What would you do??
What would you do here - Fix the eye? Replace from another Frame?? leave as it is??
All frames were with the membrane covering the eye - Dont know if this behaviour is possible with the eye open?
D3S
sigmonster @800mm
1/320th
F10
+1.0 EV
3200 ISO
Matrix Metering
Tripod
Cropped and sharpened a tad.
Interested to here opinions :)
Would replace with one that has membrane open ;) unless you know for sure that such behavior is not possible and will make the photo unnatural.
New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html
------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog
http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog
Another vote for replacing as long as the image is for personal use ... printing for home/office, posting disclosing etc ... btw might post in the Avian ID/behavior, John might know !!!
I like getting things in camera as is but there are some you just need to take advantage of the technology !!!
Lance - maybe its the uniqueness or the behavior capture but I like it as presented.
Hi Lance, Would take Al's path. Great shot of a not so common bird.(at least to me)
Hello Lance,
I also agree with Al's stance - to me the key is disclosure - then it doesn't really matter what you do!!
Best,
Nicki
I'd probably leave it as is. If every single shot of a yawn also has the nictating membrane down, then that's pretty good evidence that the two are correlated generally. So it really comes down in my mind to whether you want an accurate depiction of nature or a slightly misleading, but more emotionally appealing picture.
Bill
I agree with Al; replace the eye if possible (and disclose), but it's too bad all of the frames show the membrane. It does detract from an otherwise handsome image. I would be interested to know if there is indeed a correlation between the membrane and the yawn (if that's what it is).
I'd leave it as is. This is the way you captured your subject. Or maybe taken another shot, but inserting an eye? BTW miss my Sigmoster!!!!!
Regards
interesting I have a number of grackle pictures with the same presentation. It is probably more common than we thought but with better capture etc we see it more often
I can't imagine there would be much call for images with the nictating membrane shown, other than in an article in a magazine discussing protective measures animals use to protect their eyes. Otherwise, the best avian images would seem to me, need certain esthetic qualities.
For example, a turkey vulture image with a clean head, and one entrails draped across the head after he pulls it out from a carcass. Sure, the entrails are natural and that is what turkey vultures do, but do you want your viewers to be nauseated?
The nictating membrane exposed also hides on of the most important aspects of avian images; the eyes. Often the eyes are first thing a viewer keys in on, and do you really want your viewer to see a milky gray eyeball?
I wouldn't have a problem cloning an eye from another image, but if the reflections and highlights are wrong, it may causes a problem. Best if from frames shortly before or after the nictation membrane was engaged.
If I was selling prints, which I see more as "art" than a identification photo, I would feel no need to disclose such alteration.
regards~Bill
Just for discussion :)
Is inserting a eye form a different frame any different to say fixing a clipped wing by using a clone from the other wing or a another frame or removing a unwanted element from the BG.
Needs to be disclosed obviously.
I would leave it as is. It's bad luck (for you) and totally natural behavior combined. A clipped wing IMHO is poor framing or better said: unfortunate framing. The membrane in this case is not really. Is it? I guess if you go through the trouble of replacing the eye, then why not the perch and the background?
Hi Akos - do you know if the behavior is possible with the membrane open?? I cannot seem to find a answer in my searches.Originally Posted by Ákos Lumnitzer
Posting Permissions
