4 ms·

That winning photograph with the bird in front of the solar eclipse is really incredible. I wasn't sure if it was real or not (some photography competitions wil

That winning photograph with the bird in front of the solar eclipse is really incredible. I wasn't sure if it was real or not (some photography competitions will allow composites stitched together in photoshop). But the photographer uploaded a video on YouTube of him taking the photo, and just looking at the environment (he's in a small boat off the coast of Mexico) you can see it really did require a remarkable amount of planning. And I think it is indeed a real photograph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voTNPeHR7Jc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voTNPeHR7Jc

regera 1y ago
Thanks for sharing, can't imagine how bird photographers devote weeks to plan for a single shot - may seem extreme. Being in the right location at the right time is the key. Wow! This skill is often underrated. World is moving faster than ever. Another underrated skill is quick-decision making.
gyomu 1y ago
For anyone curious, the competition rules are here: https://www.birdpoty.com/rules https://www.birdpoty.com/rules "With the exception of HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, and in-camera multiple exposures, composited images or AI-generated images are not permitted in any category. Sky swapping or removal of objects through cloning, for example, is not permitted."
lofaszvanitt 1y ago
[flagged]
- eru 1y ago
  > As an added plus: nobody cares how the photographer took the shot. On one leg, in a boat before eaten by a shark, whilst taking a dump, on top of an elephant, whatever. The photo must speak for itself. Just like you check a painting and if you like it at first sight, if it talks to you, then that's a good painting by your standards. So check the painting, do not read any added text. If it's good, it's good. If you need description, then it's not a good shot. Some people connect with the history and context of a piece. There's a reason the real Mona Lisa is worth considerably more than even the most faithful reproduction. Just to be clear: I'm not saying that _you_ have to care about context. Nor that caring about context is good (or bad). I'm just saying that many people do care about context.
  - lofaszvanitt 1y ago
    People nowadays do not have any means to connect with whatever. They see a picture somewhere and they only see the picture, and maybe the name of the artist. So the piece has to talk for itself. You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, or any other heavily marketed artwork. And in terms of pricing. It's all a game.
    - eru 1y ago
      > You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, [...] Long queues in the Louvre disagree.
      - lofaszvanitt 1y ago
        Is that the original or an almost perfect copy?
        eru 1y ago
        That's an interesting question! I believe it's the original. But it would be fun to think about an (almost) perfect copy hanging there. For a case in point: the British museum has the original Rosetta stone. Complete with long queues and keeping visitors at a respectable distance. In the same building, the British museum also has a very good copy of the Rosetta stone. That copy just stands there without any case around it, you can just go and touch it.
SwtCyber 1y ago
Cool to see that kind of effort rewarded in a space often dominated by post-processing tricks
- ghaff 1y ago
  It's not even a new thing. I remember an article, in Outside maybe, about the controversy around how many photos in the wildlife/landscape space were heavily post-processed in various way. I had a friend who prided himself in his (very good) nature photography and he got quite discouraged with respect to nature photography contests when so many people weren't stopped taking photos "out of the camera."
baxtr 1y ago
Stunning image. Although, having experienced a solar eclipse and the associated hysteria around protective glasses, I wonder how risky it was for his eyesight to look through a magnifying lens.
- pgalvin 1y ago
  It looks like he is using an EOS R5, in the video he uploaded of him taking the photo. This is a mirrorless camera (very common nowadays) so the viewfinder is merely an LED screen with a live video.
tecleandor 1y ago
Wow, the photo burst was insane...

regera 1y ago

Thanks for sharing, can't imagine how bird photographers devote weeks to plan for a single shot - may seem extreme. Being in the right location at the right time is the key. Wow! This skill is often underrated. World is moving faster than ever. Another underrated skill is quick-decision making.

gyomu 1y ago

For anyone curious, the competition rules are here: https://www.birdpoty.com/rules https://www.birdpoty.com/rules "With the exception of HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, and in-camera multiple exposures, composited images or AI-generated images are not permitted in any category. Sky swapping or removal of objects through cloning, for example, is not permitted."

lofaszvanitt 1y ago

[flagged]

eru 1y ago
> As an added plus: nobody cares how the photographer took the shot. On one leg, in a boat before eaten by a shark, whilst taking a dump, on top of an elephant, whatever. The photo must speak for itself. Just like you check a painting and if you like it at first sight, if it talks to you, then that's a good painting by your standards. So check the painting, do not read any added text. If it's good, it's good. If you need description, then it's not a good shot. Some people connect with the history and context of a piece. There's a reason the real Mona Lisa is worth considerably more than even the most faithful reproduction. Just to be clear: I'm not saying that _you_ have to care about context. Nor that caring about context is good (or bad). I'm just saying that many people do care about context.
- lofaszvanitt 1y ago
  People nowadays do not have any means to connect with whatever. They see a picture somewhere and they only see the picture, and maybe the name of the artist. So the piece has to talk for itself. You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, or any other heavily marketed artwork. And in terms of pricing. It's all a game.
  - eru 1y ago
    > You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, [...] Long queues in the Louvre disagree.
    - lofaszvanitt 1y ago
      Is that the original or an almost perfect copy?
      - eru 1y ago
        That's an interesting question! I believe it's the original. But it would be fun to think about an (almost) perfect copy hanging there. For a case in point: the British museum has the original Rosetta stone. Complete with long queues and keeping visitors at a respectable distance. In the same building, the British museum also has a very good copy of the Rosetta stone. That copy just stands there without any case around it, you can just go and touch it.

SwtCyber 1y ago

Cool to see that kind of effort rewarded in a space often dominated by post-processing tricks

ghaff 1y ago
It's not even a new thing. I remember an article, in Outside maybe, about the controversy around how many photos in the wildlife/landscape space were heavily post-processed in various way. I had a friend who prided himself in his (very good) nature photography and he got quite discouraged with respect to nature photography contests when so many people weren't stopped taking photos "out of the camera."

baxtr 1y ago

Stunning image. Although, having experienced a solar eclipse and the associated hysteria around protective glasses, I wonder how risky it was for his eyesight to look through a magnifying lens.

pgalvin 1y ago
It looks like he is using an EOS R5, in the video he uploaded of him taking the photo. This is a mirrorless camera (very common nowadays) so the viewfinder is merely an LED screen with a live video.

tecleandor 1y ago

Wow, the photo burst was insane...