Barn owl

eos10d,ef300, 1/500 sec

Awesome capture! DOF, lighting, everything worked for you.

Great shot. Lighting was nice to you. Background is perfectly out of focus, but sharp enough to see the color distinctions. Color is deep and soothing. Nice job.

Lovely!

This is unbelieveable! Spectacular!

Awesome ... awesome.

Gotta love a 10D im jealous! Awesome shot!

Great shot... what an awesome sharpness... a perfect bird photo!

Perfect time!congrats.

Love the translucence of the wings. Great!

Is a distraction but I love the backlighting.

Yep, if it wasn't for that white spot it would be a perfect 7.

Great capture. Dont you love the 10D!

Nice capture! Great shot!

Love the DOF, makes it look like 3D.

A very nice shot. Perfect lighting, great capture of the owl in flight. Flash or no? I like the white spot, it's just enough to give the impression of a distant horizon. Everything works in this one for me. I like it. If I keep seeing things like this, I'm going to have to go digital.

Thank you for your comments,I didn't use a flash ,I wonder if a fill in flash could have been better

damn... I rated 5/7 when I should've rate 7/5, my bad. Originality 5, should've been, it's still a bird. But awesome: 7.

Really a great capture. Victor, you can change your ratings by just rating this photo again and confirming that you wish to modify your previous score when the system asks you.

Excellent!!!

really good shot. geert

I'm gonna stick my neck out. It's too good.

There are several different sized pixels being used here. The pixels on the bird are several times bigger than those of the general background.

Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe it's fancy compression or something, but it kinda smells fishy to me.

So it's a 1,1 from me, but if I'm wrong I'll re-rate 6,7, maybe even 7,7.

Fake?

Gareth, it is technically impossible to have pixels of different sizes in the same image. Just to be sure, I have carefully checked and, of course, the pixels are the same. What is different between subject and background is the microcontrast, which just means that the background is softer - as it is obvious at first sight. Whether this is a natural effect of the telephoto lens used, or the background was digitally blurred to enhance the subject, is not easy to tell; in either case, I don't see why this should be regarded as a "fake". Please note that the photographer did not check the "unmanipulated" box, meaning that some manipulation was probably present. So what? Who took the picture of the owl? Are you suggesting that it is a stock picture stuck on a stock background, or do you normally stick "1/1" ratings to everybody who digitally manipulates pictures?

Tripod? Handheld? What photoshop processing did you do? Thanks.

Thank you very much for your nice comments.I used a canon eos 10d,natural light, shoot nearly against the sun to avoid flare.Handheld,no tripod,some panning.The only photoshop used was to slightly blur the background(it was already blurred due to de DOF).This is not a composite image Gareth .Thank you again.Miguel.