I’m pleased to say that we have a new contributor, Colin Franks of Colin Franks Photography (website here, Facebook page here; don’t miss his photos of Cuba). He’s sent in a bunch of lovely bird photos, and I’ll feature a sample this morning; we’ll have more later.
Pileated Woodpecker (Hylatomus pileatus):
Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna):
Great Horned Owl (juveniles; Bubo virginianus):
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus):
American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis):
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias):
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos):
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus):
Wow, gorgeous photos!
Fantastic images!
Thanks for posting these.
The Cuba gallery is a real gem too.
-evan
Owls and eagles! Love that last one especially.
Me too! I came for the legs balancing the action, and stayed for the colors – the eyes mirrors the background.
Me three. I want that on my wall.
I should say that all images are available as canvas or framed prints. (I have my own printing & framing capabilities).
Love these photos! let’s hear it for the birds!
Fantastic photos, Colin!
Lovely photos, thanks.
The Great Horned Owl pair looks like they’ve been caught cheating. “Honey, wait! I can explain … !”
Very close to my first thought–teenagers caught in the act of making out.
“Mom! Dad! What are you doing home?!”
Wow! I look forward to seeing more from Colin. Don’t be shy, ok?
Thanks. The best way to see regular updates is to “like” my separate Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/ColinFranksPhotography
Birds and insects in flight, always the most difficult to take and and most impressive to look a, if successful.
I like all of them, but that Great Horned one in flight is absolutely magnificent! How much effort, patience and skill goes in such a photograph? Prize-winning quality, IMMO.
Those are all fantastic and I love the picture of the Great Blue Heron, a magnificent and under appreciated bird, IMO.
Really good stuff, Colin!
b&
Beautiful!
That one of the owl in flight is spectacular.
Yesterday there were several goldfinches at my seed feeder, but they certainly don’t look like this photo at this time of year. Here in Texas, they just start getting patches of that brilliant yellow color in March or April, then head north and we don’t see them again until the next winter.
Muchas gracias, Colin. You transported me away.
Beautiful birds Colin, the Great Horned owl in flight is jaw-dropping.
I also learned that I’ve been mistaking the identity of woodpeckers I’ve seen around here. After seeing the photo of your Pileated woodpecker I said to myself, that looks like the Red-headed woodpeckers that frequent the dead trees on our property. After some research, I am certain I’ve been mistaking the Red-headed for the Pileated. So thanks too for the correction 🙂
I also wonder if you live in the Northwest, since all the birds are indigenous and relatively common around here.
Thanks Mark. Yes, I’m in the Victoria, BC area on Vancouver Island.
I love Victoria! I had relatives who lived in Sydney on Vancouver Island, and as a kid they were my favorite relatives to visit. Now they’re gone, but great memories. I’ve taken the Clipper from Seattle to Victoria that gets there in a couple hours. Flying on water it seemed to me. Keep the photos coming!
I think you mean “Sidney” (Australia is a ways away – LOL). I grew up in Sidney – what were their names?
Oops…Sidney is correct. Their names were Mildred and Walter Seymour. Mildred died in the 80’s and Walter died in 2000? at the age of 99.
Hmmm, I went to high school with a Mike Seymour(?)
Fabulous, especially the owls and heron. Thank you. 🙂
I have never commented on this before, but it has always seemed to me that many of the nature photos shown on this blog/website over the years have given the appearance of having been photoshopped (by which I mean that the brightness, hue or contrast of the original photo has been adjusted to improve its appearance).
These photos seem to be an exception.
They’re simply beautiful.
That’s not what the verb, “to Photoshop,” typically means. What you describe are standard film / chemical darkroom techniques that have been an essential part of photography from the get-go. “Photoshopping” an image generally indicates the type of compositing that, in the film era, would have required the use of scissors and tape.
Many young photographers go through a “purist” phase in which the goal is “no post-processing.” Never mind all the “manipulations” that happen before you press the shutter release, including perspective and framing and exposure and even when to release the shutter; the engineer who designed the film / sensor had to make all sorts of decisions about what to do about the photons that reach the recording medium. And what makes the engineer’s judgement in setting those parameters superior to your own judgement?
It is possible to, for example, photograph a painting and make a print of the photograph such that it is very difficult to tell which is the original and which is the copy. It is also very difficult to do so and requires a lot of very uncommon knowledge and skill and equipment…and, also, very controlled studio conditions. And the original can’t have any fluorescent or metallic other color-shifting pigments, plus lots of other limitations. No wildlife or nature photographer can even dream of coming remotely close to those sorts of conditions, so the question is always a matter of which compromises make the most sense for that particular photograph — and that’s assuming that the goal is one of reportage as opposed to art. Once you’re no longer giving “just the facts, ma’am” but color commentary and editorial analysis, you’re left with no choice but to draw highlighted attention to whatever you think is most important.
Cheers,
b&
Well put Ben, I concur.
Well, I sort of acknowledged that I was probably using the word “photoshop” incorrectly by adding the bit in brackets explaining more specifically what I was referring to.
I now also acknowledge that many photos require adjustments in brightness, hue and contrast to improve their appearance. I don’t actually object to that as long as it is done properly. But, it takes a particular skill to take a photo that doesn’t require these adjustments.
So, what I meant was that these adjustments have been made is obvious in many (perhaps I should have said “some”) of the nature photos posted here. For example it is sometimes obvious that the contrast has been pushed to extreme. I have done this myself and I am never happy with the result even though it is better than the original.
In these particular photos, I would be surprised if they were “photoshopped” (by my definition). And that requires a particular skill. If they have, he has done a particularly good job of it. And that also requires a particular skill.
Yes, they were all massaged in Photoshop. It is rare that an image doesn’t require a little adjustment, but even if a particular image does require significant adjustments, the result (if it’s a wildlife/landscape/nature type shot) should look “natural”.
Ben is correct; there is no such thing as a “pure” or “natural” digital photo. Once one presses the shutter button, one is recording an image which is the direct exposure interpretation of the camera, and more specifically the engineers who decided how the sensor will translate reality into a digital file. In other words, if you were to take the exact same shot at the exact same time with 10 different cameras, you would get 10 different results. The fact is, a camera’s sensor does not and can not see as well or in the same way as the human eye. But even if it could, the human eye doesn’t see all of reality, so who are we kidding?
But your contempt for the over-cooked, radioactive look which has become ubiquitous with the masses, is shared. I know of one local photographer who has a large following online, and many of his images are terribly processed, but the masses don’t know what constitutes a good or poor photo, and they gush over the most horrendous images, complete with crooked horizons and simulated HDR effects. Gah. Whatyagonna do?
It’s like spices in food or women’s makeup. There are styles where an heavy-handed over-the-top approach is called for, but the most sophisticated examples of the artform are ones where you don’t even realize anything’s been added.
b&
First of all…thanks for the photos (:
And thanks for the reply. I see you used the word “photoshop”. So I guess my definition was not too far off the mark, even though I was not totally happy with it myself as I indicated in both posts.
Well, I can’t argue with an expert in an area in which I am not one. But, whilst reading what you wrote, I wss reminded about the making of “Lord Of The Rings” from about ten years ago. They showed before and after versions of parts of the movie, and ther the difference was astounding.
So, I guess you are right, it takes great expertise to both take a good picture and then to photoshop it in a way that does the subject credit, and probably one depends on the other.
As for the overcooked look…well, thats actually what prompted my comment, so I’m glad we agree on that. (: