Eagle attack

Dave, "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."

 

Authenticity is key to this genre of photography. Photographers have been doing all sorts of creative things and the darkrooms and in the studio, yet when Art Wolfe offered his infamous 'migrations' photographs, there was a hue and cry because it was obvious to everyone that despite disclaimers in small print, the intent of the images were to deceive the viewer into thinking that the formations of the birds and animals reflected actual behavior.

 

If you glance at this picture and see two birds in dynamic poses and you like the light composition and color, you could just as well be looking at a painting and it wouldn't matter.

 

 

But if you're looking at the interaction of these birds and trying to UNDERSTAND exactly what is happening here, you want to know if the behavior is real or the imaginings of a photographic artist who may or may not know anything about bird behavior.

IMHO it's been settled that Miguel used only minor cleanup on this photo, which is an incredible right-place-right-time shot. Well done, and I'm not the only envious one.

 

Lannie K-

"Degrees and formal study are irrelevant unless they come to fruition in good work"...

 

Your comment should be framed and on the wall of every 'Professional' in every occupation!

 

Miguel- my question is, what sort of blind did you use, that could hold 3 or more people, and how did you survive 8 hours or more per day for many days in there?? How did you keep your hands warm enough in the freezing temperatures? How far did you have to hike with your gear to set up this 'camp'? Congratulations on getting pictures that made it worthwhile, I'm sure it isn't always so.

I use to be a member of "nature photographers" on the net so I understand well about the authenticity needed for nature images. But Carl, the author and other birders have confirmed it is authentic behavior early in this thread. What more is needed? Move on and talk about the image not whether some software was used to create it. .

 

Half way through this thread Mary said... "Let's not turn this into one of those old and tired discussions about Manipulated or not Manipulated..." I agree totally and as of late she should put that at the head of the thread every week.

Congratulations on the absolutely spectacular photo. WOW!

My dream is to be able to take such shots.

 

As for the comments that one of the birds may not be exactly

in 100% focus, you should just do what I do when I'm trying

to take such photos: Simply ask the subject to pose,

or at least try to hold still just a little longer!

;) ;) ;) :) (Yea, right! -- Get it???)

 

It's OK........one of the reasons to share photos with

photo.net people is to solicit opinions. OK? OK!

Ive stated before that i dont believe the image is fake...., but if it were to be fake, then congratulations must go the photographer in managing to photograph a crazed bird that manages to look startled and defend itself even when its not being attacked ;)

I also find the blur debate interesting, earlier on, the photo was put down as the attacker was blurred due to shutter speed , now its being put down because the blur may have been added in for aesthetics.

Cant win.

Miguel,

Congratulations on a beautiful photograph to add to your wonderful web site. Given the controversy over image manipulation that this particular image stimulates it might be appropriate to say that this photograph is truly life imitating art. I am sure there are many that say that this shot could not happen until it happens to them. Setting that all aside I think that you handled the lighting extremely well and captured a truly "decisive" moment filled with rage and emotion between two warriors. I have great appreciation for one that pays his nickel over and over and takes the chance until such a glorious moment arrives for an instant in time never to occur the same way again. All the best.

Andy

Since untranslated foreign language posts are being deleted, let me translate Juan Ojembarrena's to the best of my ability:

 

Impressive. This is one of those photos that, when you get it, you feel satisfied, and [feel] that you could return home. (idiomatic, not literal.)

 

Opportunities like this are very difficult to get.

 

Congratulations.

Congratulations on your POW. It is an outstanding nature shot, one that you captured through patience and skillful use of the camera. Well done.

Miguel,

Congratulations on your POW. This is an outstanding image (note I said image and not photograph).

I once had to deal with inquisitors, defamers and vulgar comments about my own work. I remember when I would search for hours for the perfect scene, wait additional hours for the perfect light and then still not expose on the film what I had seen in the minds eye. I would make up the difference in the darkroom when I printed the image. Some people called this cheating. Some people said I had manipulated the image. I said to he_ _ with them and went on with my work. In the end, the images will speak for themselves and to the eyes and emotions of the viewers.

Regards,

ANSEL ADAMS

Simply Awesome! Gosh, there's even people who commented on Miguel's technics, asking why not he used 1/1000 instead 1/500. These seemed to be the ultra experienced university photography professor 'teaching' the young inexperience Miguel... Hm, it's just too easy said than done. Just wonder how Miguel managed to take 2 shots, 1 the attacking eagle, the other, the defending eagle, posed so nicely to make this 'composite'?! If that's the case, I believe it'd be even harder to create the 'composite' :) To those, show us your eagle shots, in such a freezing ground, stayed up till 8 hours, if only you have the ability to even react to such a scene. Don't show us the icy background only, ok?

I have to wonder whether some of you who find fault with this photo - whether to nitpick over motion blur or to cry "Photoshop!!!" - have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to photograph birds. Or maybe you *do* know how difficult and expensive it is and you're just no good at it or can't afford the equipment.

 

I have the privelege and benefit of living right on a lakeshore and I've never come anywhere near the quality of Miguel's portfolio. I don't have the dedication it takes to wait motionless for hours - days - in the cold. I don't have the budget for the kind of equipment it takes to get this quality. And I don't have the timing even if I did have the equipment.

 

If you doubt that equipment makes a difference I'll be happy to show you my mediocre photos of our local waterfowl. I can walk right up to them, within 10 yards - often closer - and still can't get this kind of sharpness, contrast and color saturation because my lenses can't meet today's high standards for wildlife photography.

 

And I had to make up for my lousy timing by buying a faster camera. But it still won't help much because I lack the dedication it takes to wait for shots like this.

 

 

Excellent portfolio, Miguel. Just keep taking great photos.

Lex Wrote:

Or maybe you *do* know how difficult and expensive it is and you're just no good at it or can't afford the equipment.

Now Lex, I think this is a bit of a sweeping statement which is not bound to anything of substance, but rather an assumption that those who critique differently than you are merely jealous.

I for one don't really care that the motion blur was added, which, I still think it was even after taking a second, more open eye'd look. However, on this second, more open eye'd look, I must convince I am less certain.

However, I think that this does come close to allowing the subject dominate the image, regardless of the subject, is this an effective image. Going back on topic to the image itself, I say that it is not, and that the eagles ARE what make photograph, rather than allowing the photograph to stand on it's own.

IMHO this image doesn't say a lot about eagles at all. One looks like a claw attached to a blur - take away the claw, it would be hard to tell what it is out of context, this, I think, detracts from the intent to document the scene accurately.

Second, the composition is non-existing. It's two birds. The image isn't about composition, however, so, I am not going to dwell on that. However, I think that it may be more obvious of a document if the photographer chose to wait a few moments into the future. Mind you, this is not an admission that "I could do better", or a critique of the photographer, but rather the image itself. A distinction I would expect someone of your ability and experience to make.

In closing, I am lacking too much information for this image to be documentary, and too little context to form an emotional, subjective response. The composition is uncomfortable, and perhaps that does go towered the situation - however, I do not think that alone holds up enough to make an image.

Bottom line, I feel this photograph relies entirely too much on the subject.

Mr Kearney

 

This is a wildlife photo of a very rare event.

To get a similar photo you need to go to Scandinavia (this type of eagles don't live anywere in the world apart from a few in Scotland )

Then you need to set up a hide at -10c and wait for days to get the eagles down if you are lucky.

Even if they are down you need good light to capture the moment.

Seeing them fighting is even more difficult and even more difficult to capture it because with the zoom lens your view is limited and the atacking eagle cames from nowhere, anytime,

anywhere.

Is very easy from your armchair to do such analyisis of the photo !!

 

I posted the photo to share an experience I had with this birds and to document such a rare event in wildlife.

All I have to add is: astounding photo, Miguel. Don't let all the PS critique get you down - the wing-on view of the attacking eagle is a bit difficult for the eye to digest, and at X kph, even 1/500s isn't good enough to freeze that motion.

 

I find Shawn's critiques to be unfounded; compositionally, the image shows proper balance and placement, its main subject shows emotion and power and is the subject of the camera's focus, and the secondary object (the attacking eagle) is by no means so out of focus that it's only a claw attached to a blur. The lighting is magnificent.

 

Submit this to a contest and get yourself some (more) recognition and cash for this amazing photo.

Mr. Kearney 'folio is non existant on PN...Apparently, he can talk the talk...just can't walk the walk...

Your next photo trip to shoot birds, be sure and take the studio lights and reflectors so you can get the composition and lighting right...;-)

Your 'folio speaks for itself... Wildlife photography just not as easy as it looks...especially high speed moving subjects...Well done.

"Bottom line, I feel this photograph relies entirely too much on the subject."

 

================================

 

Shawn, normally I believe that in photo critiques one should confine oneself to critiquing the photo and not the comments of others.

 

But this comment of yours beggars description. "...relies entirely too much on the subject..."? And the alternative is... what?

 

Utter nonsense.

I have only read though some of the above comments. I believe that your photograph depicts an actual natural encounter of the two eagles. In other words, it is not a composite. I would consider the comments against this opinion to be actually compliments. You see, this photograph is SO good that people can not believe that it is real! Perhaps this has already been mentioned. As I have said, I did not read all the comments. Regards.

"What is left?"

 

Well, content for one. The difference from a photograph and a snapshot is that the result transcends the subject and stands alone as an *object*. Fine Art and Documentary Images explain something greater than the subject by itself in the time which it was taken. IMO, this image does neither.

 

And, this is not a mere snapshot. However, I do not get the impression of what an eagle *is* or what they *do* rather what the photographer wanted the Eagle to do, and used cropping and possibly manipulation to get there - it seems too idealistic to be a document, too uninspiring to be fine art.

 

Provided this is not a composite, if this photograph did more than "tell" we likely wouldn't have been so distracted. Honestly, my suspect of this photograph was the VERY first thing I noticed, as it was with a few others. This is evidence of a poor image, regardless the techniques involved, which only says to me the photographer is patient and enjoys cold weather, and very little about anything else, or the technology he may or may not have used, this says little to me also.

 

As far as the apples and oranges-type statement, a photograph works or it doesn't. Period. Regardless the subject. I don't care how long it took, how cold it was, or how technically hard it is to capture. If this image only can be appreciated by fellow wildlife photographers (or those who have tried) then it may be a success as a wildlife picture but it fails as an image in whole.

 

I won't beat the topic any further here. Feel free to email me.

What is really left here Shawn is that you are in a very small minority. Sure, this capture does not work for you personally. Fine, it's been "manipulated" in your estimation. However, in my estimation, your posted reasons for those points of view simply do not carry any weight at all. Your arguments are very weak in my opinion. I was very open-minded to your points of view, but after examining the evidence, am simply not at all convinced. Most others share this same viewpoint. I hope that you too were as open to what the facts actually pointed to, but am not so sure about that. Thanks for another side though. Has been interesting.

PERFECT !!

Ive seen it said again and again that this photo was put through PS, but if ou look at it, it becomes clear it wasnt.

 

One thing people keep saying about the birds is they are not the same size. Your eye is playing tricks on you. If you measure both birds from beak to tail (assuming very little or none of the bottoms bird's tail is hidden) they are the same. On my monitor both birds measure 7 cm.

 

Second, about the high shutter speed and the fact the image is blurred. Eagles dive at about 100mph. That is 44 meters per second or 4400 cm per second. 8.8cm per 1/500 of a second. The diving bird is moving slower than that but nonetheless it is entirely possible for the bird to be blurred.

 

Do a little math, this image wasnt manipulated.

Incredible capture, this image will sell if it hasn't already. No PS manipulation IMO. Great! 7/7

This is an outstandingly most stricking wildlife photo. One get to such even once in a lifetime probably, photographing the perfect moment is next to impossible! Congrats Miguel. You are more than an NG photographer! Keep it up!

To answer the elves question:

 

I don't think the attacking bird needs to be sharp. We see an attacking bird and we see a sharp bird raising it's wings in defense. It is sharp. Also, since it takes the majority of space in the frame, the other bird simply gives us a reason to understand why the bird on the right is in the position it is. The attacking bird no more needs to be in focus than the background. Indeed, had the 'tog used more DOF, then both birds might be soft.

 

My eye is drawn toward the defensive bird first because it is bigger in the frame. The apparant size or the sameness in size doesn't matter. With the wings spread, the bird on the right occupies more real estate in the image. Thus, it is the main focus. Anything else plays just a supporting role and therefore needs not be crisp.

 

Great photo!

I think this photo sucks!!! Only because I suck and I'm not that good. Anyway what laurent says is right, the subject here is the reacting bird and therefore is the main focus. As far as manipulation is concerned, my opinion is everything is up for grabs. Who in the fuck made up the rules about photogrophy anyway and said "don't break these rules son or I'll..." Some i diot that's who.