Red Shouldered Hawk #1

The photo is phenomenal, no question about that. With regards to "baiting" - some say we should not feed these wild animals. Does this also mean I should take down the birdfeed that hangs outside my residence? Geez these wild birds come there and get food when I fill it with bird seed. I'm being a bit sarcastic, but truthfully if one person feeds the bird is there any harm done? A very tough question to answer but I believe the answer is no. This is not detrimental to the welfare of the hawk. If one were to stop feeding the bird it would go back to what it did before - what it knew how to do by instinct. Hunt. Enough said on that topic. Again congrats on the great capture.

The bird may be beautiful, but there is substantial room for technical improvements in several areas.

Regarding the 'baiting' issue... not a big fan of the "chicken drumsticks" approach, from an environemntal and bird wellbeing perspective. We all draw the 'line' at different places; my boundary doesn't include tossing meat to wild raptors (without some sound basis).Knowing how the shot was realized does reduce the photos value, to me.

Ryan,

 

Well said! Thanks for your comment.

So far, all I've seen is idle speculation on the question of baiting the hawk. The bird feeder

analogy is a logical fallacy just as it would be a logical fallacy to cite the damage feeding

does to dolphins as "proof" that we shouldn't feed hawks.

 

Personally, my guess is that it's harmless and I definitely trust the good intentions of the

photographer. Still, all this guessing is just that. I would like to know what experts in the

field say.

 

The National Geographic thing was just an off-the-cuff example. Frankly, I too am terrified

of seeing a cute little baby seal every time I open the cover. The very idea is horrifying.

Not that I'd turn down an assignment...

I feel that it was a mistake to include the "side-discussion" about baiting... it detracts from the purpose of POW. Also, I'm personally against feeding wild animals (I see this way too often in Yosemite and other parks) Cary, I'm glad to hear you limited the ammount of feeding... unfortunately many others might not take such care (and of course there's the issue of what you are feeding... that has been covered so I'm going to get back to discussing photography now) I like your image... it is bold and I happen to be very fond of hawks. As others have mentioned, the "earthly" colors are well represented in your wonderful photo, and the timing was very fortunate. Have you considered trying this without "burst mode"? You have gained enough experience now that you should be able to find the right moment by instinct. I don't how this works with digital cameras (I still use film), but don't you end up with a lower quality image because of the burst mode? It looks great on screen, but if you want big prints the file may be too small. By the way, I like to view a photo the first time without knowing anything about it... experience it on that level... standing on it's own, then read any text associated with the photo and re-experience it. I liked this one right off, but also am curious about how an off-center composition would work.

Jeffrey,

 

The sony cam allows up to 8 million megs per shot in burst mode. As I mentioned earlier, having a longer lense available would have not made the crop necessary. I will post an off-centered version soon.

 

Thanks again.

The timing and light/exposure are good.

The techical limitations of the photographers equipment bring the image down considerably.

The crop is bad as it places the birds mass considerably right of center.

While it is nice of Cary to reward his model I personally would be inclined to check what her diet restrictions are. :)

Last time I visited the local Raptor rehab center I seem to recall they were all getting a diet of rodent. There are people to ask if you really want to know.

"It's a pleasure being able to feed this hawk everyday."

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2460726

 

The more I see of this, the less I like. Will leave it at that.

Does this version work better?

 

 

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2503612-md.jpg

I am little bit astonished to see these averse reactions about the feeding of a Hawk.

 

How many of you have pets locked up at home?

 

How many of you have taken photos of these pets and

posted them here?

 

Should "wild animals" be only seen through National Geographic magazine and thought of with pity when you read those heart wrenching stories about poaching and the destruction of their habitats (no wonder National Geographic photos LOOK so gripping- without their excellent stories, not all their pictures will be seen anywhere).

 

If a photograph/story is about Panda bears in their natural habitat and all the photographs come from the south pole, then there is something definitely wrong about that. If the same photographs are accompanying a story/commentary about Panda bears, in general (as an introduction) with explicit details about their location, I do not see anything wrong there at all.

 

Vivek.

The wings and lighting are first rate.

 

A discussion of how photographers interact with wildlife is fair game. :-)

 

Daily feeding sounds like you're modifying its' behavior in a way that could be detrimental to its' survival, even though you have the best of intentions. I've heard horror stories of photographers who have done illegal things to get these shots, but I believe your intentions are good. You might want to do some research.

 

A 200mm lens is simply too short, especially with a small sensor which limits cropping for a large print. (For a small print, this is fine.)

 

The uniform OOF background is good, especially especially considering it's a digicam. I would like to see it printed with a bit cropped off the left side.

No, feeding the bird is not unethical. As a falconer I can tell you

even our 'tame' charges remain somewhat 'wild'. The bird is a

old Red shouldered hawk(buteo linneatus), appears to be the female of the pair. Chicken legs is a good choice (for a 'chicken hawk' ;-) )

And feeding two youngsters back in the nest who have ravenous

appetites puts a strain on the pair. And , if one of the youngsters

is not fed properly, the larger one will kill and eat the smaller one.

(Cain & Able complex) Bird seems to be back pedaling a bit just

after alighting on the small branch that sways under her weight.

The awkward wing position of the right one at first is a distraction

geometrically unless one realizes the action of the bird. An excellent

photo!!! Even the prestigious Audubon Club once published a calendar

with a shot of a large flying Goshawk (accipter gentilis) which, upon

close exam, could be seen to be wearing falconer's jesses.!!!

Red Shouldered Hawk. Thanks Richard.

 

I remember hanging with some hawk aficionados who baited migrating birds with a decoy owl. When the hawks swooped close, the cameras fired. I was the only one dumb enough to attempt the capture with a view camera. Needless to say, the shots were duds.

Richard,

 

Thanks for the expert support. On hindsight, I should have not mentioned the feeding of this animal. But being dishonest is never the way to get a honest critique. I would have liked the photo to rest on it's own

photographic merit.

It seems people are commenting on two different ethical questions:

1) staging a photograph

2) feeding wild animals.

I absolutely have no problem with the first and a huge problem with the second. That

being said, this is a very nice shot of a hawk, but I wish I didn't know that the

photographer hung sandwiches in trees to get it (as is clearly the case in one of the other

"Hawk 9" photos). I don't think we need hawk experts to determine whether or not feeding

wild animals is a good idea or not. There's a reason virtually every national park in the

country has "do not feed the wildlife" signs posted everywhere. I've been to all but five and

I'm always amazed that people think the warnings are to protect themselves from the

animals and not the other way around.

To reply to Vivek's post, a wild bird can hardly be compared to a "pet." By being fed every

day, however, the hawk is becoming just that, and is well on its way to becoming

domesticated itself and therefore at a disadvantage in the wild. Will chicken drumsticks

lead to the ultimate demise of the Red Shouldered Hawk? Of course not. Will they lead to a

decline of this particular bird's health in the wild? I'm no expert, but it seems logical to

me.

Incredible timing, color and background. Just because the hawk is fed does not make it any less wild or much less easy to capture in that frame.

Sean,

 

Thanks for your comments. The picture you refer to does not portray a sandwich stuck on a branch. Firstly, the tree shown is about 40 ft high. I threw a piece of bread that the camera captured mid-air, in front of the tree branch. To the eye it appears "stuck" to the branch itself.

Cary, Here's something I tried that I think you will like and helps the photo. The background is very 'noisey', so I took the liberty of trying NeatImage on it. The result was very nice. You can get the NI demo at...

 

http://www.neatimage.com/download.html

 

There's a sharpening capability with NI, so you can apply the noise reduction and sharpening in one step on the original. If you haven't tried this type of s/w before, take it out for a spin... I think you'll like the result. Cheers, Greg

Quote from http://www.falconers.com/articles/vets_corner/index_files/page0003.htm

 

"feeding any avian derived foodstuff is a potential risk"

 

Birds are very vulnerable to salmonella, and meat from farmed chickens is (unfortunately) quite likely to be full of salmonella.

Pictures of zoo animals are "cheating" -- this isn't. You had an advantage that gave you the opportunity at this shot -- which is well executed, especially give the (lack of) equipment!

 

Nicely done.

Great shot.. which of course you know.. one just realizes with animals, wild and captive, when you've gotten the moment just right.

 

I've have to add a cent or two of my thoughts on the ethics discussion.

 

Feeding wildlife is not in itself unethical.. or dangerous. Hence the billions of backyard bird feeders. If you were tossing this beautiful girl a bunch of ho-ho's or twinkies.. yes.. that's pretty unethical. My personal opinion of feeding wildlife in national parks, though.. is just plain stupid. When a wild animal, capable of injuring humans starts getting agressive because it's used to getting an easy meal and now wants fed, you have severe problems. The rules are there indeed to protect humans from our own ignorance.

 

I do have a problem though with captive photography being called cheating. Passing off photos of captive animals as wild is cheating, but utilizing zoos, parks and wildlife rehabiliation centers to study the natural behaviors of wildlife and work under controlled and safe conditions isn't cheating... anymore than say, fashion photography, or still life photography is cheating.

 

Beautiful shot and great discussion! Congrats!!

Once again, the last poster is missing the bigger picture of feeding wildlife. Yes, animals

become aggressive and can hurt humans, but fed animals also become dangerous to

themselves. If domesticated to a certain degree they are unable, or unwilling, to forage for

their own livelyhood and become dependent upon the handouts. Not to mention the fact

that the food is usually not a staple of their natural diet, and can cause all sorts of health

issues. And just because bird feeders can be found in backyards everywhere, doesn't

necessarily mean that they are harmless. The same goes for feeding bread to the swans in

the park (at least bird feeders are usually filled with seeds that the birds would usually find

out foraging.) Call me an extremist on this issue, but the only animals that should ever be

fed are of the domestic variety, pets, farm animals or otherwise.

Cary, as for the bread in your other hawk shot, why wouldn't you just crop it out or

retouch it out? As I said in my previous post, I have no problem with staging a shot (just

with feeding wildlife). I don't need to know what you did to achieve the shot. With the

bread eliminated, I would just see a great shot of a hawk, talons outstretched, heading to

dinner. Sorry to digress from the POW shot, which I do think is a great shot, with

exceptional lighting and color. I do prefer the more horizontal crop that you posted.

Well, if you are going to split hairs on this feeding issue- bread is actually harmful. Almost all the bread in the US is made with "fortified" flour.

 

Fortified flour is enriched with iron and is unnatural to anyone's consumption. And what goes in has to come out, eventually. Adding to wider contamination of the environment. Unnatural trace iron, BTW, greatly enhances the rapid growth of micro organisms- bacteria, etc..

 

Vivek.

Beautiful picture, in great light. Unfortunately feeding wild animals (unless they are starving) causes them to be "human dependant" and can led to their deaths. Please don't encourage others to do this also.

Read Galen Rowell or Moose's books on this subject.

Nice image. I think it would be better if the frame were moved to the right placing the

hawk on the left side as opposed to centrally. This would show the hawk looking into the

area of space on the right side and, in my opinion, improve the image quite a bit. I guess

it's the same principle as allowing a runner to run into the frame opposed to running out

of it, the former being the more pleasing photograph.