shot in Colorado

Even with AF this is hard to do. Very impressive indeed to get this shot with MF. Also, original in the sense that I have never seen a picture of an owl like this and I look at bird pictures a lot. The shape is so different in flight by comparison with a perch shot that it looks like a different animal. This picture will permanently change my idea of a barn owl.

 

I think originality may be less relevant to bird photography than some other areas since excellent technique, as applied here, is often enough to show the viewer what he has never seen before.

I know zilch about whether or not this is a good photograph, however: it disturbs me to see that some people are apparently viewing it in a kinder light because manual focus was used, i.e. it is being assessed not only on its inherent merits, but on the level of difficulty and effort required in getting it, or the work "behind the scenes", as it were. This strikes me as a bit odd. Any comments or explanations, folks? Does wildlife photography play by a different set of rules? Is a difficult to get shot a better shot because of that fact? If so, I'm glad I use manual focus lenses!

DAMN! I wish I'd taken it!!

Gon implies, "Barn owls are a dime a dozen, if you know where to look." Perhaps.

 

This photograph is the best there is, of THIS particular Barn Owl. And that's how we should experience it. Forget whether it's been done before or not. Every morning I look and see House Finches, Band-tailed pigeons, Scrub Jays and Acorn Woodpeckers in my yard. I must marvel at them everyday because while I saw them yesterday this is the first time I've seen them this today. I have a noisy red-shoulder hawk and several coastal kites for neighbors. I see two male red-tail hawks constantly vying for the attention of lady in the afternoon sky and it's always a different story when I see them. This shot is a wonderful and exquisite image; yes, it can be replicated everyday and still be original because the owl is very unique, it's an individual, the day, the month, the hour. We truley are our brother's keepers.

Rather than hear what Photo.net means by "originality" (it would be disputed anyway) I would like to hear what the originality critics mean. To me, this is original for two reasons: first, it's not another bald eagle, (or grizzly catching salmon, or elk at sunset) and second, most barn owls-in-flight photographs I have seen use triggered flash. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a shot of a flying barn owl in profile.

I agree with Scott - those that are saying this photo is not "original" because it is a photograph of a bird, might actually want to think what photo these days is original by this definition. For me, the way Glen has captured it in flight like he has is both pleasing to the eye and not your everyday shot. Looking through the rest of Glen's shots, I'd go so far as to say he's probably one of the more original photographers using the photo.net service.

Is this really Kodak 100 film or not?

Several images in his folder list both Kodak 100 and Velvia as the film source.

Any clarification on this image?

I was thinking before that it looked too good to be kodak. (joke).

Aesthetics 9 (need a point of reference in the background for 10 in my opinion), Originality 8 (this is the best barn-owl pic I've ever seen)

I have not refuted that this is great barn owl shot. Again read what I wrote. Also read what the guidlines are for rating originality.

 

saying "Originality 8 (this is the best barn-owl pic I've ever seen)" is EXACTLY my point. It's NOT about originality. Saying if you didn't rate it 10 for originality you're just jealous, again completely misses the point. Because its a barn owl doesn't make original either. (Oh, let me subtitute a terrier for a beagle in this picture I saw so it will be "original"!) Again lots of pitures of barn owls and birds (whether you've seen them or not), in flight, not in flight, in daylight or night light. The exact pose of the bird in flight is nice, but it not some original creation or construction (that's what the bird DOES all the time) but the luck that the shutter when firing at 5 frames per second, happended to catch the bird in that particular position. It's clearly due much more to equipment and skilled technique than anything else.

 

Again, just because you really like it, or its the best photo of a barn owl you have ever seen, doesn't make it original.

 

The photo.net originality rating has been completely neutered and made useless because it is so consistently mis-applied and mis-used, and people don't take the time to fully understand what it is they are being asked to do when rating a photo according to a set criteria.

Originality (as far as we are concerned) is a measure of how much unique creative thought was combined with technical elements to create a photograph. In the case of the above photo there is not much originality at all due to the fact that the photographer was just "blasting away" with the bird in the viewfinder (and moving quite fast I'm sure) hoping at least one shot might come out good. This technique does not promote originality. It does however show us that the photographers technical abilities are well refined and he knows how to obtain a good shot of a damned hard to shoot subject (think about yourselves trying to shoot this, would you have time to compose and be creative?). A photo does not have to be "Original" to be good, case in point. Take a look at the other photos in his folder and you will see much originality. This photo scores high in the Technical/Asthetic category with me, though I feel it has little to no "original" merit.

 

And finally, to the person(s) who feel that this photo does not deserve to be POW:

Why doesn't it? This photo is excellent and has prompted much intelligent photographic discussion, afterall isn't that the point of the POW?

There are many important aspects of this picture with which we should concern ourselves, especially as "originality" is a very weak overall concept (quality vs. quantity). We are dealing with PHOTOGRAPHS and I think one of our important views should be tonal quality. The picture is interesting as a bird in motion, but lacks a nice overall tone, and would be much more interesting/eye catching if shot with a vivid color film or slide film. The owl is brown, yet a gray tone is visible throughout the body. This does not sit very well with an extremely gray background. Even so, this is a very hard photo to create, and should be given credit for the patience it took to wait for this scene to open. The wings are in a very beautiful position and create a scene very reminiscent of a bat in flight, or a childs futuristic jet toy.

Bio - My rating of Originality of this image is subjective to my own taste of the photograph. I dont give a barn owl's ass what you think about the photograph or how you think the term originality should be understood. And how can you assume someone is jealous because they relate the rating to what would have made it a 10? I have only rated it to the capacity of my own understanding of what I feel is an original photograph. If you have seen 50 billion images of barn-owls frozen in flight, then it probably isn't original to you - but it is to me. Maybe after viewing that many I'd be jaded too. For the time being, I think this is a great original photograph. Maybe I'll change my mind next week. Let's leave the philosophy of rating to the individual and concentrate on the photograph.

Wow! such a beatifull picture.

Geoff-

I did not say that if some one rated it a 10 they were jeolous, I was quoting another poster, and suggesting that was not a valid reason for rating.

 

The point of "originality" is not if it is "original" to you (i.e. the same as saying it is "new" to you), but if it is displays a degree of originality as far as photography is concerned. A copy of a Picasso would still not be original even if you never saw a Picasso before.

 

The point of having a consistent rating that we all understand what it represents. It is NOT a philosophy that is left up to the individual, it is not something for each to decide what originality means separately. There is a criteria and guideline supplied by photo.net so everyone understand what the originality rating is supposed to represent. Without a consistent criteria, and everyone determining what originality means independently, the originality rating is meaningless and useless. Photo.net contructed the rating system and set basic guidelines so that the ratings could indeed represent something - a rating against a specific criteria. It is increasingly appearent that no one takes the time to follow the guidelines and provide consistency to the ratings. That being the case, photo.net should just abolish the 2 rating catagories (because they have been rendered useless) and replace it with one general rating called "what do you think". This makes it much more a popularity rating rather than the more analytical critique that was originally intended. But the punters have spoken with their actions -- the critique is dead because the punters can't (or refuse to) use it properly.

Sorry Bio, but you are dead wrong. This forum is about individuals sharing their individual thoughts and opinions about photography, we are all here to learn from one another and to critique each others work. This is called "constructive criticism" and it makes us better phographers. It's not about what "is or isn't", it's about what it "is or isn't in your opinion". In this case "originality" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, not defined by a set of rigid common rules, how bland would that be!

 

You know Joshua, we absolutely agree -- but that is precisely why a single number is invalid! We should share our thoughts on this, and say what we think about it. The number is invalid becuase was interpreted differently be different people - it is meaningless. By all means, express your thoughts directly about a photograph and give constructive comments in a critique. Yes, this IS what we are here for. But the "originality" number made meaningless does not assist in that purpose at all. The number, as it has been used, says NOTHING. Please, write and comment on photographs until your heart's content. Tell us what you mean, the number can not.

I like this one. The backround could have been either darker or lighter though. But, over all, great shot!

Biogon, just provide a link, to any photograph, by any photographer, that you feel is original. You may have a valid point afterall.

I think this is a nice example of the difference between a patiently-made wildlife photograph and a lucky one. It really is a nice shot of the owl in flight, with full wing extension.

 

But what does this tell me about the owl? Really not a lot besides "owls fly".

 

The best animal photographs have the animal relating in a natural way with it's environment, be it sleeping, eating, hunting, rearing it young, or any number of the things animals do in the day and night.

 

Some have praised the way the owl is isolated from the background. I think that is the photographs worst flaw. By isolating the bird, the photographer has removed any story from the picture. Thus it becomes more a scientific piece, and less an artistic one, interesting perhaps to ornithologists and painters who don't have a stuffed example of this species to study, but rather sterile.

 

There have been some good animal pictures in National Geographic by Nick (something-or-other, I can't find this month's issue) covering the great transect. One shot would have to be considered technically horrible, where a monkey has reached up to the lens and has obscured over half of the field of view. In fact, every animal photograph has some pretty glaring technical flaws (most of them generated by low light/slow shutter speeds). Yet they all tell wonderful stories, giving us an insight on how the animals behave. The monkey shot made the cover (in part I suppose because of all that nice black area that typesetters so adore) because with this picture we see how curious this monkey was.

 

This shot is technically nice, artisticly sterile.

As said recently, Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap... A very good photo. I have tried to capture birds in flight before, with poor to deadly results on my ego, thinking this is it, put the camera away... now. Needless to wild life photography takes skill and practice

Didn't "Originality" used to be called "Cleverness"?

 

I would choose to rename the category "Creativity" or even better: "Craftsmanship" to sum up the invisible, behind-the-scenes efforts by the photographer to capture a vision we wouldn't normally see.

 

Thus, the recent PoW of the glass dropping into water, even though done in 1957, and perhaps even earlier, would still gain merit on the "Craftsmanship" scale, because the photographer put forth a large amount of effort into having the camera record something that he or she alone saw before. Ansel Adams took ehough "bleak-n-white" pictures of mountains to fill several books. But each one was the result of enormous personal effort and planning. That is why they are considered "art". Recognition of the exertions of the artist.

 

Just as an artist painting a canvas finally reveals to the world the personal visions known only to his own mind, the photographer paints with the "broad, smooth brush" and shows us a heretofore unseen vision.

 

"Aesthetics" is self explanatory: visual appeal. On the other hand, "Cleverness/Originality/Creativity/Craftsmanship" -- whatever you call it -- reflects on the "Artisanship" of photographers, as they practice their craft.

 

Yes, I would agree that originality could be similar to cleverness or creativity. They are close enough in definition for people. However, it is a much bigger stretch to say that "originality" is the same a "craftsmanship". Craftsmanship is another catagory entirely. Indeed, is you were going to exapnd the criteria used to critque photographs to three, craftsmanship or technical merit, would be the next obvious catgory. This weeks POW clearly gets higher marks for both aesthetics and technical merit/craftsmanhip. Originality, as argued before is another thing. I would also not substitute the word "artisanship" for that. For most people, is dangerously close to "aesthetics" (it's the "art" root of the word that gets them). Originality is not, as you imply, has nothing to do with "craft" per se. Originality, along with craftsmanship brings you to the "result", whivh has ythe aesthetic dimension. "craftsmanship" is the technical and mechanical, knowing what needs to be done to produce the desired result, "originality" is the creative and intellectual thought that goes into making of an image, and (pre-)visualizing the the image. They are quite different, so lets be clear and not mix them up (which is the problem identified at the outset -- people mix up what "originality", in the context of the critique, is intended to mean or convey.

I'm with Bio on this but,....what does this have to do with this PARTICULAR photo?....maybe we should start another thread in the general forum to continue this dicussion and leave this one for comments on the *photo*. btw, great shot...love the catchlight....one of those creepy photos that look right at you no matter where you move!

This is a stunning photo to me. I like the background and don't feel that it detracts from the picture. I think the subtle shades place the owl nicely in its environment.

I didn't really want to wade into the originality discussion, but I must say that I agree fundamentally with Bio. Just recently I was wondering about the "originality" rating and its use. I don't know what to compare it to. I was surprised when I first logged onto Photo.net and saw the severity of the ratings of peoples pictures in the aethetics category, so I figured that people were basically grading on a scale of a 1 in aesthetics unworthy of even a shoebox and a 10 being something beyond grand. I re-adjusted my scoring to fall into that line, just to be fairly consistent (though I almost always give higher scores than the average). I think it is good that scoring is tough, as I think a site where the majority of photos had scores in the 8-10 range would be dead by now. In the originality arena, I'm not sure where to set my scale, despite the guidelines, so that I'm not too far out of range. I know that you should score based on your own feeling, and I do, but I question the usefulness of originality as an objective tool for a photographer to use if we are all over the place with it. I think a lot of Avedons, Adams and Cartier-Bressons would bomb in originlity on this site. I agree with Joe that maybe additional measures should be used to replace "originality", such as "cleverness" and "creativity" and "craftsmanship". I think that would tell a photographer more about where they should develop themselves.

One thing we do where I work when evaluating each other is that if we give a score that is at either end of the scale, there must be a written comment to explain it. Perhaps requiring or at least strongly suggeting that a score of below 3 or above 6 or 7 should be accompanied by a comment. Perhaps a template to facilitate comments could be created. Just a thought.

I think this is a beautiful illustrative shot. Can't see it as being very original, but I'm really impressed with the technical quality and beauty of the bird captured on film. Wonderful.

Stunning! Background is nice and compliments this beautiful creature