shot in Colorado

One of the great things about this shot is the background. it compliments the owl very well and is completely out of focus - terrific!

Very nice! What kind of lighting setup, if any?

The perfect shot, just beautiful. You have caught the bird at its best.

Dave, Cornwall, England.

I wish I could focus that fast with my 300mm/2.8 FD lens!!

Clap,clap.clap.Perfect flight shot.I gave you 10/10.Congratulations!

Very nice shot. Tack sharp. Great composure. And I imagine was not easy to get.

 

and boy did the POW elves fold up and go PC this week! Just as well.

Well done, Glen, this is the sort of shot that bird photographers dream about. The background makes the picture that much more perfect. The owl is nicely in focus with a little blur from the tip of the wing suggesting the action of flight. If there is anything missing it would be the owl's beak. The Nikkor 300mm f4 is a delightful lens to use and will repeatedly give this sort of tack sharp shot even when fully open. Equipment is important if a shot like this is to make PoW.

Excellent shot. A sequence would have been fun to see too though. Click, click, click, click, in one big jpg.

Great focus, nice DOF, an overall great shot. In my opinion, the background is a little bland and the photo would benefit slightly from a few more visual elements to promote the composition, but the reality of the technical elements here definately out weigh this. Again, a fine photo, very well done!

I'm glad the owl does'nt represent anything from WWII :) I'ts incredible, maybe I say that because I'm not a nature photographer but I like it, you've captured the owl in midflight, wings are extend to their fullest, in essence you've captured the owls strength in flight.

Good job.

Well timed, properly lit, simply beautiful! I haven't seen a better picture of barn owl. I liked all your pictures, you have suuch an originality. Congrats!

Help me here. While this is a perfectly appealing shot, and technically very well executed, how does it justify high marks for "originality"? Are we confusing originality with technical merit, or is just another place holder for aesthetics? It is very interesting to note that score on photo.net pictures for aesthetics and originally seem to be roughly within a point of each other, and seemingly independent of actual originality. This picture, while a perfectly good picture and probaqbly deserving of its aestheitcs rating, is in no way original. Shots of birds in flight have been done millions of time over by wildlife and general photographers for decades. Thousands of pictures similar to this one populate books all over the world. Regardless of how well it is done, it is far from original to plop on a 300/f4 lens point it at a bird in flight and fire away with a motordrive. Again, not knocking the technical skill and patience required to produce a photograph of this quality, it just is in no way "original"! Thousands upon thousands of photographers do it every day. Perhaps we need to look again at the definition of original, or at the very least the guidelines (and their intent) set out by photo.net for rating photographs. Come on people, aesthetics originality and technical merit, are NOT the same thing.

Wow. Who says you need AF to get good flight shots? Well done.

Hello Bio Gon, my comments on originality are pertained to the photographer's entire folder. Pl. read what I said above carefully.

Patanjali-

 

My commnet do not refer to your comments. They refer to the "originality" ratings applied to this particular photograph, and how the "originality" rating is consistently mis-applied and mis-interpreted. A well done photograph this is, however, it is by no stretch of the imagination "original".

I'm glad the owl doesn't represent anything from WWII... Now, I'd be carefull about that, Banks. This being an american bird, could represent a glorification of american bombardments ...

I'll second Mr. Zeiss here - separate rating of æsthetics and originality doesn't seem to account for much - the ratings are nearly always within ±1, they express rather the overall impression than real analysis (whereas I always try to keep it realistic: when rating my own photos, I always rate either Æ:10, O:8 or vice versa).

I needed to be told that this is shot using a non-AF camera to be able to recognize that this really is a bit of a tricky subject to photograph, and I need to consider that I have never seen an owl fly to concurr that this somehow makes it liable for a POW, but then again, I'm not really overwhelmed. A good photo it is, but nothing to take your breath away. Perhaps it's just me, I don't like the shape of an owl - makes me feel an owl shouldn't be able to fly at all. Or perhaps I am just spoiled by this photo of a hayabusa (©, I guess, Suzuki, sorry for the bad scan from a prospect and the negligence at removing the text - it's only to give you an idea). Now, this must have been a difficult shot, even for an AF, if you consider that a hayabusa can fly (dive) as fast as 300 km/h.

 

Cheers

The originality rating is stupid. 99% of the people commenting don't know enough about the history of photography to know what's been done, so they wouldn't recognize something original. 99% of the posts aren't even technically competent, let alone original works of art. Even the greatest artists usually only have one truly original idea in their lifetimes and spend the rest of it either perfecting that or casting around looking for the next big idea that never comes.

excellent image Glen,

shows a lot of action and drama. composition is nice with the bird flying into the frame. pleasing background brokeh., the exposure is dead on and the focus is sharp, showing nice feather detail.

You have captured the beauty and power of this bird of prey.

a good and fast shot and as a result beautiful picture of a flying bird. The blur background and the well framing increases the aesthetics,but this picture doesn't deserve to be the photo of the week in originality, at last it's just a flying bird, there are thousands of pictures like this one, just my thougts

Great shot for all the technical reasons stated. I agree with the argument on originality, but not to the point that it deminishes the quality of this particular photograph. I rate it 10/8

 

Job well done.

Just awesome. Nuff said!

I think it is a great picture. Very original in the way the wings of the owl are to the rest of the body, makes it aesthetic too.

 

I personally don't care if someone would blame me for giving it very high marks. One is free here to what one thinks. And I just think this picture is great.

Not knowing anything about wildlife photography I will try to apply my landscape habits to this photograph. First I find where this owl lives, when he flies, and where he flies to. Since this photo requires many exposures LF is out of the question. I'd setup as many cameras as possible (I think 5 cameras should be sufficient), preferably Hassy-each at a different focus zone. Link the cameras together by electronic cable release. And start burning film as soon as the owl takes flight. Eventually I will get a good image. Right?

 

Seriously, this is a great picture given the equipment used. Colors and contrast are good. 100-speed film was a good choice, right photo.netters? I think it would have been better if there was a bit more depth to convey what the owl was flying across. This may not have been possible given 100-speed filmi.e. smaller f-stop means slower shutter, means blurry owl. I would also frame slightly to the left to convey a sense of direction. If the owl was close to an object in his flight path, I would include it to give the image a sense of destination or purpose.

 

How many comments will post before the youre just jealous comment?

 

...5 medium format cameras lined up, etc....

 

Wow, I can just imagine the cost of 5 Zeiss SuperApocromats on Hasselblads and Contax 645's sitting around waiting for a bird to show....

 

Very expensive way to get a shot of a bird.

Fantastic image!!!!! everything is perfect.