Another Alaska Eagle

[RodneyBlair]

I do not see that the eagle has more presence in the edited versions with blue sky. It lacks lighting. Many photographers use flash extenders for this type of shot.

Rodney

I seriously doubt that a wildlife photographer would be within flash distance of the eagle. If that were the case, you could be sure that the eagle would be:
1. gone
2. not looking away from the photographer

I pick #1.

[RodneyBlair]

Alrighty, Mr. Moderator. I don't make this chit up. Why don't you do a little reading on some of the techniques that bird shooters use.

I wasn't suggesting that a flash be used for this shot anyway. My comment was to make a point and that point was, you need light and many wildlife photographers have learned to use them with extenders in the environment. And yes, experienced wildlife shooters can get pretty dang close to their subjects.

[Jake D]

[RodneyBlair]

Jake D wrote:

I thought mikevet was asking what could be done for this shot. Jeez rodneyblair, you don't like your opinion being questioned do you? And I see you have enough of them. Do you do anything besides critique on these boards? The only pics I could find that you took were of little boys. What's that about?

I like the original here too. Just mean there are plenty of options to edit, and plenty of detail there to work with if that's what you're after. I still think having some contrast between the bald head (the eagle's) and the sky is better than an eyeball floating in space.

As far as a fill flash, it looks like a pretty chunky distance. I'd try making an "extender" out of cardboard and tinfoil before I dropped 40 bucks.

My comment that was questioned was about the use of flash with an extender which is not an opinion. It is a fact which I shared here.

The eagle has no more presence in the edited versions(including mine) no matter how you want to slice it. Anyone who cannot see this simply lacks the necessary skills.

I fail to see where I've shared an opinion here.

Rodney

[Old Codger]

Please. Let's critique the photo in question and not critique the critiques.:roll:

[KENNETHD]

Heh...heh...just finished a confusing duet of Mac computers and photoshop, at my digital photo class, (I'm a PC man) squint through all this and feel right at home! My regret is that altho I have some good ideas, it's not possible to elaborate to the degree I'd like to, because photoshop and I are still only aquaintances, and not really bosom buddies. I like the idea Stitchbabe hit on, and after seeing some of the things done in class tonight, I think layers might be used to some advantage. That eagle looks just fine the way he is, in the first post, to me. I don't think seeing more or less of him is an issue, and sharpening doesn't leave me speechless. I think the background and white sky might be subtracted, and either a wilderness scene or mountain could be layered in. (If my terminology isn't correct, I'm sure you get the drift) but with your permission, I'd like to take this to my next class and offer it for suggestions, as much for my education, as to give you ideas. Thanks, best regards,

KennethD

[Jake D]

[JimC]

Let's stick to talking about the photos. That way, we can all learn from each other.

This thread is going elsewhere, and it's now closed.

Let's try to Be Civil.