like it cos its just a picture of a bird that you can easily get with the right gear pointing more or less in the right direction, with enough film etc.

 

The gear guys are bemused cos somehow this chap gets a great shot with a manual focus lens, heavens forbid. Or the manual focus guys are questioning why he didn't use a blad with fuji velvia and a cable release.

 

Mind you there's nothing quite like the feel of a motor drive pointed at a great subject at full throttle - those brief moments between mirror blackouts giving tantalising glimpses of the possible image captured.

 

Mmmh...

 

Well to shoot a roll of film and then CHOOSE to display this image is definitely the mark of a creative person. The technical skill of the photographer merely then allows the artistic ability to come through. And more so than in most other mediums the technical skill of photography is important before you can produce the artistic work.

 

The image does not tell me much natural history about this bird - barn owl apparently, but as a construction of shape, form and texture I love it.

 

An image I'd never even try to take - I ask you, who wants to hump a huge lens around the countryside and then sit for hours stalking your prey....?

 

Well I suppose Glen did. So thank you Glen, Lovely picture, nice one.

 

All the best

 

John

 

PS Do you now have an autofocus camera?

Great shot! Good to see another great shot done by manual focus. I bet the AF (I have one but prefer manual) gearheads are whizzing thinking how to do this manually! Keep up the good work

Well, I love this picture. I read plenty of periodicals on all kinds of nature topics, and the accompanying pictures are always a pleasure to look at, and this reminds me of something I would see in a magazine. I know the difficulty in taking a photograph such as this, as I have tried and failed (sigh) to produce a photograph like the one you have allowed us the pleasure of viewing. Simply a wonderful picture of a barn owl. It's not often you get to see an owl in flight in the daytime, since the majority of owls are nocturnal hunters. The catchlight in the owl's eye is very nice. The owl is tack sharp, except for the tips of the wings which aid in the feeling of a moving subject. The shape of the animal is pleasing, and the background is not a hinderance to the main subject. The centeredness of the subject also doesn't bother me at all, since the animal fills the photograph nicely. I would choose this photograph for an article in a heartbeat. Most of this has been already said earlier, but I wanted to say it again I suppose. One of the things people like to see is saturated color. We have seen enough images with super saturation, that we come to expect it for every shot. So, my only suggestion (which is very minor, as I think the photograph stands on it's own as is), is to maybe add some saturation in Photoshop to the image. Give it a try, see how you like the end results. It may turn out that more brilliance in color may make it even more stunning.

 

Congratulations on your well-deserved POW.

 

If I had your reflexes I'd somehow make myself famous. An incredible, beautiful shot.

Emotion and feeling...the words to describe this shot.

 

Emotion: The breath, the eye, the Nikon, the Lens, The bird... only one body, only one mind.

 

Feeling: You don't get what you see but You get what You feel...

 

Joel Alves from Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL.

The photo is good.

photo.net's selection is bad. I means too much emphasis on focusing, exposure, what a post card photo.

Duncan
http://www.eyescoffee.com

 

A masterpiece work, I would say.....

Liked the colour contrast....

A great shot; no two ways about it. The downward position of the wings (fully extended) conveys the essence of flight and this barn owl's power. I would agree with a former comment that a little positioning/cropping off center (ie. to left third of horizontal print) would add to the composition. But this is a minor improvement; the centered figure is powerful, as well. Also, a comment was made about the beak missing. It is not missing; it is merely obscured by the facial feathers. If you look closely, you can see it. The shot is both technically brilliant and aesthetically pleasing. 'Good job.

T'is rare to capure such beauty and grace that only come by God's hand!

I'm not sure that in the art world we should be attempting to simplify and quantify a subject such as originality. Can we really say that two photos that receive an "8" for a given category are really identical the same in that category? This might be OK for statistics but, in my humble opinion, not art. I can't help but think this is an artifact of our editor's computer science background. I would prefer that we drop the numbers all together and just stick to our subjective written comments. If there is no contest going on here, and no real need to quickly and efficiently rank pictures and portfolios, why do we need to force numbers on everything? I think I'll just give everyone a 10/10 on everything for getting off their butts and becoming involved in the group, and save my real opinion for written comments.

I'm speechless! A fantastic shot. Also I agree with Brent about the stats.

Owlright!

This is one of the best photographs of the owl i have ever seen, no wonder it was photo of the week, and should be of the month too, 11/11, marc

Talk about being there... even have the glint in the eye in this shot. I can't say enough for this image. Sharp, great technique, excellent optics and camera for the end result. You banged it !!! ~G.Alan Fink

Nice shot! The only good wildlife shot I have happened because of the grace of a Robin that came to within 2 feet from me. ANyone that says a little to the left,the right, up or down, lighter or darker background how dare they! LIke to see them come with such a good shot. Most people view nudes and say well done! huh well done, how easy is it to capture a beautiful girl. Childsplay compared to this shot!!