Jacky Winter (Microeca fascinans) Bowra Station Cunnamulla Queensland

[Rod Warnock]

Jacky Winter (Microeca fascinans) Bowra Station Cunnamulla Queensland
Canon EOS 40D Lens 100-400mm L IS USM at 400 mm ISO 400 F7.1 1/640sec no flash 9 April 2010

The Jacky Winter would be one of the first birds that I was shown by my father in the bush at Coonamble NSW as a child. Dad explained how when droving sheep or cattle or indeed just out and about in the bush Jacky Winters would often be a companion perching on a stump or fence post then darting out to catch an insect only to return to the perch to consume the catch. Attractive to the eye but not over whelming with twitching of the tail and a lucid eye adding to the warmth of the encounter. Topping its presence with a delightful call. Dad though not formal field naturalist was a keen observer of his surrounds and my guess would be that the Jacky Winter one of his top birds. For those of you who know our Australian bush or fortunate enough to know someone from the bush ask them about the Jacky Winter to check what I have said above. The Jacky Winter in autumn hawking for insects close to makes you feel at one with the bush. Birds in Backyards has a fact sheet and distribution map at <!-- m -->http://birdsinbackyards.net/species/Microeca-fascinans (http://birdsinbackyards.net/species/Microeca-fascinans)<!-- m --> but in particular go to the MP3 sound clip of the Jacky Winter call by Fred van Gessel. I hope you enjoy both the sound of the call and this image of a magic little flycatcher in full song !!
Thanks for viewing
Rod Warnock

[Fabs Forns]

Very nice specimen, with good EXP and detail. Wish he had turned his head towards you a bit and I may crop some of the bottom for a better proportion in the composition.
Thanks for including the call :)

[Daniel Cadieux]

Great story. I can relate about this as my father is the one who also got me interested in nature.

I agree with Fabs about HA, and cropping some of the space below (and perhaps adding a tiny bit above). You got him in full song too, which is always a bonus. Thanks for the link too...

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for sharing the tale. Had the head been angled properly a bit toward you it would likely have been sharper and better lit. Otherwise well done, but as I state often, a poor head angle is almost always fatal....

[Rod Warnock]

Thank you all for your comments but with respect to the head turn, as this is a bird singing wouldn't the bird be singing for a mate? Should it be singing <!--StartFragment -->longingly at this unattractive 77 yr old? (In jest). If the bird was just a portrait I would agree about the head turn but here it doesn't phase me at all. Taken a little further should we as nature photographers be taking images that portray birds doing what they do rather than what we want them to do for a better image? Please do not take offense at my remarks as I greatly appreciate what you have said. I just want to express an alernative way of seeing an image.
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Rod, Two major points here:
1: images with a good look at the face are almost always going to be more pleasing than images with a poor view of the face. If this bird were singing to a female, which in my experience would be unlikely; the males generally pick a territory and sing, in part to let other males of their species know that they are there, the female could just as easily been in front of the male and slightly to its right rather than slightly to its left as you surmised for your image.
2: and we have had this discussion many times in many forms: the purpose here is to help folks create better, more pleasing, more dramatic images. To offer the excuse: that's what the bird was doing, that's where it was perched, simply does not wash. Yes, you are free to like whatever you like and to "look at images in an alternative way." But choosing to do so does not and will never make a displeasing image pleasing or a poor image great.

Respectfully but honestly posted.

[Rod Warnock]

Arthur: You said: " images with a good look at the face are almost always going to be more pleasing than images with a poor view of the face." You seem to indicate that a head turn will reveal more of the face perhaps you can indicate which part of the "face" is missing in my image? I choose a full lateral view to show the face and body.
You said: "2: and we have had this discussion many times in many forms: the purpose here is to help folks create better, more pleasing, more dramatic images. To offer the excuse: that's what the bird was doing, that's where it was perched, simply does not wash. Yes, you are free to like whatever you like and to "look at images in an alternative way. But choosing to do so does not and will never make a displeasing image pleasing or a poor image great. "
I concede BPN's purpose to help folks create better, more pleasing, more dramatic images is great otherwise I wouldn't be posting . However the comment "To offer the excuse: that's what the bird was doing, that's where it was perched, simply does not wash." is a bit rich in a forum dealing with wild bird photography. The image was chosen from a series on this species to solely to display the full lateral view of the bird singing. It does suffer greatly from the all too frequent slick background that reveals nothing of the bird's habitat and it also will be seen by many to fall into the bird on stick image that so many justly do not like. Of course these are also alternate views which will not fall within your parameters.
Where I am viewing nature from is obviously a much broader church than the pontifical church from which you view nature.
Thank you for responding and adding to the discussion,
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Rod, Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts and for your "pontifical" comment :) and the attempted slick background/bird on a stick insults. I try, however, not to take things personally. The error in your thinking and your argument is that you are talking about viewing nature while I am viewing (and commenting on) photographs.... You are of course free to like what you like.

[Rod Warnock]

Hi Arthur,
Thanks for getting back so soon. I am sorry you thought that my comments about the slick BG and birds on stick were thought to be insults they are not intended that way as I am sure you would be well aware of these valid criticisms of our medium and they certainly apply to my photograph as submittede.As regards head turns have a look at the excellent hummingbird images on BPN which portray birds feeding from flowers very few have head turns towards the photographer. Your point about me viewing nature and you viewing photographs misses the point in that you do not mention that the photographs you are talking about are of nature and as such should and mostly do but not always portray nature. I am sorry you feel that my comments have seemed to offended you, however your throw away general comments needed to be replied to.
We should accept our different views and I hope to read your comments in future.
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[Arthur Morris]

With very rare exception images of birds or animals that have the subject's head turned even slightly away from the viewer simply do not work for me. Sometimes perfectly square to the back of the camera is acceptable, and sometimes it is the very best head angle.

I was not offended by your comments as as I said, I have learned not to take things personally. The two comments that I mentioned seemed very much to be attempts at insulting me. And yes, I surely have been aware of the criticisms of my work as too sterile. :) My style works for me and the fact that thousands choose to emulate my style is a nice touch. As I have stated many times, when the bird is in exquisite habitat I will work wider than I usually do to include it. When the bird is in a cluttered environment I will either work to reduce the clutter of simply decline to make an image (even though such a photograph would be an accurate depiction of nature). As I have been trying to say, what I am interested in is making beautiful images of birds and other natural history subjects that make me smile and make other folks say, "Oh, my!" As far as I can tell I have been doing OK in that area. :)

[Rod Warnock]

Hi Arthur,
None of my comments were directed at your work at all they were general observations of many bird images (mine included) which is why I pointed out those two areas of my image to make the point.
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[Arthur Morris]

I may agree with parts of that.... The "pontifical" comment however was obviously directed at me.

In addition, when you wrote, "It does suffer greatly from the all too frequent slick background that reveals nothing of the bird's habitat and it also will be seen by many to fall into the bird on stick image that so many justly do not like" most would take that as an attempted slap in my face, and I might add, that you were being quite pontifical in that statement. :)

[Rod Warnock]

Dear Arthur
Yes! The pontifical remark was directed at you only because of the dogmatic nature of your remarks.
However what I actually said about my image was "The image was chosen from a series on this species to solely to display the full lateral view of the bird singing. It does suffer greatly from the all too frequent slick background that reveals nothing of the bird's habitat and it also will be seen by many to fall into the bird on stick image that so many justly do not like. Of course these are also alternate views which will not fall within your parameters." I did not refer to any of your images specifically. I am sorry your seem to think I did. It was a general comment valid for this and other forums and for my image that I was commenting on. For me the matter is closed.
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[Arthur Morris]

Oh, I get it now. When you said, "... that so many justly do not like" you were not pontificating.