Yes or No?

[Fabs Forns]

We all know that birds are supposed to be coming at us. It's one of those unwritten rules. But all rules have exceptions.
My questions is, would this be one of the exceptions? Is the action and setting enough to carry the picture?
Let's look at it pretending we don't know anything, look at it with the eyes of a child.
And tell me your honest opinion. Those of you who are shy, can just vote.
Is it a yes, a no or just not sure?

Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Lens (mm): 400 (100-400L IS)
ISO: 500
Aperture: 6.3
Shutter: 1/1600

[Axel Hildebrandt]

This angle shows the behavior much better than a more traditional angle. What I miss is that we can't see the eye.

[Gal Shon]

I think it does work for me. the splash, wave and wing position helps a lot.

[John Haig]

It works for me.
It shows the behavior/action very well. The eye may not be visible, but if the intent is to portray the particular aspect of behavior, then to my mind, the exclusion of the eye is a moot point.

[Keith Carver]

Love the overall action and splash but vote no nonetheless. If more of the head were showing (downward) I would vote yes - whether or not the eye shows. As is the head is partially obscured by breast feathers which makes the head profile a little ambiguous, IMO.

[Roger Clark]

I usually like the out-of-the-rules images, but not seeing the face or eye in this case does not work for me. I would have edited at the shutter button, and if I accidentally took the image, it would quickly be in the delete bin. There are images that I think do work when the head and eye(s) are not seen and the bird is heading away, but not this one in my opinion. It's great if others like it.

Roger

[Gail Spitler]

Another one of those darn images where there is so much that is wonderful: the wave, the spray droplets, the perfect wing position, the behavior; but alas, it doesn't get there for me.:(
Cheers
Gail

[Bruce Enns]

As Gail said, there are lots of pluses in this image, but with no face or eye contact, and a somewhat ambiguous head, it doesn't make the cut for me.

Bruce

[Dan Woodward]

Have very limited photographic experience so this is a childs point of view. photo is to busy for me not sure what to focus on, seems like everything is in contradicition to each other.

[Jim Fenton]

I think it works perfectly the way it is Fabs.

The trail behind the bill shows where it's been (along with the position of the bird of course) and without a doubt, we know where it's going.

The splash and bill trail are what makes it work for me.

[Sid Garige]

IMO this is a keeper. Nice waves and action represents a complete story.

[Kurtis Diffenbaugh]

I think it's fine, not perfect, but it has enough going for it that it works.....though I'm not a believer that a photo has to be technically perfect either to be a good or great photo and I like behavioral style shots a lot.

[Bob Pelkey]

Aside from the skimmer being one of my favorite birds to observe, you've got it here with great contrast and action. I like the apparent impending conflict between the bird and wave as well.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hey Fabs,
Since you asked for honest opinion, this doesn't work for me as an avian shot, but it is a nice photo to keep the memory and the pleasure of shooting it. BTW did the best from your position, sure you got many excellent ones with head towards you!!!

[Tony Whitehead]

If it were mine I would keep for the personal memory for the things it shows well but doesn't work well enough as a whole to display.:(

[Doug Brown]

I would have to vote no on this one. The image/action is not compelling enough to make up for what we can't see but would like to.

[Fabs Forns]

Thanks everyone for your comments. As I had suspected, the majority didn't care for it, but I was surprised to find so many Yes.
The eye is perfectly visible in the original file. The splash gets it lost at this size, though.
Since I asked you all your opinion, only fair I give you mine :)
For me it's a keeper, behavior and setting weighting more than rules or expectations to my taste.
Nonetheless, I hope it was an interesting discussion and again, thanks to all who commented or voted.

[Roger Clark]

The eye is perfectly visible in the original file. The splash gets it lost at this size, though.

Hi Fabs,

This shows the weakness of web viewing. If the eye is perfectly visible in the full size image, a large print could be quite impressive. In that case, I would probably change my vote. Some large format (film) images and digital mosaics can have incredible detail that draws one into the scene when printed 30x40 but in 8x10 or smaller web images are just boring. Such images will never have the impact on the web. And this is becoming more a factor with single digital images where with 15+ megapixels the fine details get lost on the web. In my galleries, I sometimes include a 2nd images that is zoomed in to the eyes so people can see the detail.

Roger

[John McNamara]

Depends on the audience. Eyes of a child - probably not. Too much would need to be explained. To a birder or naturalist who knows skimmers, this can stand on it's own. We bring our experiences with us and they color our world. Skimmers usually feed on more placid surfaces, I'm surprised to see it feeding in the surf zone. I prefer to see interesting behavior rather than just a 'pretty picture'. I really like it, even without the eye being visible.

John McNamara