Eagle attack

John, I'm pretty sure those are tufts of feathers.

 

Bob Hilton, that makes the comedy much harder.

Thanks Doug, I guess with the attacking bird being such poor quality then this must be why the doubters feel it has been altered. I too thought that the wing had ben cloned with it being so blurry but with 2 distinct black lines running down at -45 degrees. I suppose the moral of this is to get a decent quality shot in the first place so as to leave no doubt. With snow I thought that you got better lighting with the reflectance and so a decent photographer would have known that 1/500 was not sufficient in this case. I think overall a decent image spoilt by bad technique.

Miguel, I have gone to your site (alluded to above by Vince Tylor), and I have seen what appears to be the next shot in the sequence. I am left wondering if either bird flew away from the fight that ensued. It looks like a fight to the death.

 

How about telling us how it came out? It would also be nice if you could post that photo from your other site on Photo.net in this folder so that we could see it here.

 

As for the blurring, I think that it represents excellent technique, since it shows the tremendous speed of the attacking bird.

 

I agree with those who believe that a shot of nature should be minimally manipulated through standard post-processing, nothing more, ever.

For those who haven't seen what appears to be the follow-up shot, it is at http://www.miguellasa.com

 

It's definitely worth the trouble.

Can someone answer one other question I have on the image?

Why are there snow flakes all over the left side of the picture including above the eagle and only a few low snow flakes kicked up by the right sided eagle. The physics of this don't make sense to me. I don't think the speed or height above the grouund of the left sided eagle could create this snow pattern and clearly the snow isn't coming down from above unless it's a very localized storm.

Rod, surely all of the snow must have been kicked up by the bird on the right. Nothing else seems to make sense.

Miguel,

Congratulations on such an amazing capture!!! I agree with the majority here, this is

a real image and a truly remarkable piece of photography.

 

To those who don't agree, go buy a bird feeder, then watch how the birds at the

feeder interact with one another for a month or two. Then come back and apologize

for doubting this photograph.

 

I also agree with you Murray, its too bad that such a great photo (and photographer)

have to get run down after earning a very well deserved POW.

 

rees

Rod, if you are applying physics here, I will recommend you for the Nobel. Are you seriously telling us that you can predict how two birds flapping around will scatter snow?

 

And if you still insist on a "rational" explanation, then for starters, the bird in the air is moving faster than 1/500 sec can freeze it (stop a while and think how fast that is) -- I would expect it to be shedding/scattering a lot of snow -- while the bird on the ground is comparatively stationary.

 

When there's a reasonable, non-PS explanation for everything -- the size disparity, the shadows, the snow -- why the hell don't you take the photographer at his word?

 

Truth can be stranger than fiction, and this isn't even strange. If you guys haven't learnt by now that patterns in nature can appear unusual when projected in 2D (that includes our eyes), then you haven't learnt to see yet -- how on earth do you take your own photos? By your logic, every one of HCB's pictures is photoshopped -- no really, I have convincing "evidence" to prove it. The same goes for Adams, Kertesz, Bischof et al.

 

I agree with Murray -- no photog would _want_ to get a POW.

Siddartha, I took Rod's question as a simple straightforward question, not an attempt to denigrate the picture in any way.

 

The eagle on the right is flapping to push her upper body backward and has probably kicked the snow up with her talons as she tried to get something to hold on to. The eagle on the left will bring a blast of air that will kick up snow, but that blast of air isn't on the ground yet. That bird on the left is really MOVING, cutting through the air like a blade, but the one on the right has seen him coming a long way off, and there has been ample time to kick up the snow as she tries to get herself into position to repel the attack.

 

At least, that's my best explanation. Anybody else got a theory?

 

Not every question is an attempt to imply PS manipulation.

Sold, its pretty obvious from the next shot(website) that this sequence is legit.

Regarding the grisly outcome, both birds seem to have survived, the talons of the attacker are past the defender in the next frame, and the ninth shot in the series looks to be the attacked bird taking off a bit later in the evening. Thats just me being sentimental.

I have a technical question for people that photo this sort of thing. Knowing the speeds these birds swoop at, what shutter speed would you require to minimise blur, for say, 140 kn/hr swoop, also is it necessary to manually focus on the subject and wait, as this would be faster than af. Any suggestions?

Sorry for the delay in answering but just back from Finland taken some Golden eagles photos.

Thank you very much to the moderators of photo.net and for members for your trust in me.

I was focusing on the static bird at 1/500 to take a pose shot when suddenly I noticed he started looking upwards, from the hide you cant see what is comming from above. I was very happy to get the shot for you to see even is not perfect. If I knew it was going to happend I would have chosen ef300 instead ef500 so I could see the bird comming time before. Also I would like to have used 1/1000 to freeze both birds but events like this happend once in a lifetime without warning.

I would post the folow up photo that happents 1/30 sec after this shot, both birds collided in mid air.

Also not sure if is a fight or a ritual...they seemed not to hurt themselves.

It took me 2 years to get this series in Norway , sacrificing other types of holidays to sit in a hide at -10 waiting to something happend.I have spent days just looking at roks and a few ravens around with no sign of eagles...sometimes I though I was going to go mad !!!

Once afternoon I was lucky to see one. I could not believed what happened mext !

eagle mess

It is a moment captured brilliantly. The strength of the photo is in its uniqueness.

Someone asked about the eagles and the attack. These things happen often and are over within seconds... literally about 2. The attack may happen again and again between the two or may spill over to other eagles that are nearby. This photo shows an adult (the attacker) and a juvenile (the attacked). You can tell by the amount of white on the juveniles. This is also clearly a fight.. not mating behavior. Mating/bonding behavior happens high in the air. Talons clasp, as both eagles fall toward to the ground, letting go at an opportune moment.

About the light/shadow.. the sun and the attacking eagles do not exist on the same 90 degree plane. The shadow from the attacking bird is on the left wing of the attacked bird.

Ok, I'm not a pro, but come on. There was some manipulation(sp?) to this images. Just look around the claws and some of the feathers. There is a halo around it.

Ok. I cannot believe there is this argument going on. This image is, in my educated opinion, manipulated. The artist who created it even told us it was. Wheather or not you believe in a twenty-three year old expert is up to you, but I have been using Photoshop since version 2, I have formal training in image reproduction and Adobe Photoshop. This is not a matter of a graphic arts or photography student who learned Photoshop as part of his curriculum, rather, Photoshp WAS my core curriculum.

 

I don't think it really matters much if this image was manipulated or not. This should not change anyone's opinion. The bulk of it was created using light, and theirfor, it is a photograph. If this image was done in the darkroom as a photo montage, then we wouldn't have this discussion. The differences between traditional photography and digital photography are not that great once you get around the fact you don't need to get your hands wet!

 

I have chosen to include evidence of my opinion. Hilighted in red are areas of interest.

 

The most notable areas are A, B and C which shows evidence of the main flaw in the motion blur filter, which, takes a pixel and basically extends it with a blur algorhythum. The computer, not knowing the physics of the subject, does not really know how the blur should behave, and just extends it in one, linear direction. This is most obvious in the detail of the "attacking bird" in the lower left. Notice how all the dark detail runs perpendicular.

 

According to this rendering, the attacking bird is in fact flying upward at an angle of about 20 degrees. Even if the attacking bird was in a slope, the blur would render out differently to reflect that slope. Also, it is likely that the wings would render differently than the body, such would also be the case in A and B. Here, the artist seems to have blurred in segments to illustrate a arching movement. However, each segment is none-the-less very linear and static.

 

Finally, on area D, where it is most obvious, in my opinion, that the artist had cut away this bird, less so slightly below. In this area, the feathers appear clumped together and in particular the upper feather, no longer renders as feathers at all!

 

This is not saying it is a horrid job, [if manipulated] the illustrator seems to have spent a great deal amount of time making it convincing. It does work as an image, though.

See, Shawn, this is at least a very convincing piece of comment. You just explained the exact reasons why I first doubted this image being real. Unfortunately, as it is now, I can't double-check what you mean exactly on your attachment, simply because this attachment wouldn't open.

Perhaps you may want to try reducing the size of it to a less than 500 pixels wide close-up of the most interesting portion...?

And then, we shall talk serious business...

The 2nd image in this series, that I found on Miguel's web site - and which he probably uploaded here (unfortunately invisible as well), shows indeed that the series is real. But that is not to say (or at least not yet), that the left bird wasn't blurred using PS. Was it ? Was it not ? For the sake of it, let's for a moment assume Shawn is right (he could be), and let's see his attachment...

Ok, now I see it, Shawn... No idea why I didn't have access before...

So, now that I see it, I think you have indeed spotted the exact thing that made me wonder about manipulation in the first place, and all you say is true and logical.

This being said, the reason why I ended up believing Miguel is, that I felt the size of the image was too small to be really sure. Meaning that this 20% up straight line that gives the blurry effect MAY still, imho, be caused by the bird's movement. Couldn't the bird indeed fly off at 20%...? Please note that there is snow flying under the flying bird, which means that he did touch the ground very shortly before this very moment.

In my opinion, a close-up (300% of what we have here) of this attacking bird should allow us to reach a final conclusion. As it stands right now, at this size, I personally can't reach a final verdict.

Shawn, although I cannot open your attachment (or Miguel's or Tom Purnell's, for that matter), I have downloaded the same image that you have, and I have blown it up and examined it just as carefully as you have.

 

I see nothing that is definitive evidence either of falsification or of the bird's angle of flight. My guess is that it is still approaching the larger bird on a slight downward slope, but with braking being applied by changing the angle of the wings (as we commonly see when birds are slowing down or even getting ready to land). A slight upslope after brushing the ground is possible but not so likely, given that they are going to collide.

 

A twenty-degree upslope would indicate that the birds are likely to miss, contradicted by the follow-up shots.

 

You are seeing what you are seeing. Of that there is no denying. What is debatable is the inferences that you are drawing. Tom infers much from a "halo" effect, but that is very common around images that have been sharpened or been subjected to standard post-processing.

 

If Miguel will upload the original file, before any sharpening or contrast and brightness adjustments have been made, then we can tell.

 

I am inclined toward the view that the picture is not a montage; that is, that it is authentic and deserving of PoW. I thought that we were through this phase of claiming that degree of manipulation, and I still believe that we need clear and definitive evidence before we make such assertions.

Shawn,

 

Where is it that the artist told us it was manipulated?

 

In fact, Miguel answered that question early on in the discussion

"Photoshop used for minor color/levels and minor image cleaning".

 

I wasn't able to open these additional files you've put out there to review your proof. But I didn't see any mention of the shadow on the attacked birds upper left wing. This shadow is from the attacking bird. Feathers are not static, there is movement of individual feathers in both the lateral and vertical horizons in flight. I think you've assumed the feather movement caused by aerodynamics of winged flight as digital manipulation where there is none.

 

I think there's more than enough evidence in Miguel's folder as well as on his website to show the entire series as well as put to rest the manipulated or not argument. This is a perfect representation of what happens out in the wild. Miguel had the amazing luck and talent to record it on film.

 

 

stephanie spears

I'm not as sure as a lot of other people seem to be about the "second picture in the series". If it is the one at Miguel's website, it seems to me that it could have been taken at an entirely different time - at least many seconds later. 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. I can't open the image he posted here, so it may in fact be a different image that he is talking about.

Stephanie, with all due respect, what else could the elves have said but that "according to the photographer, this photo hasn't been manipulated"?

 

I agree with your other points, since you clearly understand more about birds than most of the rest of us.

Rod, the second picture I posted and doesnt work is the same as on my website.I have cropped the second picture to see the details more easily.It happened a few milisec after the first one because I blasted away with the mark 2 at 8 fps.

 

This picture was posted as part of the series of fighting see eagles.

I have most of the series in my website and as you would understand there is no reason to make composites for the series !!

I posted this photo like many others I have posted in photo.net for more than 5 years. Why should I make a composite ?? What would be the reason ? I have never been POW and I didnt post this photo expecting that. I posted for the web comunity to share my one in a life time wildlife experience.

And by the way I wasn't on my own on the hide.This happened in Norway on the week of 22 January 2005. Another 2 other photographers shared the experience with me .

Miguel, these people have made up their mind. Just forget about them.

 

Rod, how in the world you can say "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." This statement is beyond comprehension. The lighting, the backgrounds are IDENTICAL in my opinion. In the first (POW) image what you see is just prior to contact of two birds, in the second image TWO birds are locked up. Hello out there.

 

Thank you Miguel for taking the time to explain once again. Though it probably will not convince them. Their minds are already made up. Unbelievable!