Eagle attack

Thank you Vincent :)

All this talk about directions and angles and blurs is completely erroneous." - Vincent K. Tylor.

All you are saying here, Vincent, is that Shawn is wrong - not WHY he's wrong. Shawn, at least, EXPLAINED his views, and did so with a fair display of knowledge.

This being said, and back to Shawn's point, whether he's right or wrong, I think people here are missunderstanding his point, and mixing two separate issues.

1st issue: Is this a composite ? The series leads me to believe that it is not a composite, and I have no reasons to doubt the photographer. (I don't think Shawn is saying that this is a composite, by the way - or is he...?)

2nd issue: Did the photographer perhaps just add a little motion blur on the wings of the attacking bird...? Shawn says he did. I personally can't tell for sure, and again, have no reason to doubt the photographer. But to be honest, I can not say for sure that Shawn is wrong. It DOES ***look*** like an added PShop blur, for the reasons Shawn described. Unfortunately, some real blurs can also look like PS blurs, especially at small size. So, I think the best would be for Miguel to upload a 300% detail; then we could perhaps be sure and put this second issue to rest as well.

I want to clarify a few things:

1. Vincent, the backgounds of the two pictures are NOT identical. They may be sequential pictures, but the backgrounds are NOT identical. And for what it's worth, I haven't made up my mind. I don't know anything about Shawn's expertise, but I'm hoping your judgment of him came after you saw and refuted his evidence, because the rest of us can't get his image to open.

2. I think Miguel's portfolio is awesome. I think he is an incredible photographer and artist. I believe it is more likely than not that this particular image has not been heavily manipulated.

3. As opposed to others, I would not be unhappy to be named POW and have to endure some scrutiny. Most of us that have raised questions about this image are not in any way trying to denigrate the photographer. What we are trying to do is ask the questions that are appropriate (perhaps even necessary and responsible) to ask in this era of digital technology. And if the image lives through that scrutiny and proves itself genuine, then both the image and photographer are further proven. I dare say that Miguel will be happier in the end if the discussion doesn't consist entirely of oohs and ahs for his image.

4. We don't have to agree with each other, but it would be nice to be civil and be careful when judging motives.

"Finally, on area D, where it is most obvious, in my opinion, that the artist had cut away this bird, less so slightly below." Shawn Kearney

 

Those are strong accusations [opinions]. If he wishes to in effect call Miguel untruthful, expect a strong reply countering that claim.

 

"All you are saying here, Vincent, is that Shawn is wrong - not WHY he's wrong." Marc G.

 

I cannot get into any of the details in his attachment that will not even open. In fact there is no need to look at this anyway. It proves nothing at all if you do not know exactly what angles these birds were flying at. There is already complete evidence here that this image is in fact genuine [opinion]. The second image in this series is all I needed to see. Study that carefully if you will. The background IS identical. The lighting is also identical. Two birds about to collide in the first image. Two (of the same) birds in complete contact in the second image. This scene is real in my opinion. The fact Miguel is a wildlife photographer (and not a Photoshop technician) and has already clarified specifically (several times now) that this is not a composite, as well as why he would not do that, what more do you want to hear/see from him?

"..it seems to me that it could have been taken at an entirely different time.." "I have spent a lot of time looking the the two pictures at his website and I would not have interpreted them to be sequential pictures" Rod S.

 

Look at the sloping background Rod, how you can come to any other conclusion, again is beyond comprehension in my opinion. These [seem to be] from the exact same shoot. The sloping hill, lighting, time of day, colors make this very clear [to me].

"Did the photographer perhaps just add a little motion blur on the wings of the attacking bird...? ... I personally can't tell for sure, and again, have no reason to doubt the photographer". Marc G.

 

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

Moderator note: Personal attacks and name calling is not allowed on this forum. Please refrain. I've edited out inflammatory statements. Points have been made and rather than beat it to death (and each other) please move on.

After a quick look at this jpg in PS at 300% up to 1200%, here are the additional impressions I can add:

1) I could see some sort of cloning or smudging marks on the bird's belly... Nothing major, it could be an imperfect removal of dust; or maybe the bird is pregnant, or drunk, or...

2) Apparently all these straight lines some of us had concerns about are not even absolutely straight, and they are broken in many places, interrupted by other small lines. It sure looks strange if it's a real motion blur, but at this point, it would seem to be too irregular for a Photoshop blur. PS blur would be composed of more repetitive motives and straighter lines in my opinion.

My concluson at this point would be that this is most likely not a PShop blur, although I still can't make sense of the blur I see here.

Secondary conclusion: Nature, and the laws of physics, and God, and Doug Burgess at night in his darkroom - all work in very mysterious ways...:-)

And one more thing: the attacking bird's "blurry" wing appears, surprisingly, fairly sharp in PS, at 400%. At any rate, it looks much sharper imo, than any motion blur generated in PS could ever look.

We're asked to accept a photoshop expert's opinion of this image, but there's still not enough credit given to the comments from people who actually shoot birds and understand their behavior. We're here to learn from experts and in this context, I'm listening to those who understand and shoot birds, not from PS experts who are fixated on minute artifacts from oversharpening, and who can't tell the difference between PS blur and motion blur.

Wow!!!

For people wondering about attachments, they don't seem to work when viewing the photograph directly, but they can be accessed when viewing the discussion in the forum.

For all you critics out there, I defy you to produce a bird shot as good as this with or without PS. Having been a photographer for many years in all facets of photography, birds are without doubt one of the toughest subjects on earth! This argument has gone from physics to photoshop, expert opinion to downright amateur hyperbole. Miguel is a regular contributor on photonet with regular high rating images and the calibre of his work and portfolios = a fine artisan. I say bravo and 10 / 10 for Miguels talents.

it has been very intresting (as a previous poster pointed out) to read about bird's behaivour in their natural environment and to understand what kind of action might have been going there - i think many of us would like to know more.

 

As a personal feeling i think that shooting at 1/1000 or more could have frozen out the action but also could have washed away the sense of rush i gather from the image.

 

I wonder if the same shot - if perfectly freezed and sharp - would have had the same appeal or rather would have been looking flat due the long lense used the position of the birds into the frame.

 

In this case I rather prefer blurs: i think the image delivers the right amount of them to describe the action; Knowing wether the blurs are real, totally fake or real only in a certain amount is not making a real difference to my opinion, but rather i am pleased to see them as they help communicating the real event.

There's a terrific shot, similiar in nature to this one, without the attacking bird in National Georgraphic "100 Best Wildlife Pictures" Vol 3, page 139. The photo, taken by Klaus Nigge, is of 2 Stellar Sea-eagles fighting over beached salmon. It's one of my all time favorite eagle photos and if you get a chance to see it, I think you'll go "wow"!

Sorry.. the photo is also found in the March 1999 edition of National Geographic Magazine.

My wife looked at this and said "wow, that's amazing". I then said there was a discussion at to whether it was photoshopped or not. She said "whats photoshop?". I then explained it to her a bit. She then said "who cares?". She is the general "photo buying" public by the way. We have a house full.

 

I know we are here to discuss the image, but lately the POW seems to be an inquisition into the authenticity of an image more so than the merits of the image itself.

 

This is a great image. If Miguel says it's original so be it... Just my thoughts. Congrats on the POW.

I once saw a picture of a peregrine falcon diving at hundreds of miles per hour. It bore no resemblance to a bird, more of a sliver of something cutting through the air--and it was almost perfectly in focus.

 

The current photo looks authentic all the way around. The bird being attacked is clearly looking right up at her attacker, and Vince's points on background are well-taken. Stephanie makes a valid point about the shadow on the attacked bird's left wing. I can't imagine what other evidence we need to establish this photo's authenticity.

 

Miguel, thank you for an incredible photo.

Awesome capture! 7/7

 

I certainly can't see any manipulation.

 

Too many comments to read so sorry if I repeat some elses comment!

I don't know much about Eagles either.

 

My interpretation of this shot is that the attacking eagle has just entered flight from the mound on the left of the picture, perhaps just out of shot. It is possible it's wings are traveling in the upward direction hence the odd blurred effect. The eagle on the right will no doubt have been trying to prevent the confrontation by facing up to the attacking eagle, possibly turning itself to show off it's size so may have been showing it's large profile side on. Seeing the other eagle has initiated the attack it has no option but to make itself look even larger and at the same time rotate to meet the attack!

 

However you interpret it the lighting and colours captured here are superb as is the action! The overall image is unique insight into the life of these creatures!

 

Congratulations on the well deserved "Photo of The Week" Miguel

 

John

In my humble observation, nothing ever moves in a straight line. Furthermore, in real motion blur, there is a forward edge when the object is moving relatively straight, this is caused by the fact that the object exposes over again where it had been, making it relatively more sharp in the front, this illustrates direction. The only time when it is soft like this is when the object multiple different headings over the exposure period. (see http://www.adpix.biz/sudwind/singer/Rolex2001/caseitblur.JPG from)

 

If we had no idea which direction the "attacking" bird was heading, we could not tell because their is no edge.

(just to clear things up, motion blur is caused by consecutive exposures over a period of time and is not caused by the obtical system, as it is in depth of field)

another example:

 

http://www.gridlock.com/bmxgallery2/StoneageCollection/Fremont_BMX/kev_at_speed.JPG

Shawn, in all seriousness, I can't see exactly what your 2 links are supposed to be helpful for or to demonstrate: both of them are executed with panning technique, which results in entirely "messy" blurry effects. Miguel's picture uses no panning at all, and can't therefore be compared to these 2 examples. Miguel's blurry bird, by the way, is still sharper than any amount of PS blur: just try to use Photoshop's motion blur on a fairly sharp part of this bird, and you'll see what I mean - at 400% viewing and above. Finally, you mention again about this blur being a straight line - whereas it isn't exactly straight once you enlarge it...

Shawn, I realize that you have a pet theory (i.e., that the photo has been falsified), but I would adjust that theory to fit the facts. There is knowledge of Photoshop, and there is knowledge of Photoshop, and ultimately no one cares how many courses you have taken in a field. I know, because I have seven letters after my name, and I don't even care; and it is absolutely certain that no one else cares or is going to care what my credentials are--nor should they. Degrees and formal study are irrelevant unless they come to fruition in good work.

This is a great shot!

 

When Miguel Lasa says that this one is not manipulated I believe him!

However, this shot LOOKS artifical - but that may change if you see the print...