Coopers Hawk Banking in Flight

[Jim Neiger]

New Jersey - 1D3, 500mm, hand held, 1/2500, F5, ISO 800, manual exposure

This is from October of 2007. I am just now getting caught up on processing many of my older images.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Holy cow this is awesome! My personal preference would be for the OOF vegetation not to merge with the wing, but man this is quite impressive :-) Excellent wing and tail spreads.

[Ilija Dukovski]

Some plumage detail on this bird, perfect angle, I love the warm light. Head and eye stand out nicely,
the lower part of the BG is darker, which adds nice balance to it all.
I'm not sure about the plant, did you consider cloning out?
Great one, like it a lot!

[Brian Barcelos]

I have to say this is one of the best Cooper in flight images I've seen! Light, HA, feather detail, wing position and colors all +++. Only thing as mentioned before is loosing the foliage if your into that kind of thing. But nonetheless an awesome image. Congrats.

Brian

[Erich Stevens]

Jim, the hawk's HA, wings and tail feathers are all in the perfect position. Great shot! This is a juvie cooper's, right?

[Marina Scarr]

Hi Jim: Absolutely one of your best flight images! The light, the angle, the colors and the details are simply outstanding. I believe in trying to leave the environment "as shot" as much as possible. However, in this particular case, I would have to vote for removing the foliage, esp that portion in front of the wing.

Thank you for sharing this gem! Marina

[Bryan Erb]

Very impressive, really like the fact you can see the top of the bird, love the fanned tail. Very nice image.

[Jay Gould]

Jim, as my Valley daughters are so fond of saying.....Oh My Gawd!

This is so sharp that you can even see the splits in the feathers!! And to think that it has been hidden for almost two years.

I too would like to see the foliage disappear.

Beautiful!!

[Raymond Barlow]

I don't think I would have waited 2 years to process this one!! superb.

[Ramon M. Casares]

Not great but OUTSTANDING POSE! Great light, detail, angle, BG, species, com and sharpness! Huge congratulations!

[Lorant Voros]

Stunning image. I like everything about it: pose, light, detail, techs. Fantastic.

[Doug Brown]

Amazing shot Jim! One good encounter is all it takes! ;)

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Jim
This is why you are the flight master. Period. I am in awe man. :)

[Markus Jais]

Absolutely stunning shot!!!

Markus

[colincarter]

excellent shot Jim, the angle of the bird is great and shows off the patterns on its back and tail superbly.

[Kiran Poonacha]

Amazing image this, the HA, the wing spread the details amd pose just too good.. big congrats....

[christopher galeski]

magic shot Jim,plenty of detail in the bird.not keen on oof veg.But magic shot.thanks.

[Arthur Morris]

Kissimmee Jimmy, This is one of your very best by far. The detail is amazing and the dorsal banking view is the bomb. Would you mind posting the full frame original? I suspect a substantical crop as the d-o-f at f/5 is astounding. The image quality however looks to be great.

Considering that you were using a camera that allegedly cannot focus that eye looks quite sharp...

[Harshad Barve]

What an image this is
needed few seconds the grab the breath man
one of the best flight shots I have seen
TFS
Harshad

[Mark Dumbleton]

Sublime pose here! Perfect head angle and in sweet light! Nothing more you can ask for! Well done Jim!

[Bill Sharkey]

Great shot Jim, congrats :)

Could use some NR on the BG, if you are into that sort of thing.

Bill

[Jim Neiger]

Kissimmee Jimmy, This is one of your very best by far. The detail is amazing and the dorsal banking view is the bomb. Would you mind posting the full frame original? I suspect a substantical crop as the d-o-f at f/5 is astounding. The image quality however looks to be great.

Considering that you were using a camera that allegedly cannot focus that eye looks quite sharp...

Here you go, Artie. This is the image unmodified except for generic RAW conversion and resizing. Things aren't always what they seem.

[Gal Shon]

Cracking shot with a stunning pose, very well done.
On my monitor the head is a tad too bright compare with the rest of the image

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Jim, I was just curious. You did a great job with the processing. The brightness of the head in the ORIG looks fine from here. Adding canvas right and moving the o-o-f vegetation to the right is an option.

[Morkel Erasmus]

simply stupendous. mind-blowing! love banking shots with a top-down view. take a bow, sir!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Awesome, really love the detail in this image, the banking pose is perfect with everything evenly spreaded out.

[paul leverington]

Freaking Incredable!!! Compositionally it would be a crime to eliminate the vegetation as some have suggested. Another "bird in blue void" would ruin the artistic quality of this shot. The vegetation should either BE a part of the image or NOT BE a part of the image. In the original post that is definitely not clear. A single, floating, subject needs to be anchored by something to tie it in to the sides of the frame so as to have a feeling of relativity that then gives the viewer a sense of place, stability, and completeness of reality. This compositional element could be a tonal or color transition--as in the case of clouds or an OOF shoreline, a physical object - such as a branch, wave, horizon ect.. A subjects shadow could do the trick. How many paintings has anyone seen with a single lone subject in a sea of uniform nothing? Not many-if any. I can't recall any anyways. The reasons are it's just bad composition. A picture looses a lot of punch by having bad comp.

In this shot, the vegetation helps and is very necessary for good comp. In fact Jim, I feel you should add back the bottom of the frame of the original to get back more of these sweet horizontal transitions. The vegetation in the middle touching his wing however is mucking things up because it throws the whole picture out of balance. Just looking at the masses of the vegetation and the bird, you get a feeling that a basketball is trying to be balanced on a pencil--very unstable. If you moved the bird a little left and the vegetaion all the way right you would bring to the comp a sense of left-right balance-beam stability. Whats there on the right is balanced out with whats on the left. Leaving the BG in also gives depth to the shot giving it a greater pull of the viewer actually being there in person. Balance from front to back in other words.

Here's an example of tying into the frame with line when you have a large single comp element:

http://www.nga.gov/collection/galler...3-46398.0.html

In this one the subject itself does the connecting:

http://www.moma.org/collection/brows...bject_id=78737

This one uses horizon line:

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Alber...f-The-Sea.html

This one connects via a separate object --in this case a table second pic down --I couldn't find a bigger version--sorry about that)

http://www.arthistory-famousartists-...anVermeer.html

This is very basic artist compositional principle. It often amazes me that with the knowledge out there for the asking, that many photographers often never touch base with it. For thousnads of years, art and composition, have been evolving and getting perfected. Why not tap into the knowledge of all those great minds and all that focused effort?

That last link is a great place to start by the way. If any one is interested I can recommend some books and other sites.

A fantastic shot Jim--one of your best. And it certainly is a magnificent subject!

Paul

[Dan Brown]

Great shot Jim! Very inspiring! Love the dorsal view and the eye contact! MORE,MORE!!:D

[Arthur Morris]

Compositionally it would be a crime to eliminate the vegetation as some have suggested. Another "bird in blue void" would ruin the artistic quality of this shot....

The vegetation in the middle touching his wing however is mucking things up because it throws the whole picture out of balance. Paul

First off, I will disagree with the first statement above. There are some spectacular flight images around featuring birds "in the blue void." A spectacular wing position or pose can make and image dramatic enough to stand on its own even in a blue sky.

As for your second statement, I believe that I said the exact same thing above: "Adding canvas right and moving the o-o-f vegetation to the right is an option." Thanks however for elucidating the reasons why this would work and for providing the links. I have always advised folks to look at as many great images and good artwork as possible. Once I understood the very basics of composition all of the the fine points fell into place naturally for me.

[paul leverington]

First off, I will disagree with the first statement above. There are some spectacular flight images around featuring birds "in the blue void." A spectacular wing position or pose can make and image dramatic enough to stand on its own even in a blue sky.

As for your second statement, I believe that I said the exact same thing above: "Adding canvas right and moving the o-o-f vegetation to the right is an option." Thanks however for elucidating the reasons why this would work and for providing the links. I have always advised folks to look at as many great images and good artwork as possible. Once I understood the very basics of composition all of the the fine points fell into place naturally for me.

There ya go Artie!

Yes you certainly did see the "option" of moving the grasses. I had not read your post before commenting. And I'm sure anyone who thought about it would agree. The fundamental reasons for such a move and explanation thereof, and why that works, will help when a similar compositional problem crops up again. Why I expounded on it I suppose. But once you know the fundamentals---and I'm refering to way beyond the "golden means" or the rule of thirds to contemporary artists, and "hey it seems like it looks good" there is a plethera of new comp possibilities that will sneak into ones mind.



I'm leaving out the subjectiveness aspect of things cause if a person likes it then who is to argue.

No --a subject floating in a sea of monochromatic emptiness is not good comp--unless--the entire comp is within the boundaries of that subject itself--which I believe is what your refering to Artie. Please correct me if I am mistaken. But if powerful line, balance, shape size and definition, tonal variations, and color, are within the confines the the subject itself, then the subject IS the entire composition and all that falls out side of it is filler-- with value only derived from being negative space--there are no supporting comp units in it therefore. That will usually be one that a person will crop in on anyhow so as to zero in on what rocks. There are possible exceptions I should mention, but the artist should make that the evident meaning of his/or her image. They shouldn't be haphazrd or nonchalant such as calling an image artistic because it's blurry for example. An example of this would be where the actual purpose of the image would be to evoke a very lonely, perhaps frightening feeling precipitated by the expanse of sameness--then the subject unit just happens to be a vehicle for that purpose--a support comp unit in other words. But when the subject itself, because of line, color tonal transition and balance is powerful enough then IT now becomes the comp. alone. The surrounding area may be irrelavent. The larger that area is the more it robs value from the subject unit until the whole thing is too watered down. Then you need to let that space become a comp unit of size and tie the subject down with someting. Hey-- I didn't make up the rules.

And it should be said that a subject surrounded by void type image would not necessarily be bad --it's just that it could be made better with something to tie it in and anchor it to the frame. Thats all I suppose I'm saying.

But definitely studying the masters will benefit anyone trying to tweak their art to perfection. Visiting an art museum would be a wonderful start. What's neat too is that once you get a handle on the rules and basics, you can easily pick out the artist's use of them out in a painting. Makes your enjoyment go way up too--just like knowing the things going on behind the scene in baseball helps one enjoy the game that much more.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Paul, I will be fairly brief here out of necessity. I have not been to an art museum since I started photographing birds almost 26 years ago, yet I wrote extensively (and quite well I might add) on Advanced Compostion and Image Design in ABP II, my CD book. The only masters that I have studied are Shaw and Wolfe and Lanting and Planck and more recently folks like Rouse, Van Rooyen and Alan Murphy. As I said above, once I learned that you are supposed to keep the bird out of the center most of the time, compostion became intuitive. Most times when I look at an image I know in 1/1000 where and why I would have framed the image differently. In the image here the compositional balance is way off with everything in the center of a HORZ frame. And when I see a great image with a pure blue sky BKGR, I simply know that I like it. I do not spend a ton of time considering the various rules and/or principles. I either like it or not. As I have said, at some point--if you are lucky--it becomes intuitive. And with bird and nature photography, fast is sure is better than studies and labored. The birds do not sit there for long. You need to be able to complete several important tasks often in less than a second...

I do however, respect the fact that different folks learn in different ways. I just like to keep things simple. And to be able to work quickly in the field.

Well, so much for brief.

[paul leverington]

My reply to that Artie would only be that the more someone knew of comp principles the better off they would be. None of anything I've brought up by the way was meant to apply to you specifically, just so you know. And others might find it useful maybe. The real thing though, is it's not difficult stuff at all. Definitely would not take a ton of time for anyone to get a handle on. Your 30 years have taught you well and from a different approach you have learned the things you need to know masterfully. School of hard knocks and the school of academics, doesn't matter I suppose, as long as one gets there.

Like I mentioned too--Who can debate subjectiveness?--if one likes it--that's all you need to know.

Anyways I was just trying to throw some stuff out there and participate, doesnt go down well for folks thats OK.

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Paul, I appreciate that you posted and that we had a great discussion. And we agree on lots of things. I am not sure what you meant by "doesn't go down well for some folks that OK."

Please explain.

[Jim Neiger]

Hey guys, interesting discussion. I would like to point out that in this case the composition is to a large degree selected by the bird. Do I wish the oof vegetation doesn't merge with the wing of the bird? Of course I do, but I had very little say in the matter when the image was made. Perched birds are one thing, but birds in flight don't offer a lot of composition choices at the time the image is made. I know that many of you have no quams about relocating bg elements and cloning out distractions, etc. I have my own set of rules regarding this and in this case it doesn't bother me enough to go to those extremes. I prefer the oof vegetation to a all blue sky bg even when it's not in the ideal location. My first choice would have been to have the bg be entirely oof vegetation, but I couldn't get a high enough position to make that happen. I have another image where the bird itself is actualy better, but the bg is entirely sky. I prefer something in the bg. I think the vast majority of the people that may view a photo like this don't really care one way or another. Just my two cents. I appreciate the comments, critiques, and discussion.

[paul leverington]

For a lot of folks Artie--well probably most of us--we haven't had the opportunity or fortune of 30 years expirience in bird photography. I'm definitely old enough to know that expirience is almost everything. In lieu of that, we who have much less actual trial and error, tweaking this teaking that time, must stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and who have already done the pennance, the trial and error, the endless tweaking. One of those persons is you. Some of those others are rembrandt, titian, vangogh, matisse, renoir, carrvagio, leonardo, michaelangelo, dali, picasso, vermeer, rodin, monet, turner, durer, gauguin, rafael, heironymous bosh, brugels to name a few of the more commonly know artists. All those people working as hard as you have, trying to push the envelope of their time, spending a lifetime doing so. Hard for me to fathom ignoring that. And those guys are accessable for most everyone--for free. For anybody who does ignore the lessons of others, don't they just have to do it on their own --learning most of which is already known --and all over again?

Many folks don't want to check these things out I have found because they feel they know what they need to know. But those that have gone forth and studied art composition from the masters were not only rewarded to what to do in that endeavor but WHY they should do it.. The same things that work in a painting also work in a photo--and it's great fun to learn! It really helps those of us who are still learning.

I think it would be great to have a comp session section on this site where great photos and paintings of the masters could be analyzed and disected.

I just don't believe people are interested for the most part due to response--or lack. We do learn by bits and pieces examining each others stuff, but learning before the expirience of going out and shooting seems more productive. And the knowledge is there for the taking. Whether or not you fully see it, your opinion Artie most definitely affects others because of their respect for your talent and abilities. If you personally feel it's a waste than others will probably see it the same. So I wouldn't try and persue the POV it if it's not receptive to others. I guess that's what I meant.

Paul