My thanks to the five PF members that took the time to comment: that's 6 reviews this week!!! All comments are welcome, good and bad. The Golden Eagle shot was not one of the ones I put in to the gallery out of curiosity - to see if they spoke to others. This shot is one I took "for me". http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/talbot.html There is no part of the original slide I'm unhappy with - it came out how it was planned. What the shot does not convey is the bitter cold: the snow in the shadows. The perspective was chosen to enable me to use a smaller aperture yet still keep the background out of focus - simple when the background is a long way away. The separation (selective focus) works for me. A) The question raised by Kostas and Emily - contrast with the background. I've thought about this for a couple of days. A possibility would be to selectively darken the background (imperceptibly) in PhotoShop. However, I have my doubts. The reason for taking shots "on location" is to get a photo that looks natural. This is how the eagle looked: it is how a wild eagle would look - facing into the bracing wind. Most of the time it just looked straight ahead: this shot caught the alert expression as it caught sight of something behind me. B) The question of space. Emily quoted Galen Rowel, Kostas thinks too little, Craig says the composition is fine. It's not a debate: the space around the bird and that beautiful background in front of it works for me. A tighter crop on the bird would to me look - well, like many photos of birds I have seen before ;o) I honestly don't worry overly what others, however great, have said. If you follow rules too closely you get formulaic results ... The highlight in the eye (Emily). On the slide and even full scale scan it's there. As shown in the gallery the pupil is less than a pixel. The whole eye gets only half a dozen. Its a restriction of the medium I'm afraid. C) Finally, when Marilyn commented: "No one would ever know this was a captive bird if you hadn't told us". Indeed. If it was obvious I would not have needed to say so. It comes down to credibility and honesty. There are all too many charlatans about these days pasting zoo animals on to landscapes and passing them off as other than what they are. For many that is not an issue. However, in truth it is deception: if they sell the images as such it is fraud. This particular bird has appeared in a book of photos of "wild" eagles by a famous Scottish photographer. The owner of the bird is rare in that he does not fit "jesses" to the legs, but just a single thin string (left leg) which is easy to conceal behind a twig. D) It's a captive bird, not a pet. Given the chance it would tear the flesh off your arm. Bob T Full comments listed below. Craig - This is a great mug shot! Composition couldn't be better, and I really like the separation between the eagle and the background. Lighting, exposure is excellent. Another great shot. Marilyn Golden Eagle: I love the selective focus you used with this photograph, Bob. Every feather on the Golden Eagle is in focus, yet the background is a soft, brown blur. No one would ever know this was a captive bird if you hadn't told us. A very nice shot. Gregory Spectacular shot right down to the perfect background. Beautiful birdie. I love that golden left eye. Spectacular. Kostas hmm, what if there was a lot more contrast with the background? how about a bit more FOV? Emily Grownup or baby? I'm wishing there were more contrast, to accentuate the powerfulness of this creature. Somehow it looks so mild when the mythology is of such dominance. A hairlight along the breastline and catchlight in the eye maybe? And maybe get rid of all that space to the right of it, since it's looking at us. (Galen Rowell always said that one should have space for a face to be facing towards.....) That would move the balance into a wedge shape - the rock ascending to the hind claws and the tailfeathers descending to the hind claws.
