Juvenile Red-tailed Hawk (Art or Not?)

[Roger Williams]

This bird was one of two RTH's that hatched and fledged from a nest about 1/4 mile from where this image was captured. My wife and I watched the nest-building/hatching process over a two month period. I was pleased to have this guy pose for me.

So, when is a bird considered "art"? Is smooth, uncluttered background the determining factor or is there more to the story?

Canon 40D, 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x, ISO 400, 1/100@ f/6.3 + 2/3, HH. Cropped and background darkened.

[Cal Walters]

Well here is my POV. Art moves you - there is a visceral or emotional reaction. I am not sure smooth backgrounds are diagnostic - to use one of our words we like to ascribe to birds. Some of the smooth backgrounds can feel quite sterile and documentary. For me it moves into art when I start to gain a better understand of the species or photographer's intent. Are either telling me something I did not understand? It is very subjective. If this bird was special because you tracked its history, then it begins to move in that direction. But for it to really get there, it needs to move others too. The bird is well shot, but the background at this level is a bit distracting so it is pulling my attention away from the subject.

[Duane Noblick]

Is this cropped a lot? The Hawk seems to lack feather detail...looks too "smooth" to me (too much noise reduction?). I do like the eye contact and perch....the background doesn't bother me....it's in it's habitat.

[Joe Senzatimore]

Can't answer the art question. As for the image , it seems a bit flat and the BG is hard to get past. also looks like some work was done to the perch????

[Arthur Morris]

Picasso said, "If it's good, its art. If not, who cares?" The image is sharp on the eye though as noted, crisp feather detail seems to be lacking (es[pecially on the throat). I like the pose and the bird is beautiful. For me, the story has nothing to do with art. Is this good? I think so. Could it be better? I think so. My #1 suggestion would be to do a Linear Burn on the brightest parts of the leg.

I wish that the tip of the bill did not merge with the upper part of the bird's neck. Again, all in all I like it.

[Aidan Briggs]

Agree with the above comments, and would add that there is some evidence of PS work near the bottom. Might want to go back and re-do it a bit more carefully.

Keep them coming!

[Ilija Dukovski]

BG is not a matter of art IMO, the simple question is if you would prefer cleaner BG or not here.
As a general statement I guess most bird images look better with clean BG, simply because most
of them are portraits. In a portrait you want most of the attention on the subject even if(or is it especially if)
the subject is a can of soup as in Warhol's portraits/icons. No matter what the subject is, a portrait is a portrait and looks better with a clean BG, IMO. This rule has way too many exceptions to be taken as dogma of course.

[Roger Williams]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I posed the question, because after viewing hundreds of excellent images on BPN, I'd somewhat slipped into the mindset that images of birds shown in their natural environment are less artistic (or perhaps desirable) than are portraits against clean backgrounds. If we are to communicate the true nature of our subjects, I believe there's a place for both. Each image must be judged on its own in terms of its artistic and educational value. And, while an errant twig or feather or bright spot in an image might be a distraction from a fine art perspective, those "nits" may add to the public's appreciation of the subject.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Roger,

re:

I posed the question, because after viewing hundreds of excellent images on BPN, I'd somewhat slipped into the mindset that images of birds shown in their natural environment are less artistic (or perhaps desirable) than are portraits against clean backgrounds. If we are to communicate the true nature of our subjects, I believe there's a place for both.

As one who has chosen to have clean defocused backgrounds as the hallmark of my style, and who has been criticized for creating sterile images, I have said often, "If the background is beautiful and adds to the image, I will work wide and include it. If the background is distracting I will either not press the shutter button or do my best to clean it up either at the time of capture or in post processing. So I do agree that there is a place for both. And I do believe that the work posted on BPN reflects that. My presonal experience after photographing birds for more than 26 years is that the opportunties for creating habitat images are far, far fewer than the opps for creating tight, dynamic images of birds set against backgrounds of pure color.

Each image must be judged on its own in terms of its artistic and educational value.

Agree again.

And, while an errant twig or feather or bright spot in an image might be a distraction from a fine art perspective, those "nits" may add to the public's appreciation of the subject.

Here I disagree strongly; it seems that you are saying that having a distracting element (or elements) in the background would increase the public's appreciation of the subject. If I am correct in understanding what you wrote, it makes no sense to me at all. How could something that is admittedly distracting add to one's appreciation of the subject?

[Roger Williams]

Hi Roger,

re:

I posed the question, because after viewing hundreds of excellent images on BPN, I'd somewhat slipped into the mindset that images of birds shown in their natural environment are less artistic (or perhaps desirable) than are portraits against clean backgrounds. If we are to communicate the true nature of our subjects, I believe there's a place for both.

As one who has chosen to have clean defocused backgrounds as the hallmark of my style, and who has been criticized for creating sterile images, I have said often, "If the background is beautiful and adds to the image, I will work wide and include it. If the background is distracting I will either not press the shutter button or do my best to clean it up either at the time of capture or in post processing. So I do agree that there is a place for both. And I do believe that the work posted on BPN reflects that. My presonal experience after photographing birds for more than 26 years is that the opportunties for creating habitat images are far, far fewer than the opps for creating tight, dynamic images of birds set against backgrounds of pure color.

Each image must be judged on its own in terms of its artistic and educational value.

Agree again.

And, while an errant twig or feather or bright spot in an image might be a distraction from a fine art perspective, those "nits" may add to the public's appreciation of the subject.

Here I disagree strongly; it seems that you are saying that having a distracting element (or elements) in the background would increase the public's appreciation of the subject. If I am correct in understanding what you wrote, it makes no sense to me at all. How could something that is admittedly distracting add to one's appreciation of the subject?

I did not say that a distracting element would increase the public's appreciation, I said an element generating an crit on BPN might add to their appreciation by showing more of the habitat, for example. In my limited experience, I've found that most viewers look at the overall image rather than taking it apart like we do as nature photographers. A distracting element to a nature photographer many not be a distraction to the public. In many cases, they don't even notice a defect, be it branch, feather, hi-lite or whatever, until its pointed out to them. And, that's not to be taken as a crit of BPN or the general public. Of course we should seek to avoid or eliminate distracting elements whenever possible in all of our images.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Again Roger,

re:

I did not say that a distracting element would increase the public's appreciation, I said an element generating an crit on BPN might add to their appreciation by showing more of the habitat, for example.

Not to be a PITA, but, this is what you wrote: "And, while an errant twig or feather or bright spot in an image might be a distraction from a fine art perspective, those "nits" may add to the public's appreciation of the subject."

What you said above is not what you said in your comments in pane #8 (though it may be what you meant....) I am not trying to be argumentative or to start a piss-fight but each of us needs be careful when we post to a public forum in terms of saying exactly what we mean.

In my limited experience, I've found that most viewers look at the overall image rather than taking it apart like we do as nature photographers. A distracting element to a nature photographer many not be a distraction to the public.

Agree.

In many cases, they don't even notice a defect, be it branch, feather, hi-lite or whatever, until its pointed out to them.

Agree. And often they will not even notice that an image is out-of-focus, over-exposed, poorly composed, created in harsh light, or worse.... Much much worse. And the same unfortunately can be said about many photo editors.

And, that's not to be taken as a crit of BPN or the general public. Of course we should seek to avoid or eliminate distracting elements whenever possible in all of our images.

We can certainly agree on that.