Judgement Day 5520

From my

>Judgement Day Series

. The originals are much larger. Thanks.

Just to capture the birds all with the same type of expression takes a lot but to combine it into a scene that leaves one looking at the horizon wanting to peak around the corner is a work of art.

Thank you Manuel.

 

-Julie

Nothing else but,a rare beauty!!!Regards!

Fortunately, we've been told upfront (or nearly so) that this is a composite. I think the composition reflects the title Julie has given to this, and it brings a smile to me. As a composite, however, the lighting does not work well, but I look at this as a more whimsical endeavor and treat it as such.

Too contrived for my taste, less photography more digital manipulation. Although I am sure that many more people will disagree with my taste!

I know that the artifice of it is part of the style, but I'd enjoy it more if the color temp on the birds was warmed up a bit.

I like this picture. I like the idea more than the execution. The idea that birds can sense an impending doom and, regardless of species, band together to greet the end as a group is interesting. Sort of an avian "Peaceable Kingdom"(Hicks) on the last day on earth. A cool concept and a very high level of creative thinking.
Being an obvious photo illustration, I look to see how well the concept is graphically realized. The lighting on the birds is good and from the right direction but the lack of color matching of the birds with the surround, the mismatched eye highlights relative to the sun, and the cut-out look of the birds suspend the impact of the concept. Compositionally, the picture is heavy in the lower left corner although the sky, sun and flying birds try to help out the balance. The sky would be a good place for type if this were spec'd for a publication otherwise it just seems a bit corner heavy.

This is terrific idea! All the technical issues I raised could be addressed and then, this somewhat strange, spooky gathering of birds on Judgement Day, would read better for me. Thumbs up for thinking outside the box, Julie. Image compositing techniques can be learned but creative ideas are much harder to come by.

I like the idea of the image and the execution works well. I don't worry or mind the little details such as lighting since it very well could have been a flashed image. Just my opinion, TFS!

Fantastic! Great colors!

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

Much like what Louis wrote, I like the idea behind the image, and what it (in my perception anyway) tries to achieve. But somehow, visually I cannot get beyond this point that the light doesn't correspond between the birds and the sky. Not only the light temperature, but also the direction seems off. It underlines a bit too much that it is a composition. And I have absolutely no problem with a composition, but to my taste, it should be a bit more 'integrated/seamless' to really work for me.

This is really timely. I'm, right now, gearing up for my next attempt with the birds, so your comments are very useful to me -- and, looking back at the Judgement Day series (haven't looked at it in a while), I would say that the technical criticisms are right on target.

The bird serieses (pl.?), are my attempt to explore their world. I know I can't be a bird in a bird's world, but I think maybe I can get some feel for what it might be like to be a person in a bird's world. What's it like inside their world? Sort of like if I went to, for example, Japan. I don't speak the language, don't know the culture. Just being there, though, I could learn, bit by bit what it's like in their world, even if I could never be Japanese.

The first two series that I did were Summer Birds and Winter Birds -- just looking at single birds. The Judgement Day series was one of my first attempts to move from single to multiple, but I still had one foot in "my" world because that's what they're reacting to. The Bird House series (my worst, IMO) is a close version of this same mine/theirs boundary (the Bird House is what's not in the house ... ). On Stage and Shadow Birds (also not very successful, IMO -- you can tell the ones I don't like because I won't link you ... ) are me letting go of "my" world and trying to be entirely in theirs.

I'm more happy with Slow Dance. Each individual composite that I do, in each series, teaches me, puts me "there" for the duration of the building of it. Just the length and the extensive detail work of compositing forces me to look and look and look, sometimes with intent, sometimes almost absent mindedly as I'm doing the necessary technical detailing; at this other "place" or kind of being. I feel like I am gradually getting to where I want to be, but I'm not there yet. [Though, on my most recent one, Now and Then, I chickened out and retreated to using the birds as form and symbol -- ideas of growth/decay, light/heavy, ephemeral/enduring, etc. It was much more fun, but much less challenging. It's back to the grindstone for the upcoming series.]

Louis, on "impending doom" ... I've had several people comment along those lines, which are from *our* perspective. From the birds' perspective, I'm thinking they're ready to celebrate if we're gone ... [And thank you and Tim J for your kind remarks. Criticism is useful; compliments are motivating and I need that for the birds. They are the most frustrating of all my "materials" (because they are more than "material").]

For those of you who don't like composites, I respect your feelings. However, and I don't know if this will make any difference, but I'll put it out there, my first "rule" of compositing (my own personal rules kind of like Asimov's rules of robotics) is (1) Never composite what could be done without compositing. There are "real" things/events/places that can't be gotten, directly, with a camera, no matter how fast or clever you are. I hope that it is always not only self-evident that my pictures are composites (even without my telling you) but the compositing, as several of the commenters have already noted, is overtly part of the composition. In other words, I want you to feel the out-of-reachness of what you're looking at.

Thank you elves ! for choosing a photographer which is active at the site, and choosing one that its work is worth the discussion.

Julie, reading your interesting explanation and the links to your other series, my impression is that your attempt was , and is, a kind of personification of the birds world.... and your very interesting example.

The bird serieses (pl.?), are my attempt to explore their world. I know I can't be a bird in a bird's world, but I think maybe I can get some feel for what it might be like to be a person in a bird's world. What's it like inside their world? Sort of like if I went to, for example, Japan. I don't speak the language, don't know the culture. Just being there, though, I could learn, bit by bit what it's like in their world, even if I could never be Japanese.

As your work is a priory a composite, it is not always easy to achieve a complet mutching. This one is a good example.The light on the birds does not connects perfectly to the light of the BG sun., as well as the composition is not very well balanced,( as was already pointed by Louis).BUT ... the idea and concept, the way of your intention, your way of thinking , trying to be a 'human bird"... is very original, and enhanced greatly by your title!

BTW, I liked a lot your winter birds series !

The fact is that the image involves compositing did not disqualify it from being considered for POTW hopefully. Therefore, it should be critiqued on its own merits.

In my opinion, the title fits the image perfectly. Each of the birds is looking skyward as an expression of possible impending doom (or some other world-changing event). The birds circling overhead would seem to fit this interpretation.

I don't see all that much wrong with the light and/or colour temperature. I love the concept, and I like the execution of it except for the really abrupt crop at the bottom. I want to see the rest of the birds.

I don't normally like composite images or a whole lot of manipulation, but I do like this one.

I like the fine thoughts behind this composite image. I don't really care whether it was staged, composite, or a totally natural straight shot, unless we are discussing nature or wild-life photography in general. What mainly interest me is the image as we see it, its composition, its light and colors, the impression it provokes for the viewers and its intended message. For the latter, Julie has provided a very well formulated account.

For me, Julie would have made an even better image, if she had not overdone it by introducing the bottom group of four birds, which, as mentioned, is not too well adapted, light-wise, to the rest of the image. A frame with only the small bird on top of the stone would have made the trick and we would have had a wonderful scene.

I just now noticed...the Photo.net "elves" didn't tell us why they selected this one for POTW.

Jim wrote: "the Photo.net "elves" didn't tell us ... " Maybe they Tweeted it. :-)

Pnina, thank you!

Michael, I don't know if you're interested in geeky details, but the circling birds are done with a custom brush set to maximum scatter with size variation also at the max.

Jim and Anders, your comments made me both laugh and groan. You caught me in two of the perennial difficulties of bird compositing. First, Jim's "abrupt crop." That is my supposedly clever way of dealing with the fact that feet DRIVE ME CRAZY! I shoot my birds on a railing that's parallel to my "blind" -- from about eight feet away with a 300mm lens. They are eating bird seed. Believe it or not, one sunflower seed can entirely obscure a bird's foot. I spend my days adding, straightening, bending, inventing and otherwise fiddling with bird feet. I have actually had a weird dream about birds' feet ... Now that I've told you this, all my subterfuges will be for naught ...

Next, Anders, "overdone it by introducing the bottom group of four birds." Here's the thing: shooting the birds is like fish in a barrel. I do it from November to May because I need every possible "attitude" to be in my pool of "material" but also ... because I can. This year (unavoidably, I have improved my shooting ... ) I have about 20,000 in the "pool." Now, if I only use one per composite ... that leaves about 19,900 that go to waste. It's like having a fridge stuffed with your favorite food and you can only eat two bites and then you have to throw the rest in the garbage. Thus my urge to contrive to stuff as many as possible into a composite arrangement. I realize you don't find Picasso saying he likes to stuff bulls into his pictures, but, darn it, what to do with all these zillions of perfectly nice birds? [trying to conceive of an artistic concept that is some sort of sardine can of thousands of birds]

I am very happy to see Julie’s photo as the PN Photo of the Week. (As an aside, I want to give big props to Photo.net for bringing this feature back, and for offering a stimulating variety of photos and genres.) I have long been educated, amused and sometimes baffled (in a good way) by Julie’s posts in the Philosophy of Photography forum and elsewhere. It’s nice to see this longtime PN photographer receive some recognition for her work.

I lean toward appreciating photographs that have some depth and meat on their bones. As much as I may appreciate technically accomplished images of wildlife, reflective mountain lakes at sunset, or portraits of craggy-faced Turkish elders, I generally have little to say about them. Like a pretty but vapid woman, there’s not much there there. For me, Julie’s photographs fall into the former category.

I’ve wandered through Julie’s portfolio on more than one occasion, but I think I’ve only commented on one photograph. Primarily because her images take me into territory with which I am not familiar and I am a bit uncomfortable with knowing what to say about them. What a great place for a photographer or viewer to go.

The lighting, the birds focus on the bright haloed horizon, gives me a slight sense of foreboding. Even without reading the title. I don’t know if Julie intended that or not. It is not necessarily something evil that is about to occur or appear, but there is…something that seems about to happen. I like the heavy weighting of the birds in the corner because it enhances that feeling of anticipation. As if they are huddled there, close to each other, waiting. I can see the composite, for birds do not gather in such a fashion, and there is an otherworldliness to this unreal tableau of birds that, for some reason, makes me think of the similarly unreal children of Loretta Lux. This is what viscerally strikes me overall, to the extent that I do not notice, and do not care, whether or not the lighting and reflections meet some technical prescription for acceptability. I’d have to see a reworked version to decide, but I wonder whether a greater approximation of “real” light, of light balanced more according to the laws of physics, would lessen the sense of unreality that is, for me, one of the biggest charms of this image.

""what to do with all these zillions of perfectly nice birds? ""
,Julie, it is really very simple, in fact. It is because you have zillions of nice birds that you are able to find the one, that is just perfect for a specific purpose.
I could imagine a composite image with a "zillion" of your nice birds, but it would end up almost abstract: an abstract appreciation of the beauty of birds. A fine artistic project.

""what to do with all these zillions of perfectly nice birds? "...;-))

Julie, on the RHS corner there is a flying bird ,making a diaginal line with the group of them,what do you think about enlarging it a tiny bit with one of the zillions ,? and than it will enhance the diagonal line beween the group and the cornered bird? and doing as well an imaginative triangled line with the highest bird..worth a try !?

So glad to see you here , and read your answers , as a part of the discussion! Long time needed...

As I said before, I like this presentation but after looking through Julie's portfolio and website and read the blog, I just want to mention that this is probably not Julie's best work (in my view). Julie, you are such an artist at heart. I enjoy perusing through a lot of your images greatly and even though I tend to be bias toward birdshots (being a birdshooting addict), I like a lot of your other images. One top of that, I think you also made 'words' (or your analogy) very interesting. TFS! :-)

Tim: "this is probably not Julie's best work (in my view)" YES! I didn't want to say that myself because I didn't want to kill discussion ... but yes, yes! Compositing is such a learning process and each series teaches me and pushed me further. This set, being from quite a few years ago sort of makes me cringe about things that I would do differently (do do differently) now. But, on the other hand, it is really wonderful to get to have people look at and consider a composite who might not otherwise have done so.

Pnina, your suggestions are going to get you more than you probably want to know about compositing (I am told that I bore the daylights out of people talking about this stuff ... so be warned). When you non-compositors shoot, the stuff is ... what it is. It's where it belongs, doing what its doing just all by itself (big DUH!). I, on the contrary, have to be "told" by my stuff (birds, rocks, sticks, leaves, etc.) where it "needs" or "wants" to be. If I don't "listen" right, it just doesn't come to life. Stuff just lies there on the page or screen.

In addition, I don't want to do commercial photography where I enforce an idea onto the material. I want the stuff to take me to where I think it can take me. I think birds can show me how they are. They "arrive" with attitude. Given those "attitudes" they have balance, inertia, expression, reaction that needs to be accommodated. I serve more than I command, and all of this depends, not on "manipulation" but on listening (weighings of all kinds). In that spirit, I need to *not* have compositions that are "perfect" -- or, again, I don't want to be like commercial photography where I am a visual dictator -- so there should be stuff that's not quite where you want it to be. Where "their" will surfaces.

I think this is most simple to see in the Equilateral series (on of my favorites, and insanely fun to do).
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral079_0705.jpg
The three red berries are the (exact!) corners of an equilateral triangle. (I like spoofing geometry into nature because many philosophers and most mathematicians think that geometry is the "most" real thing there is). But, in order to make that triangle, I have to totally submit to the shape of the rocks and sticks and to their visual weight and surface frictions (all the stuff was photographed flat in multitudes -- sticks, rocks, berries and the green bean sprouts were grown for the purpose).
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral102_0706.jpg
Each one ...
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral094_0730.jpg
is different ...
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral088_0692.jpg
... but ...
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral087_0688.jpg
... the red berries always ...
http://www.unrealnature.com/Thumbs/equilateral102_0706.jpg
... form a perfect equilateral triangle.

The stuff is what dictates how the picture is made. (You will notice, I hope, that there is, in fact, no triangle in any of the Equilateral pictures ... )

Well seen Pnina, an thanks to Julie for showing us a few of her marvelous equilibrium compositions of branches and berries. Genuinely creative stuff.

Julie and Anders, thanks both of you!

Julie, you have asked a question...
""what to do with all these zillions of perfectly nice birds? "...;-))

I know your work and I like a lot your equilibrium composions, as well as your answer about how you see compositions.

So here is my point of view... (to use one of the ' zillions"..;-))

I'm more than10 years at PN,and I must say that I have learned a lot ( at least on the first few years)about what members wrote me to try, and I tryed every offer that seemed logical... some were helpful, and some were not, but I think that my knowledge grew by those experiments, and I still learn every day( also better my English....;-))

This is my last work that was exhibited this year at the Venice Biennale...
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17415802

It was just an offer to try, and you could accept it or not.

Anders know me for a long time, and it seems he liked the idea...