5 birds

[fjrabon]

DSCF1094 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

 

[Rick50]

I would crop this in quite a bit. Lots of unused space. Have to look for the birds.

 

[Derrel]

I'll admit it...I cannot positively identify a fifth bird...

 

[Gary A.]

I found five.

 

[fjrabon]

I'll admit it...I cannot positively identify a fifth bird...

5th is bottom left

 

[fjrabon]

I would crop this in quite a bit. Lots of unused space. Have to look for the birds.

That's the point

 

[Rick50]

I would crop this in quite a bit. Lots of unused space. Have to look for the birds.

That's the point

Funny. Boy did I miss this one.

 

[fjrabon]

I would crop this in quite a bit. Lots of unused space. Have to look for the birds.

That's the point

Funny. Boy did I miss this one.

I think we see so many straight ultra zoomed and/or cropped detailed bird shots that we have a way a bird shot should look and what it should do in mind. Ie it should be close cropped, it should be hyper detailed, etc.

I'm not at all interested in those types of shots because lots of people do them much better than I do.

Now whether this shot achieves anything of value, I don't know, but my point was to simply produce something besides the typical birding version of an ARAT shot (the somewhat derisive term the new topographers used for typical landscape shot as "another rock, another tree.") I guess you could call the typical birding shot an ARAB shot "another rock, another bird" but I don't necessarily think of typical birding shots as bad, I just have no interest in producing them.

I think this image also probably needs a large viewing to really do much, as it is very detailed, so the detail on the birds are there, if you look closely. I thought it looked great on my 27" hi res monitor. I think it falls flat on the default viewing size for TPF.

I guess the success or failure of the image for a viewer boils down to whether or not the viewer is enticed to look closer and get "the viewers share." Ie the "reward for looking closely at a more subtle photo. If you weren't enticed to look more closely the image failed for you, I suppose and I will need to consider ways to entice you to look more closely, to the extent making it succeed for you is a goal.

 

[Rick50]

Got it. You make a good point about size. If you click on it you get a bigger a size and a better picture. And this opens up a whole new area.
And I can find all 5 birds.....

 

[Derrel]

I'll admit it...I cannot positively identify a fifth bird...

5th is bottom left

oh, so that's not a leaf...

 

[fjrabon]

I'll admit it...I cannot positively identify a fifth bird...

5th is bottom left

oh, so that's not a leaf...

I think bird 5 is borderline unfair, which was kinda my little joke with the title. Perhaps gimmicky.

 

[Derrel]

i thought the fifth bird MIGHT possibly have been the object at the far right edge of the photo, almost exactly halfway up from the bottom. That looks like it could be a black bird's wing and head, seen against the shadows of the tree behind. I saw the bird-like shape on the ground, and also the one underneath the tree to the right of center, but neither really registered with a positive ID of "bird!"

 

[Gary A.]

Bottom left ...? Nevermind, I've found four.

 

[fjrabon]

Bottom left ...? Nevermind, I've found four.

I thought about cloning the two leaves in the bottom middle out. To me the "reward" one is the one on the right in front of the tree.