Aguila

Thanks for your time.

Good lighting, but the dark spot in the background draws my attention away from the bird. Maybe it is just me though. Awesome shot!

Wow, that is very awesome! Looks too unreal. I like the quality. Very nice!!

Amazing!

wow. just awesome. incredible composition. the beak immediately catches the viewers attention, then the curves and lines of the beak direct our attention up to the gaze of the eagles eye. while the non-descript background leaves nothing to divert our attention from this incredible animal. very powerful indeed.

Fantastica Marina, admiro mucho tu trabajo , la mejor por mucho en photo.net, enhorabuena

Increible!

Incredible photo! The limited depth of field isolates the subject perfectly. I love how I can see every last detail of the feathers and the rim-lighting/highlighting of the beak!

Amazing image Marina, i have never seen such an original close up shot of an eagle face, very original. Also the scream it appears to be doing adds to the asthetics of the photo a great deal. Sharpness is superb too. If there was anything above 7 u deserve it no doubt. IMHO a candidate for the POW straight away. Cheers Marina, and very very welldone, best regards!

Imagen impactante . Mi mas sincera felicitacion!!

Me quede como el de la foto, con la boca abierta.

Impressive capture. It's in sharp focus. But it's another bird head. They're all over PN. How is this picture a 6+ for originality? Aesthetics, sure. But it's far from unique.

Barry, this is NOT just another eagle head on photonet....because I have never seen another on this site that is this good. That is what makes the photo unique for me. This whole rating system is corny anyway, but I usually choose to rate a little higher on the originality side( even if it isn't really) just on the merits of a good photo. I look at the two scores as an average in some cases.

 

Anyway, perfect exposure, DOF, tack sharp, awesome lighting, exceptional composition...what more is there to say??

Great, fantastic, excellent, beautiful, nice...

I totally agree with Clint. There's not much that's truly original these days. Would Barry make these same comments on a nude photo? There are nude photos all over p.net too. Yes, there are a lot of birds on p.net, but how many are captured as well as this one?

Marina: How do you kepp doing this? Picture after picture and they are all superb. This is another worthy addition to a great collection. Interesting composition, incredible detail and you caught him actually doing something.

 

Barry: C'mon, if we actually graded originality like they said, good pictures would never make it into the TRP. Unoriginal pictures get 6 and 7 all the time. That said however, this picture deserves its marks. I've seen a lot of bird's heads, but they weren't eagles for the most part and when they were, they didn't capture the firceness of its gaze as this one does and didn't have the unique composition and detail that this one does.

Actually, if originality were graded "like they said," good, but unoriginal, pictures would still get into TRP on the basis of their high aesthetic value. You'd search for them under the "search by aesthetics" option on the TRP page. I assume that's why the site administrators provide that search parameter. What I object to is the practice Bill and Clint describe of inflating originality ratings just to make sure pictures get top-rated under the "rate recent average" search. That practice crowds out genuinely original works that deserve to be seen. Thus, even if I search under "originality," I'm going to get a bunch of images that the raters didn't honestly think were original, but gave high originality ratings to just because they liked the image generally. I think this is an unfortunate practice.

 

As to Will's comment, "Would Barry make these same comments on a nude photo?" the answer is "Yes, indeed." In fact, I've made exactly that comment. Look in my portfolio under "Humor," and you will see a collection of breasts and body parts I culled one day from the TRP as a protest over just that sort of thing. I've long been amazed at the "originality" ratings that go to naked women in poses that were old when the French were famous for their "naughty postcards." So, yes, Barry is being consistent. (Of course, even if I weren't, it would just mean that I was a hypocrite, not that my point was invalid.)

 

And note, too, that I have nothing against bird-head, insect macro, water droplet, landscape, or nude shots. It's just that after a few thousand shots of essentially the same thing (naked woman in profile with chest stuck out, animal head, water droplet, Yosemite Falls from the scenic overlook), I think it's safe to say that the most recent photographer probably didn't originate the idea, and so shouldn't be able to claim originality, no matter how aesthetically beautiful the image.

7 7

Thanks a lot for your commentaries, critique and ratings. A very interesting discussion.

Best Regards.

Hi Barry ... I don't want to hijack Maria's page; I just want to say that I do agree with you. I've complained in a forum post about how one of my pics of the most photographed building in Venice got a 6.2 while a pic of me pushing an imaginary bubble around the White House (don't see that every day) got a 4. But, the system is what it is and I think it's inherently unworkable. There is no way in the system to recognize a beautiful, perfectly executed shot of, say, the Golden Gate bridge. Yes, if everyone did it right, it would fix it but everyone won't. So, I feel that if I don't give a high originality mark, I am punishing the photographer under the system AS IT IS, not as it should be. That said, I still feel that this is NOT an everyday head shot of a bird. It's a qualitative step above most of the others I have seen.

No words,..... only 7/7.

Stunning!

Sin palabras. 7/7

Marina: Excellent image, clarity, razor sharp and simply very impressive all the way around. A definite attention getter. Your photography talents are amazing. Perfect 7s!

I agree. I want to make clear that I think Maria's shot is outstanding, in composition, focus, depth of field, sharpness, and about anything else you could care to mention. I'm impressed by it. It's worth looking at. It's just not, as I think we agree, very original. Again, that's not to say it's bad. To use an analogy, it's unlikely that a performance today of Beethoven's Ninth will be very original either, in the sense of being different from any that came before -- and you probably wouldn't want it to be, anyway. "Originality" can become just pointless strangeness. The lack of "originality" doesn't mean a current performance isn't worth listening to. I think the same can be said for many photos.

 

Probably a rating system that went from "I hate it" to "I love it," without the pretense of objectivity, would be more honest than any sort of "objective" system. How, after all, do you objectively rate art?