Short-eared Owl

[Bill Dix]

For 10 years I've stood in the cold dark evenings, sometimes until my fingers could no longer click the shutter, hoping for a close fly-by of a Short-eared Owl. When they do appear, which isn't often, it is too dark and they are too far away. The other evening several owls appeared before it was pitch dark, and we got the closest fly-bys I've yet had. Closer would have been better, or course, and a little late evening sun would have been nice, but this is the closest I've come so far. (I do have one other frame that was closer, and maybe better, which I haven't yet processed.) I know that some of you live in places where they come out in daylight, and I envy you, but I'll take what I can get.

D500, 500f4 + 1.4 TC, ISO 4000, 1/2000s @ f/6.3 manual; Gitzo and Mongoose.

[John Mack]

Pretty sweet frame. Like the flight pose and that two toned background. Looks like you time in the field has paid off. Well done.

[William Dickson]

Very nice Bill, and well worth the wait I would say...IQ is pretty good for ISO 4000. Nice FG and BG colours. Would try moving the owl a little closer to the centre of the frame.

Will

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

I like the image. Patience and persistence always gives you rewards.

I might try to clone out some grass blades in foreground

Thanks for sharing it

[Geoffrey Montagu]

Well done, Bill. I love the hotrod feather flame pattern on their bodies. Excellent wings up position. Great background, and I like the in and out of focus tall grasses.

Geoffrey




http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu (http://500px.com/geoffreymontagu)

[dankearl]

I might get rid of a couple vertical grass and there is some noise on the bird but
for iso4000, this is a very nice shot...
Comp is nice that you kept the bird in the dark BG.

[Arthur Morris]

Ditto all the positives above and I am trilled that you efforts paid off. I actually love the grasses in this image and would love them even more if the owl had been nice enough to fly just a few inches higher. (I am serious about that few inches.)

Excellent at any ISO.

with love, artie

[gail bisson]

Very nice! Owl IQ looks great.
Lovely wing position.
Agree with Artie that it would have been so nice if this guy had flown a bit higher to get him solidly into the darker part of the BG.
Well done on your persistent fieldcraft Bill,
Gail

[Isaac Grant]

Bill I feel your pain when it comes to this species. I have also spent more time than I care to remember or admit waiting and hoping they come out early or come close. Pretty sure I know exactly what field you took this in also. I like the pose, I like the natural setting and I like the tall grasses and the dark feel to the image. Bird looks pretty good considering the high ISO but I am not seeing what everyone else is. The bird looks overly contrasty to me, there is a good deal of noise in the underwing and the undertail. I really see very little if any fine feather details in the face which is the spot you would see them most on these flying owls. For me the image quality is not good enough to be a keeper. But trust me I know the pain associated with these birds in the north east. PM, email or call me if you want and if you are up for a bit of a drive and I can put you on the one I photographed that has been out starting about 3 every day. And it is not alone. There have been up to 5 or so out well before dark. With your D500, the 500 and a converter you may be able to get close enough.

[Arthur Morris]

Bill, I'd keep this one in heartbeat unless I had a 60 inch wide 5K external monitor and viewed my images at 1,000 percent magnification ...

with love, artie

[Isaac Grant]

The monitor that you view your images on make a big difference. Arash says this all the time and he is of course correct. Just about everything looks great on my phone. When I view on my work monitor or latptop most things look. When viewing them on the 27" 5k imac very few look good. I would image if viewing on a 32" professional grade monitor even fewer look good. I find the large screens to be great for photography and are the great equalizer. If it looks good on there then it should look good on any screen but the opposite is not true at all. The photo has to be top notch for it to look good on the large screens. I only keep images that look tack sharp on the imac. It helps me be a much more selective and discerning photographer. Others are free to do whatever they want or keep whatever they want. But as we all are viewing images on different monitors there is no way the quality and details will look the same. As this pertains to your image when viewing at normal size and not zoomed in at all (no clue why anyone would want to do that on a downsized image) the image quality just isn't there. On my phone the noise is not as apparent but is still there as is the lack of fine feather details and contrast. Can't speak for what other people see when viewing on lower quality or resolution monitors, only what I see.

[arash_hazeghi]

Nice frame Bill, I do some noise from high ISO and lack of details though but you still did well. looks like where you live ins't exactly ideal for shooting raptors as they tend to be too far in most of your images. If you want better SEO frames you need to travel to Biritish Columbia where you can get close to them easier.

Agree with Issac, I most enjoy viewing my images on my big screen, the fidelity and colors of a clean sharp image is unbeatable and pleasing to me. it's like listening to music on a HiFi audio system that renders every detail including stage sounds and imperfections compared to cheap crappy headphones that muffle everything...it does matter a big deal.

Cheers

[Arthur Morris]

The monitor that you view your images on make a big difference. Arash says this all the time and he is of course correct. Just about everything looks great on my phone. When I view on my work monitor or latptop most things look. When viewing them on the 27" 5k imac very few look good. I would image if viewing on a 32" professional grade monitor even fewer look good. I find the large screens to be great for photography and are the great equalizer. If it looks good on there then it should look good on any screen but the opposite is not true at all. The photo has to be top notch for it to look good on the large screens. I only keep images that look tack sharp on the imac. It helps me be a much more selective and discerning photographer. Others are free to do whatever they want or keep whatever they want. But as we all are viewing images on different monitors there is no way the quality and details will look the same. As this pertains to your image when viewing at normal size and not zoomed in at all (no clue why anyone would want to do that on a downsized image) the image quality just isn't there. On my phone the noise is not as apparent but is still there as is the lack of fine feather details and contrast. Can't speak for what other people see when viewing on lower quality or resolution monitors, only what I see.

I have been having a ton of fun with digital for nearly two decades. I have never pixel peeped. My images are sharp enough to make me happy. They used to sell well when selling images was possible. My images have been honored in many major contests. I am pretty sure that getting a big external monitor would take a lot of fun out of photography for me. Not to mention that I optimize most of my images while I am traveling.

I am curious as to how many folks here on BPN have large 5K monitors.

As for me, I am gonna keep on having fun. I guess that that makes me a sloppy non-discerning photographer ...

with love, artie

[Isaac Grant]

We are judging the merits of the photo. It should be strong regardless of the conditions and the work that it took to get it. We are not judging how many hours people spent to get the photo or that they did well despite the conditions. All that means to me is that they could have done better another time and the photo is not as strong as it could be. We are also not critiquing how much fun people do or do not have taking the pics. I have seen a ton of Short-eared Owls over the years, including 5 tonight at fairly close range and in perfect evening light. Sorry but Short-eared Owls do not look like what is presented in this photo. They just don't and it does not matter what screen you view it on. That will only change how much noise is apparent. To say otherwise simply means that people either do not know what these owls look like or as you say are not pixel peeping I guess. But to me a bird photo should look like the bird that is being photographed. That should be the bare minimum. I get how frustrating these guys are in our area, maybe more than anyone else but that does not make this photo any stronger or weaker. The photo should speak for itself otherwise what are we critiquing?

[Arthur Morris]

I agree 100% that we should only be judging the image and not the travails that we endured to get it. That said, I still like the image. And so does everyone else who commented, even Arash. I am fine with the fact that you do not like the image. But it sure looks like a short-eared to me :)

with love, artie

[David Salem]

Not perfect, but much better than your already have!! Keep shooting Bill. Your skills have come a long way over the years, and these are very difficult frames to capture. It will come soon, right by you and looking right at you:w3. Keep up the good work