Red Shouldered Hawk #1

And chicken, too, I see.

She hates bread. Now it's only raw or cooked chicken.

I have a personal conviction while looking at art that is to put aside all technical details. What I judge and appreciate is the result ! This reminds me of a discussion I had on an other site : I rated some underwater photo low and it made an underwater photograph mad. He told me how difficult it was to get a neat photo of this kind of gelly fish ect.. I answered that is doesnt matter how exceptionnal the technical aspect is, if the photo is ugly there is no point. (i wasnt so harsh ;))

 

Well, I think it works in the other way. Here we have a really beautyful and impressive bird photo, as far as i'm concerned, it could be a false bird I would still like it lol !

I must say, these kinds of pictures tend to bore me. But this is a lot better than most. I think the capture is exactly at the right time, and the bird is in a great position. Good work.

I think this is one of the most stunning pictures of any kind I have ever seen. The bird is majestic and beautiful. About how big a bird would you say she is, how big of a wingspan?

Thanks,

Ken

Whether the hawk was fed or not is totally irrelevant to me. If you hadn't told us all that we would never have been able to tell for ourselves. That aside the lighting on the Hawk, the wing position, everything is perfect. Absolutely gorgeous. And the muted earthy tones of the picture are a nice deviation from the norm (of the bird pictures I see). Altogether stunning. It's sharp enough for me, don't apologize about your equipment.

It's a good picture, as pictures of such gorgeous creatures tend to be. A falcon settling to rest on a branch suggests relief, comfort, the tranquility of rest. I think it makes a difference that the bird was fed, but not necessarily a bad difference. The only advantage I can see of photographing a bird hunting in the wild is that you could get a really sweet picture of, say, an eagle plucking a salmon out of a stream. The spontaneity of such an image, the fact it can't be faked, merely adds to the excitement the picture creates in the viewer. As to whether any picture is a success, the only question is, did you get the image you wanted?

Awesome focus .......great choice as photo of the week....well done!

Baiting is completly illegal in 99 percent of the U.S. national and state parks. Are you sure you are doing no harm by feeding this bird chicken? I'm not calling it cheating, but unless you are sure you're not harming this bird, then you are ethically wrong. No photograph is more important than the well-being of the animal.

Normally, I'm not much a fan of photos of animals in the wild, but this a beautiful shot. As has been said many times over above, the timing and lighting make this a perfect. Very well done.

 

As for the ethics of feeding the bird, let me ask: Is it unethical to feed the stray cat in the neighborhood? If you don't feed it, it's probably going to eat something less healthy than chicken! Come on- the government isn't all-knowing. Is it the really going to destory the environment if this bird gets a little fat off the KFC?

Just for the sake of discussion...I do think it's worth discussing the ethics of feedings the hawk. Maybe not just pertaining to this particular case, but just in general. It seems like it might be potentially a bad idea. One reason I can think of off hand: it might influence the animal to come closer to humans than it normally would/should posing a threat to humans or to the animal FROM humans. I suppose the animal could get "lazy" about finding its own source of food. I dunno...I'm sure that people who are more involved in nature photography could come up with other ideas. I'm definitely not one of those people who feels that moving a single twig is unethical, but I do think it is worth thinking about the ramifications of our actions beyond just getting a great photo. Nice photo, by the way, Cary.

All I am saying is why harm the things you love?

 

I am not a biologist so it is not for me to say whether feeding the hawk would cause any harm. But I think there should be a discussion about the ethics of baiting.

It's a great pose in great light. And luring birds into position for photographs is such a common trick that it can't really be called "cheating". But feeding wild raptors (particularly feeding them farm-produced bird meat) is really not a good idea. It may seem counter-intuitive, but they're much more likely to catch diseases off such food than from the wild animals they'd usually eat.

I liked the image.

 

As regards the 'baiting' question, here in the UK the RSPB supports the feeding of wild

birds, and provides these guidelines and instructions:

 

http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/whatyoucando/feedinggardenbirds/feeding.asp

 

No mention of hawks, though.

Regarding the elves question, whether or not baiting is ethical for the purposes of photography, or at least this photograph, is ridiculous. Sharks are baited for the purpose of research and photography, as are countless other species, I'm sure. We're not talking about poisoning the hawk with marshmallows, but feeding it. Cary still had to make the picture. The inflammatory word is "bait." Think of it more as compensation, or charity. (Maybe not charity, because that would be like volunteering at the local soup kitchen so you can get better photographs of homeless people. )

 

"Would a picture of a real wild hawk be somehow better?" the elf asks, implying that this hawk is not wild. The question is therefore irrelevant because this hawk is wild. It's not like he tied it to the branch. Cary responded to an observed pattern.

 

So, what kind of hawk is this? Red Shouldered?

Majestic bird caught at the right moment. DOF and handling of the background is very good

I don't know the ethics of feeding wild hawks but am willing to defer to the experts. If it is

likely to cause them harm, then feeding the animal for the purpose of a photograph would

be sick. If not, then I see no problem with it.

 

Regarding the photo, it is a nice capture. I think it might be better if the subject were not

centered. I think it might benefit by having the bird in the upper left part of the frame.

Since it is cropped, I wonder if the photographer experimented with other perspectives?

 

In general, I think the difficulty of the shot often matters to the overall quality of the

photo. Yes, the photo still needs to be good on its own, but plenty of photos are good on

their own without being great because they are too easy. Cats and babies, for example, or

greenhouse flowers, require much more creative vision and often technical skill to be great

because there are so many good ones out there. National Geographic will not hire you

based on a portfolio of wonderful pictures of your cat.

 

On the other hand, and as long as the ethics question is settled in the photographer's

favor, such a nice picture of a wild hawk is something to be proud of.

National Geographic has published its fair share of mediocre images. I remember one photographer was mentioned on the last pages of the magazine where he stated that he made over 400 shots of a particular animal, a vicuna, I think it was, in the Chilean Andes. The shot used was about as average as you could imagine, completely unimaginiative, just the animal sitting there against a stone backdrop. No action, very little interest, an altogether humdrum picture. Other Nat Geo shots rely heavily on cliche, for example, a double page spread in a recent issue of a baby harp seal, all white and cute. When I saw on the cover that the issue contained a story on harp seals, I feared the presence of this shot, and was disappointed to see it.

 

Not that ALL of their imagery is old hat, far from it, but either Nat Geo photography over all has declined in quality, or the rest of the world has caught up.

If paying the human models with heavy make up and artificial sets

is not cheating, feeding the Hawk would not be either.

 

If caging the animals, insects, fish and birds in a zoo is tolerated and supported, this feeding for a photo is even less so.

 

If the photographer has fed the bird with meat (if the bird were a vegetarian) I would have find that repulsive and very dangerous (look at all the fish, sheep and cattle farms and how mad cow came about).

 

Vivek.

I too find the dead-center composition less than inspiring.

Yes, but does National Geographic ask you how you got a given photo, or for them do the photos speak for themselves? My guess is that, as long as the baiting wasn't obvious, they wouldn't care.

Actually, I hadn't noticed the dead-centre aspect. But having looked at it, I quite like it.

Possibly because of the strong diagonals in the image - the bird's wings are pointing at

the upper corners, its foot is pointed bottom-left, and the tree branch leads up from the

bottom-right. The image may indeed be right in the centre but it is neatly pinned there by

the intersecting diagonals.

Intersecting diagonals:

 

Sorry, it is of course its tail that is pointing bottom-left!

This bird is certainly "wild"! It could be days or weeks between visits. I give her very small portions, not enough to survive on.

What's the difference between my actions, and say, a bird feeder? Do these devices also interfere with the animals' ability to gather food?

I respect the wildlife around me ( I am a vegetarian )and don't feel an occasional bit of food, be it human, hurts. I was after a photo that expressed the beauty of this creature and used this as a way of getting it.

I have to smile at the idea that D. Burgess "feared the presence" of a shot of "a baby harp

seal, all white and cute"... : ).