Lagopus Leucurus found above treeline in a rocky basin.

-- Micheal Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), October 25, 1998

Answers

It's a great nature shot, showing how well the bird blends in with its surroundings. Of course that makes it less of an "impact" shot, but in cases like this you can't really have both.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), October 26, 1998.

A nice shot although somewhat centered. I don't prefer the top right corner, too bright. Bird's pose is nice.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), October 27, 1998.

I wonder if nature photography has gotten to the point that a simple photo that illustrates the animal well is just not good enough. I though about it before I put this shot up. Is it really necessary, in this age, to get a good and artistic shot for it to be acceptable? What I am trying ot say is that if all of the standard illustrative shots have been taken is the ante up now, such that a good nature shot has to be more than technically good?

-- Micheal Kelly (Kellys@alaska.net), October 27, 1998.

It depends on the use. If you wanted an illustration for an article, or a picture for a field guide, this would be an excellent shot. If you wanted "wall art" for a poster, it probably wouldn't be the one to chose.

-- Bob Atkins (bob atkins@hotmail.com), October 27, 1998.

Since this is an image critique forum, the expected treatment of the images is just that. As Bob has pointed out, whether or not technically or estathically ( SP?!) the image is acceptable depends entirely upon its intended use. I don't see this necessarily the domain of the critic to decide. His/her efforts should be applied to discussing the attributes and/or flaws of the image to be critiqued.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), October 27, 1998.

I see your point Paul, but I guess I am asking if Nature Photography, even for an illustration in bird book, needs to be at a higher level to be acceptable today because of all the good shots out there. Is not our perception of what is good partly based on what the reference standard is? In a recent Outdoor Photography mag column by Galen Rowell he showed a shot of a wild wolverine. Since it is so hard to get a shot of a wild wolverine you might be a little easy on the critique. But other animals have been shot well by many people. Doesn't this raise our expectations of what makes a good photograph?

-- Micheal Kelly (Kellys@alaska.net), October 27, 1998.

I think that part of the judging process for the PSA nature catagory is based on whether the image "tells a story" about its subject. In the case of this image it does it well, it illustrates the way the animal blends into its environment. So under PSA rules, this is a very good image.

Commercially I suppose image standards have risen over the years because the shear number of images now available makes it very likely that some of them are really good, plus technical standards, lens quality, film quality, exposure accuracy (AE)and focus accuracy (AF) have all contributed to better (technical) quality images.

-- Bob Atkins (bob_atkins@hotmail.com), October 27, 1998.

Michael, you raise a very interesting question. Since most of the pictures that could be made have already been made in many ways I think you are right that the "stakes indeed have become higher". Still, I have never in my life seen a bird like this and it's interesting how it blends with the background. While perhaps artistically not the most pleasing, I am really glad you posted it here! The bright upper right corner could easily be darkened either in photoshop or if you custom print it with some heavy dodging.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), November 01, 1998.

This is a great photo, which demonstrates the birds camoflage fabulously. I dont think that the bright right hand corner matters. Has anybody any idea what the plant is in the bottom of the photo?

-- David Bertioli (david@cenargen.embrapa.br), November 25, 1998.