Does anyone know what the appendages (on both sides of its beak) are?

Never mind. Just now realized that the “appendages” are actually the wide sides at the base of its beak.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo

You are aware that the OP isn't the photographer, right?

Jim

Since I originally hastily viewed and responded, no, I missed that fact. Thank you for alerting me. Had I followed the link or noticed the watermark in the lower corner of the photo I would have known it was already protected.

This proves I should not do my leisure reading the same way that I read my work e-mails.

wow. what a shot!

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Does anyone know what the appendages (on both sides of its beak) are?

Those are jowl lines. He's an old bird.

One of those moments where everything works out.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
That’s a very nice photo. I wonder how much of the original that was cropped from? A 100mm lens isn’t going to reach out all that far and he had to be far enough away otherwise ole baldy there was literally right on top of him.

The guy probably had a 400 or a 600, and if he had a crop sensor, like a Nikon D500, he's 1.5x that.

This was shot during a photoshoot. There were several other photographers there and the eagle was trained to fly on demand.

quote:

Originally posted by mas4363:
This was shot during a photoshoot. There were several other photographers there and the eagle was trained to fly on demand.

very well could have been ,
but I had a great horned owl do a very similar thing to me and dad , while we were fishing on a lake in Missouri.

we saw him in a dead tree at the end of a cove,
watching the water,

and then he hopped off and "came right at us"

only he pulled up and went right above us,
cool thing was , there was no w o o o o o sh as he went by , from the air disturbance.

In terms of composition, I see a mess. Do any pro or former pro or advanced amateur photographers agree?

Do any graphic artists or painters agree?

here's another way to do it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a36RA7rdsU

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
In terms of composition, I see a mess. Do any pro or former pro or advanced amateur photographers agree?

Do any graphic artists or painters agree?

Far, far, far from a photography expert. Looking forward to all replies to this post by experts. I'm seeing a great photograph?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
In terms of composition, I see a mess. Do any pro or former pro or advanced amateur photographers agree?

Do any graphic artists or painters agree?

From an artistic standpoint, it doesn’t follow any of the “rules” for good composition...

Of course there are always those images that are compelling because of the subject matter (I think this counts because of the unusual reflection and viewpoint), but good composition is what makes an image a success, regardless of the subject matter.

Bill R

quote:

Originally posted by stylophiles:
From an artistic standpoint, it doesn’t follow any of the “rules” for good composition...

Of course there are always those images that are compelling because of the subject matter (I think this counts because of the unusual reflection and viewpoint), but good composition is what makes an image a success, regardless of the subject matter.

Bill R

A quick and half ass example, I found this shot online.



Compelling subject matter, and so clearly a “good photo”

A different crop, however can add a better composition to the image, and then you get Both the compelling subject matter and more “art”....



All that said, I still like the eagle picture!

Bill R

I went boating last weekend, looked up, and saw a bald eagle. My 6 year old son pokes around under the tree and finds a bunch of eagle feathers, that he totes back to the boat.

I freak the f out as I know that possession of Eagle feathers is a big ass no no. Make my kid go and put all the feathers back.

Beautiful birds.

Such an amazing picture.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
In terms of composition, I see a mess. Do any pro or former pro or advanced amateur photographers agree?

Do any graphic artists or painters agree?

Also not a compositional master, but: The composition violates the rule of thirds. But I find strict symmetry to have an appeal all its own.

would be interested on Para's thoughts re: Garry Winogrand's work

https://www.google.com/search?...igB&biw=1159&bih=784

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
In terms of composition, I see a mess. Do any pro or former pro or advanced amateur photographers agree?

Do any graphic artists or painters agree?

The Canon 100mm macro has an f-stop of 2.8.

When I see this photo, I wonder why he was shooting at 7.1? A wider aperture would have resulted in more background blurring, isolating the subject, and let him shoot with a lower ISO. Wide open at 2.8 would have been risky, but there a lot of birders who shot between 5.6 and 4.5. The 5D Mark IV can shoot up to 1/8000 of second, so it's not that he can't get his shutter speed up higher.

^^^^^^^^
Re: “When I see this photo, I wonder why he was shooting at 7.1?”
Probably because he set the camera to full-auto mode. Many folks do that nowadays.