Handsome Dude?

[Arthur Morris]

This free and wild drake Hooded Merganser with its crest raised was photographed at the Albuquerque Zoo with the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens and the EOS-7D. ISO 800. Evaluative metering +1/3 stop: 1/320 sec. at f/5.6. Fill flash at -2 stops with the Better Beamer.

The bird had not been seen in about two weeks but when I showed up with my Bosque IPT group it mysteriously appreared. You gotta love it.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

ps: Yes, I would have loved to have gotten lower but there is a fence around most of the duck pond....

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I like the water colors, raised crest that almost looks like a mohawk and head angle. The blacks underneath the bill look blocked on my monitor.

[Danny J Brown]

Hey Artie - About as close to a hoodie as a person can get, even with the 800. The background has a creamy yellow color that is unique and interesting - definitely something different in the bokeh department. I love the merganser's eye and you've really made this one look alive. Too bad you couldn't get a little lower but its always something, eh?

[Arthur Morris]

Not always Danny... Not always.

[Paul Kusmin]

Very dynamic, everything flares out from the eye.
I find Hoodies quite hard to get whites in the head area to not blow out, you've done well here.
Love the glint in the eye and strong bill detail adds to the enjoyment.
The blacks look a bit too black in spots but otherwise a great grab.

[Brian Barcelos]

This guy reminds me of an 80's punk rocker! Great job overall on exposure as I know black and white together are quite evil to me. BG really shows him off well. Don't you just hate fences.;) Congrats

[Raymond Barlow]

I agree with Axel, the blacks below the beak are gonzo, and the eye is too centered imo., i do like the raised hood, and the dreamy bg., but a very contrasty image.

[Harshad Barve]

Wonderful shot with nice details and eye looks so good here ,
I always wonder how many images you must be having in your collection
TFS

[Arthur Morris]

I agree with Axel, the blacks below the beak are gonzo, and the eye is too centered imo., i do like the raised hood, and the dreamy bg., but a very contrasty image.

Is "gonzo" a technical term?

The histogram shows a smattering of underexposed black pixels on the breast.

And yes, the eye is near the center of the frame. Where else would you put it?

Other than being an image of a black and white bird the contrast looks low and well controlled to me.

At times Raymond I feel that you enjoy taking baseless potshots at my images as if that will somehow elevate your stature.

[Danny J Brown]

Ouch, Artie. You told him not to be shy.

[Arthur Morris]

Ouch, Artie. You told him not to be shy.

Hi Danny, I welcome all criticism and suggestions for improvement that has some basis in reality. The eye is in the center of the frame. So what? The image is low in contrast.

I have learned a ton from here from folks commenting on my work and do so with open arms. When they make stuff up for the sake of being negative I call them on it. I have done it before and will continue to do so.

[Judy Lynn Malloch]

You gotta love that eye and the raised hood. Great timing Artie.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

You took 800 to the zoo ? :-) I liked this one....yes the angle is odd....but one's hands are tied in a zoo. Have you tried removing the catchlights in the eye? It might look better I think.

[Raymond Barlow]

Is "gonzo" a technical term?

The histogram shows a smattering of underexposed black pixels on the breast.

And yes, the eye is near the center of the frame. Where else would you put it?

Other than being an image of a black and white bird the contrast looks low and well controlled to me.

At times Raymond I feel that you enjoy taking baseless potshots at my images as if that will somehow elevate your stature.

Is "gonzo" a technical term?

not likely.

The histogram shows a smattering of underexposed black pixels on the breast.

Ok.., cool.

And yes, the eye is near the center of the frame. Where else would you put it?

I personally would try to move the eye away from the center, if there was no choice, then I would not bother editing the file.

Other than being an image of a black and white bird the contrast looks low and well controlled to me.

You may have done the best you can with this shot., and it is interesting.

At times Raymond I feel that you enjoy taking baseless potshots at my images as if that will somehow elevate your stature.

My stature is just fine where it is., Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is a critique forum, and we share opinions. I am just being honest with you Artie. Nothing I have said to you is in any way a "potshot". I have no intention of disrespecting you.

take good care.

[Mike Lentz]

Good eye contact. I can just see you hauling in the 800mm w/ the better Beamer attached to the ZOO! Must have got some looks from people. "wish for more body". :D

[Arthur Morris]

You took 800 to the zoo ? :-) I liked this one....yes the angle is odd....but one's hands are tied in a zoo. Have you tried removing the catchlights in the eye? It might look better I think.

I go nowhere without the 800. In truth, long lenses may be more valuable in the zoo than they are in the field as they can better isolate the subjects to avoid the zoo look... And don't forget your TCs either.

You must have really good vision; I could barely see the 3 highlights in the eye in the TIFF. IAC, I removed them in the repost. Thanks for your help.

[Arthur Morris]

Ray, re:

The histogram shows a smattering of underexposed black pixels on the breast.

Ok.., cool.

So you would agree, not quite "gonzo"?

And yes, the eye is near the center of the frame. Where else would you put it?

I personally would try to move the eye away from the center, if there was no choice, then I would not bother editing the file.

Please do not take this personally but having done this for more than 27 years that is about as ridiculous a piece of advice that as I have ever heard. According to you, I should delete about half of the head portraits that I have ever created.

Other than being an image of a black and white bird the contrast looks low and well controlled to me.

You may have done the best you can with this shot., and it is interesting.

I repeat: this image is a low contrast image. Either you do not understand what contrast is or your monitor is gonzo mis-calibrated.

At times Raymond I feel that you enjoy taking baseless potshots at my images as if that will somehow elevate your stature.

My stature is just fine where it is., Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is a critique forum, and we share opinions. I am just being honest with you Artie. Nothing I have said to you is in any way a "potshot". I have no intention of disrespecting you.

Again, I am fine with constructive criticism that has merit. Your comments on contrast and placement of the eye have zero merit. And the last time that I mentioned my nearly three decades of experience in a BPN post, you pretty much dissed me but I did not take it personally. But I do have a good memory.

[Mike Tracy]

The water looks like something from Van Gogh.

A little more DOF to the back end of his crest to show more detail would be my take. TFS him.

There are about 20 of these guys that just flew into a retention around the corner and I hope they are still around when this weather clears out.

Is "gonzo" a technical term?

No, but "Double Live Gonzo" was a good album from Ted Nugent :).

[Raymond Barlow]

Think what you like Artie, that is your freedom., personaly, after 4 years and about 400,000 frames, 99% or more of my stuff is junk. I look back at images I took 6 months ago and thought were good even 6 months ago, and wonder why I posted them.

It is all just opionions my friend, and we are all just photographers. Once again, we have a right to share our opinions about an image, there was nothing personal directed towards you.

take care Artie.

[Ofer Levy]

Zoo photography is not really my cup of tea but since this is a wild bird I guess I can comment. As mentioned above - I can't see any detail in the white on the crest nor in the blacks on the throat. I am also not crazy about the centered eye. I hope I won't be kicked out of this forum because I express my opinion but I find the attack on Ray totally not in place as his comment is professional and relevant to this critique forum and I agree with it 100%.

[Arthur Morris]

That is as I would expect from you Ofer as I put your motivation in the same class as Ray's. It is a shame that as fine a photographer as you needs to resort to such behavior. At NatureScapes you consistently found fault with every image that I posted while failing to note a single positive element even in what turned out to be award winning images.

[Raymond Barlow]

So, what you are saying here Artie, is that because you have been doing this for 27 yrs, and won some awards, you have the right to critique images and you see fit, but your images are located on an un-touchable pedestal?

You have the right to trash another photographer like Maxis "elevating your stature", but I cannot suggest to you that an eye is too centered? I do not know of one photographer (and I know a few) that would get so defensive about some honest critique.

I was trying to be polite and respectful, and I really hope something positive comes of this, and we can move on and continue enjoying this fantastic forum.

I look forward to enjoying more of your wonderful images, and having good fun while helping each other.

[Ofer Levy]

That is as I would expect from you Ofer as I put your motivation in the same class as Ray's. It is a shame that as fine a photographer as you needs to resort to such behavior. At NatureScapes you consistently found fault with every image that I posted while failing to note a single positive element even in what turned out to be award winning images.

Dear Artie,
First I would like to congratulate you for publishing this great forum. I enjoy it very much especially because it is still a real critique forum rather than an Ego boosting support group as happened to other similar forums.
I really think that personal attacks on Ray and now on me is something that especailly you as a publisher should avoid.
We are all here in order to enjoy bird photography and learn from each other. The only way to do it is to comment in an honest and professional way.
I believe that most memebers who know me will testify that this is exactly what I am trying to do - to be honest and professional. Nothing is personal - it is all about the images.
I hope we will avoid personal attacks and just concentrate on improving and enjoying our photography as we all have still a lot to learn.
Happy shooting to all,
Cheers,
Ofer

[Arthur Morris]

As I have said, I am fine with accepting valid and constructive criticism. I have done so 100s of times here and elsewhere. When I perceive comments as being baseless and totally without merit--"very contrasty; eye too centered"--that one still mystifies me--and when folks (like Ofer) consistently offer only negative comments about my images without ever mentioning a single positive, I can only assume that they are taking potshots at me. At the risk of this becoming boring, I shall not make any additional comments.