EOS R RF 70-200 @200 f4 1/400 ISO 1600 HH, manual exp, large crop
The sibling slipped back into the burrow, so I focused on this relatively rare "brown eyed" morph. There are two siblings out of the four I know of in this family group which have this color morph. It is a relatively rare recessive gene morph. The only other I have ever seen was much darker almost making the eye look completely black. The iris is actually a mosaic of brown, green and yellow. Had to crop for this as it was as close as I could get @200mm without disturbing this family.
As always thanks for the valued inputs and detailed help (looking at you, Steve) on previous posts. Please, keep them coming.
The little "Alfalfa" feather made me chuckle. I like the comp as is to include the flowers in upper right, but I do wish the body was angled the other way instead. Just enough oof stuff in front for my tastes. A fun scene to you seem to have enjoyed photographing!
This one works for me David. Counter to the 'proper' subject positioning for some reason I enjoy an outward facing posture here. Maybe it's just the day or maybe it's the layered depth in the image but, it's been a fun series. Thanks for sharing.
Hi David, the find of the owls is creating some nice source material for posting, great, I'm pleased for you.
OK, as I know you tend to have an inquisitive mind let me pose this question which is never questioned on the Forum or indeed on many, but worth a moments thought, however a little bit of background to my thought.
Before the big launch of computers like most things, everything had to be done by hand and you either commissioned an image or sourced it from a photo library. Most images were/are use, come from a photolibray where you send a request in with some parameters of what you are looking for, a photo researcher would go off, three days later a bundle of say 25 images would arrive from say Getty which you then selected from, now it's all on line and within 30 minutes you have what you want, far easier and electronic to the approximate size you require. Those images were all duplicates and never had any writing on then or notches, so unless there was writng in the transparency (ie a sign, label and number etc...) you could not tell which way the image was originally shot, so as a designer or art director you had to make the choice, as no one new apart from the photographer and the likelihood of he/she ever seeing it in publication was very slim.
So my question is, 99% of the time the images we take are perfect the way we shot them, but occasionally if we 'flip' them, does it make a difference???? If this was a double page spread then yes, because you want the subject on the RHS with the editorial on the left, why, because when we flick through a magazine we tend to look at the RH pages more and they command or used to, more money.
Therefore, based on the above, does your image look/appear/sit better flipped? As soon as we import an image and change things ie WB we are manipulating the file, therefore if by flipping an image it enhances it in a positive way then why not.
I might prune the buttercup by the rock, mask some of the darker spots in the FG and perhaps the green just above the head, all cosmetic and personal choice. You could increase slightly the overall exposure, up the greens a little and bring some light/life into the eyes, perhaps a tad more below, and some more NR, again just my thoughts.
If this is a regular site you visit David and being low to the ground perhaps the owls will get to tolerate you more and offer the option to get a fraction closer, or use and extender to get closer, to avoid hefty crops and retain better IQ.
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Hi David, the find of the owls is creating some nice source material for posting, great, I'm pleased for you.
OK, as I know you tend to have an inquisitive mind let me pose this question which is never questioned on the Forum or indeed on many, but worth a moments thought, however a little bit of background to my thought.
Before the big launch of computers like most things, everything had to be done by hand and you either commissioned an image or sourced it from a photo library. Most images were/are use, come from a photolibray where you send a request in with some parameters of what you are looking for, a photo researcher would go off, three days later a bundle of say 25 images would arrive from say Getty which you then selected from, now it's all on line and within 30 minutes you have what you want, far easier and electronic to the approximate size you require. Those images were all duplicates and never had any writing on then or notches, so unless there was writng in the transparency (ie a sign, label and number etc...) you could not tell which way the image was originally shot, so as a designer or art director you had to make the choice, as no one new apart from the photographer and the likelihood of he/she ever seeing it in publication was very slim.
So my question is, 99% of the time the images we take are perfect the way we shot them, but occasionally if we 'flip' them, does it make a difference???? If this was a double page spread then yes, because you want the subject on the RHS with the editorial on the left, why, because when we flick through a magazine we tend to look at the RH pages more and they command or used to, more money.
Therefore, based on the above, does your image look/appear/sit better flipped? As soon as we import an image and change things ie WB we are manipulating the file, therefore if by flipping an image it enhances it in a positive way then why not.
I might prune the buttercup by the rock, mask some of the darker spots in the FG and perhaps the green just above the head, all cosmetic and personal choice. You could increase slightly the overall exposure, up the greens a little and bring some light/life into the eyes, perhaps a tad more below, and some more NR, again just my thoughts.
If this is a regular site you visit David and being low to the ground perhaps the owls will get to tolerate you more and offer the option to get a fraction closer, or use and extender to get closer, to avoid hefty crops and retain better IQ.
TFS
Steve
I was just about to thank everyone for the compositional advice and all comments/suggestions when you show up with the easiest of solutions... I love all your subtle yet impactful edits except the hair cut. That is an errant feather you trimmed, not a blade of grass. Loved the nostalgic story, grandpa... before computers, unfathomable... This retired software engineer jests...
Cheers, mate and thanks again to everyone for all the valued inputs.
Hi David. I appreciate Steve's comments and ideas with regards to the position of the bird in the frame. However, for me I much prefer the original with the bird on the left, due to the fact it's the bird I notice first (as we read from left to right). Looking at the "flipped" version my eyes are drawn to the flowers on the left then the bird. If it were mine I'd be tempted to crop a little off the bottom.
Hi Paul, nothing is cast in stone, all I'm suggesting is that once in a while we need to just step back and have a think about the image prior to any work is done and just occasionally, a subtle change that only the author would know, could make a huge difference.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Interesting discussion; I've never though much about how images are positioned in magazine print! That said, and from a purely photography view, the positioning does not
work for me. The tree does makes for an interesting setting. The flat light is tough for me here as the image is really cold.
Mocha Mosaic Morph...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
... I love all your subtle yet impactful edits except the hair cut. That is an errant feather you trimmed, not a blade of grass. Loved the nostalgic story, grandpa... before computers, unfathomable... This retired software engineer jests... 
