Looking For Abby... may she visit again soon.

He was a magnificent specimen, in the prime of life. I couldn't resist him.

 

Cockatoos come rarely nowadays, as we don't feed them any more. Not only was cockatoo feeding time chaotic, and the birds destructive of the house while waiting their turn, but some had beak and feather disease, a truly horrible affliction. It's highly contagious, spread when they congregate at close quarters... like our feeding tray. So we had to stop it.

 

He was quite unafraid of me. He stood his ground right up to when I got to a metre away from him. Only then did caution overcome attitude.

 

Snapped at 8am. A lovely, golden time at Chilworth Close.

You really do know how to make somebody's day Tony. Great cockatoo portrait. It seems to perfectly capture his personality. He looks like he's asking, "Where's my breakfast, Tony?".

He's asking, "Where's my Abby? Why don't she come and visit no more?"

 

Cockatoos were never solid on the Queen's English.

What wondeful light on this fellow, Tony! It's a pity you had to stop feeding them, but better for the birds, undoubtedly. The white against the bright green-golden background couldn't have been done better in a studio.

Very nice shot.

The ever-recurring illusion of animals having human expressions (a` la big-eyed Bambi) has a tremendous impact through the posture of this bird. A slightly different position of the head or composition for the eye would have missed it, and told either another or no story at all.

 

Past this emotional reading of the image, I am struck by the beauty of the bokeh. It's not only about the chromatic impact on singling out the beauty of the bird, but rather its contrast with the texture of the featers of the chest: many of the leaves to the top left are rendered in blurred circles whose radius is similar to those of the arrangment of feathers on the chest. This is almost hypnotic.

I have no problem with presenting animals as if they had human expressions. I prefer to look at it as, "we all - humans and animals - share the same types of expressions."

 

In this case he's looking inquisitive, trying to see behind me, where my wife was standing. He wanted to keep an eye on everything.

 

Later on, another cockatoo turned up, above him on the upstairs balcony. He gave the new visitor the same look.

 

His crest is slightly extended. This is in response to the "threat" that I was issuing by coming "too close". But he still stood his ground. Quite a brave bird.

 

I deliberately chose a shallow depth of field because the trees in the background were far too busy to include in detail. I didn't forsee the swirling nature of the blurred background, but I think it does add to the picture.

 

Although I usually use JPEG files, recently I've bought a 1 GIG chip for the camera and it has been a true liberation. 300 JPEGS or 100 RAW images on one chip! Sensational! So this was a RAW file, which was a little too blue, so I amended the color balance and gave the bird a warmer glow (which was more what my eye saw than the shadowy blues of the original).

 

This is a 100% detail of his head, showing the incredible complexity of his feathers. It's so sad to see a cockatoo without them (as they are when they contract "beak and feather" syndrome).

tony.

 

the bokeh is ruining your otherwise excellent picture.

 

vuk.

Vuk, care to be more specific. The shallow DOF served its' purpose. What is it about the shape of the "circles' that you find so offensive?

carl.

 

the shallow DOF is not the problem (in fact, it's the obvious thing to do), the rendering of what's out of focus is. the bokeh here is busy, erratic and intrusive. instead, it should discreetly liquify into oblivion. this is why some people pay big money for leica glass (and the smart ones buy voigtlander or jupiter).

 

vuk.

Hi Vuk and Carl,

 

Welcome back Vuk! Long time no hear. Good to see you're still alive and kicking.

 

I think the background provides a suitable flame-like background, busy but adding motion (in a nice way) to the picture. You're right Vuk: there's only one way to take the picture, given the background. The lens was fairly wide open, so I don't know what I could have done about it (I know, I know... "get another lens").

 

I don't understand all this stuff about "bokeh". Seems pretty subjective to me.

I'm with Vuk on the bokeh issue here, it's not so nice, but it doesn't ruin the pic.

I do not want to troll around neither to start a flame war, but the way the background gets blurred is a part of the picture-taking process. I agree that a liquid background is, indeed, functionally something to place behind a subject, which help pulling out the subject's colours and that shall not distract. On the other hand, here, I like the fact that it does echo the shape and dimension of the feathers and, indeed, makes the picture more dynamic, without being distracting. I think this is subjective, but my eye does not get hooked on the background and ignores the bird. I sort of register that there is something with a vague texture behind the subject and then get attracted to the texture of the feathers on the chest which would otherwise be not so prominent...

Bird looks good , slight cyan cast possible though. A dose of "smart blur" could take care of the background issue. i'd also try with the background toned down a little. regards,

Vuk, I know about bokeh from a theoretical standpoint, but for the 100-300 zoom lens (gasp!) I would have used for this shot, that isn't a consideration, nor was it when I bought it. I've never seen the same shot with lens 'A' and lens 'B' side by side comparing bokeh. Can you direct me to a URL? (Or upload one yourself . . :-))

This is what I was getting at with the composition.

 

The oval of the blurred trees in the background frames the bird. The line through the centre of the bird cuts the oval at the point of the bird's head.

 

Hey! I've invented the Nike logo!

Only in your opinion. Like many others, I happen to like it as it is.

Don't fight over this pic. It' just a snap of a bird I liked that came visiting.

 

Not worth getting into a tizzy over, guys.

Not quite the Nike logo, but that's a good thing from a copyright-in-the-way-of-stock-options kind of approach.

 

I think I'm in agreement with Tony that it's not worth really arguing over the bokeh in this shot. But I did play with a lens blur filter (the selection mask is pretty easy here) and actually did like it a little better slightly softened in the background. Digging pretty deep here, but for whatever it might be worth...

 

I quite like the original shot. Onward.