Sword-billed Hummingbird at flower

[Linda Robbins]

Canon 500mm f/4 IS lens and a Canon EOS 1-D Mark II N mounted on a tripod, ISO 400, Manual mode: 1/250 sec. at f/22.. Seven flash set-up,. Guango Lodge, Ecuador.


This image required a little extra work in Photoshop, but I liked the pose so I took a few extra minutes to repair the image in Photoshop. Often in optimizing hummingbird imaages, part of the feeder, flower, or another bird must be removed from the image. In this case parts of the flower and another bird were in the upper right corner, I had put a flower up held in place by a plamp. Another hummingbird fed so aggresively that he pushed the flower to the right about halfway out of the photographic zone (the area lit by the flashes and backed by the artificial background). I removed the second bird and the half flower and replaced the flower by using a quick mask, taking the same flower from another image.

I hope everyone isn't tired of seeing hummingbird images. I have been going through files as I recuperate at home, so I have been working on hummie images. I promise I'll give you a break and stop posting them for a few days and will post other birds!

[Jim Neely]

Linda, this is spectacular. Your techniques with the shoot and PS look great.

jn

[Maxis Gamez]

Hi Linda,

Nice to see you around!!!

Outstanding image and composition. You are doing an excellent job with your flash set up!

Keep them coming!

[Raymond Barlow]

no need for a break Linda., beautiful shot.!

[Arthur Morris]

Even though I would like to see a bit more of the spray of flowers, this is spectacular. Please, therefore, do not stop!

ps: I love how the purple of the BKGR picks up the flower petals.

[Brutus Ostling]

I don't get tired of hummingbirds. We don't ave them where I live (northern Europe), and this is a very nice image. Thank you very much.

[Judy Lynn Malloch]

Absolutely outstanding Linda and one could never tire of these beautiful captures. Just incredible !!!! Love the flight pose and thank you so much for all the background info. I really appreciate you taking the time to fill us in on all that you did to finally get this superb image. Please keep them coming < smile >

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Beautiful bird and great image of it. I like the pose, exposure control and details. A bit more room for the flower would have been nice but I like it as is.

[Raul Quinones]

Beautiful shot and bird. Great colors and pose.

[Glenda Simmons]

Ditto on Judy's comment...Please post more!

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Linda, I could never get tired of your hummingbird images!
In fact I learn a lot from your technical explanations, your command of PS is amazing. Can't wait to see your CD/Book.

[Chris Zink]

I, too, never get tired of your hummingbirds! I find it amazing that this bird can live with such a long beak. It seems to me that his tail is longer than that of other hummingbirds - maybe to help balance the weight of the schnoz?

Chris

[Linda Robbins]

I, too, never get tired of your hummingbirds! I find it amazing that this bird can live with such a long beak. It seems to me that his tail is longer than that of other hummingbirds - maybe to help balance the weight of the schnoz?

Chris

Chris -

I find this species amazing too. When you first see them, it seems as though it would be a disadvantage to have such an unwieldy bill, but as you watch them feed, they amaze with their ability to use it delicately. The extraordinary bill allows these birds to exploit nectar sources in long tubular flowers that other hummingbirds with shorter bills can not reach. Hummingbirds are incredibly lightweight, but it would not suprise me at all if the substantial tail does balance the bird in flight. Thanks for your comments!

[Aristotle Georgiou]

Outstanding image indeed. Very well done!

[Ric Grupe]

Wonderful image, Linda.

[Vincent Grafhorst]

Amazing! Both the bird and the image!

[Mike Lentz]

Beautiful! Now thats what I'm talking about! A great complimentary BG, perfect pose and a flower that is so beautiful it almost steals the show! Bravo!!

[Arthur Morris]

Wonderful image, Linda. Not to pick on you specifically (because I could pick from any number of images here), but to me heavily PSed images, although lovely, constitute the "hand of man" element that we are supposedly trying to avoid. We all know that nature is messy!

Hi Ric,

The guidelines for Avian Free & Wild state: "For posting and critiquing images of free, wild and unrestrained birds. These images should not include any hand of man elements."

As Linda's image does not include any hand of man elements, it seems to me that it is in the correct gallery.

You wrote that heavily Photoshopped images .... constitute the "hand of man" that we are supposedly trying to avoid. I am neither sure of what you mean or of who the "we" are. Please explain.

(When you say, "but to me," it seems that you are expressing an opinion rather than living by the guidelines that are in place here.)

There was once a group called Found View that only wanted to deal with images that showed accurately what the photographer saw through the viewfinder. This is not a Found View Forum. My understanding is that the group is now defunct.

Once you clone out a single leaf or stone or cigarette butt, you are on the slope and it is a slippery one. Once there, who is wise enough among us to draw the line. All that we can do is draw the line for ourselves and tell folks what we have done.

Respectfully.

[Ramon M. Casares]

"Once you clone out a single leaf or stone or cigarette butt, you are on the slope and it is a slippery one. Once there, who is wise enough among us to draw the line. All that we can do is draw the line for ourselves and tell folks what we have done."

Couldn't agree more with this.

Now, the shot is just OUTSTANDIND, TERRIFIC, AMAZING and just... WOW... congratulatons Linda!!

[Greg Basco]

Amazing bird, Linda! I think flowers and pollination add a lot to hummingbird shots but in this case, I might opt for getting rid of the flower and just making it a flight shot. Since those other pesky birds knocked your flower out of position, the flower's sort of half there, half not, and I think it would be a stronger image without it. Probably not what you want to hear after all of the Photoshop gymnastics, but it's just a thought :-)

Cheers,
Greg

[Ric Grupe]

Hi Ric,
When you say, "but to me," it seems that you are expressing an opinion rather than living by the guidelines that are in place here.)

Expressing an opinion is exactly what I was doing...I thought that was clear.

Linda said she cloned out part of a feeder...That is the hand of man...no?

Now...to be clear...I am not upset in the least bit. Only expressing what I consider to be a valid point...at least for me.:)

[Ric Grupe]

"Once you clone out a single leaf or stone or cigarette butt, you are on the slope and it is a slippery one. Once there, who is wise enough among us to draw the line. All that we can do is draw the line for ourselves and tell folks what we have done."

Couldn't agree more with this.

Now, the shot is just OUTSTANDIND, TERRIFIC, AMAZING and just... WOW... congratulatons Linda!!

I think you mean the final edited version of the shot...since we have not seen the shot.

As I said, it is a wonderful image.:)

[Arthur Morris]

Expressing an opinion is exactly what I was doing...I thought that was clear. Linda said she cloned out part of a feeder...That is the hand of man...no? Now...to be clear...I am not upset in the least bit. Only expressing what I consider to be a valid point...at least for me.:)

Yes, a feeder is obviously manmade, but there is no feeder in Linda's posted image. The point that I tried to get across is that we have no restrictions on removing unwanted elements from an image and that as long as there is no hand of man element visible in the post, this is the correct gallery.

[Ric Grupe]

Yes, a feeder is obviously manmade, but there is no feeder in Linda's posted image. The point that I tried to get across is that we have no restrictions on removing unwanted elements from an image and that as long as there is no hand of man element visible in the post, this is the correct gallery.

Yes, I do understand that it is allowed. That was not my point.

My point is that photoshopped images are just that. To me that is not photography but another art form entirely.

I have seen hundreds of gorgeous images that look nothing like the real world.

To me "wild and free" is not baited and photoshopped.

My flight shot of a BCNH, which truely reflects the real world, is my most recent submission here. Folks don't seem to be interested in reality unless it's to point out some messy element that obviously, in some cases, is not under the control of the photographer.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes, I do understand that it is allowed. That was not my point. My point is that photoshopped images are just that. To me that is not photography but another art form entirely. I have seen hundreds of gorgeous images that look nothing like the real world. To me "wild and free" is not baited and photoshopped.

My flight shot of a BCNH, which truely reflects the real world, is my most recent submission here. Folks don't seem to be interested in reality unless it's to point out some messy element that obviously, in some cases, is not under the control of the photographer.

Well, at least now you are stating what is bothering you. You were pretty much hiding behind your "wrong forum" argument above. The hummingbird in Linda's image was wild, free, and unrestrained. Photographing hummingbirds at a set-up is as far from natural as you can get.

Over 2 1/2 decades I have worked very hard with both film and digital to create images that feature clean backgrounds, dramatic lighting, and sharp subjects. Digital allows photographers to clean up their images should they so choose. Sometimes such images might be classed as Photo Illustrations. Depends on who's assigning the labels.

From your comments, it seems that if a bird is set against a clean background that you would assume that it has been "Photoshopped." And it seems that you feel that If a bird is set against ugly clutter that it is "real" and thus is a good photograph...

Photographing reality does not make an image a good image. The job of the nature photographer is to create order out of chaos. At BPN we simply encourage folks to be honest about what they have done to capture the image and what they have done after capture.

If you or anyone else believes that folks who clone out a rock (or a feeder) is a criminal, or that their images are unworthy of artistic praise, I am perfectly fine with that.

ps: truely does not have an "e."

[Ric Grupe]

There never was a "wrong forum" argument!

You put that meaning on my words.

Photography is my interest not having my English corrected. Please revoke my membership...this is not the place for me.

[Maxis Gamez]

I think either way this is a fantastic image.

[Juan Aragonés]

Linda you can post as much hummingbirds as you want. We are not tired of seeing this beauties!! I like the BG with two colors, one of them matching the colour of the Fuchsia flowers and the other one resembling the color of the bird.

[Arthur Morris]

There never was a "wrong forum" argument! You put that meaning on my words. Photography is my interest not having my English corrected. Please revoke my membership...this is not the place for me.

Hi Ric, I am sorry for the no "e" in truly remark. That was uncalled for. I let you get to me. Another lesson learned.

As for my putting meaning in your words, in your first post, you wrote, "Not to pick on you specifically (because I could pick from any number of images here), but to me heavily PSed images, although lovely, constitute the "hand of man" element that we are supposedly trying to avoid. We all know that nature is messy!

What did you mean when you mentioned "hand of man"?

In addition, you never explained who the "we" was in your original post. Or how you know that we are trying to avoid (the presentation of "heavily Photoshopped" images.

[Ric Grupe]

What did you mean when you mentioned "hand of man"?

Interfering with what is natural.

Like Cotton Candy.....fluffy and pretty.....but with nothing to sink your teeth into. Not grounded in reality.

Just another exploitation of nature by man to suit his whim.

All I wanted was an intelligent conversation about my feelings on the matter. No particular person or rule was being attacked in any way.

"WE" = Serious, conscientious photogs.

[Arthur Morris]

Interfering with what is natural.Like Cotton Candy.....fluffy and pretty.....but with nothing to sink your teeth into. Not grounded in reality. Just another exploitation of nature by man to suit his whim. All I wanted was an intelligent conversation about my feelings on the matter. No particular person or rule was being attacked in any way. "WE" = Serious, conscientious photogs.

Whew. Please confirm that your feelings are that if a photograph is pretty that means that it is unnatural and constitutes exploitation of nature by man to suit his needs.

A yes or no would be fine as that seems to be what you stated above.

Secondly, you wrote above, "WE = serious, conscientious photogs."

Do you not find that comment both elitist and insulting?

I do look forward to your response.

And I invite you to open or continue this discussion in the General Photography Forum. I would be glad to copy the relevant posts above once you create the thread.

[Ric Grupe]

??????????????????????

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for responding. It seems that what you mean never correlates with what you say. I will forward your request to Mr. Shadle and try to get you a full refund.

[Mike Lentz]

If I had a vote for I.O.W. this would be my choice! :D

[Mitchell Krog]

This is superb, I am green with envy :)

[Christopher Schlaf]

Perfection