Osprey returning to nest with dinner

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

me wrote:

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

I hope the speakers don't keep the chicks up.

--
Neil

On 8/5/2012 11:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).


Nice capture. The first is a strong image. Shame the speakers get in the
way. They make the shot ineligible as a PSA nature shot. Cloning them
out would make the first a lot stronger, but if you decide to play,
don't enter the image in a PSA competition.

--
Peter

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:39:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: On 8/5/2012 11:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg
:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg
:
: Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).
:
:
: Nice capture. The first is a strong image. Shame the speakers get in the
: way. They make the shot ineligible as a PSA nature shot. Cloning them
: out would make the first a lot stronger, but if you decide to play,
: don't enter the image in a PSA competition.

I don't understand that. I'm guessing that nobody told the ospreys to build
their nest there. So why is it less natural than if it were in a tree or on a
rock outcropping? It's probably a pretty good location: good visibility and
easy to defend from all but airborne predators.

Bob

On 8/6/2012 10:09 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:39:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: On 8/5/2012 11:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg
:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg
:
: Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).
:
:
: Nice capture. The first is a strong image. Shame the speakers get in the
: way. They make the shot ineligible as a PSA nature shot. Cloning them
: out would make the first a lot stronger, but if you decide to play,
: don't enter the image in a PSA competition.

I don't understand that. I'm guessing that nobody told the ospreys to build
their nest there. So why is it less natural than if it were in a tree or on a
rock outcropping? It's probably a pretty good location: good visibility and
easy to defend from all but airborne predators.

Bob


I don't agree with that rule either. PSA is in transition, as are camera
clubs. IIRC Tony Cooper's camera club only permits extensive editing in
their creative category. My CC permits any amount of editing.


--
Peter

On 2012-08-07 10:58:13 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:18:19 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/6/2012 10:09 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:39:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: On 8/5/2012 11:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg
:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg
:
: Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).
:
:
: Nice capture. The first is a strong image. Shame the speakers get in the
: way. They make the shot ineligible as a PSA nature shot. Cloning them
: out would make the first a lot stronger, but if you decide to play,
: don't enter the image in a PSA competition.

I don't understand that. I'm guessing that nobody told the ospreys to build
their nest there. So why is it less natural than if it were in a tree or on a
rock outcropping? It's probably a pretty good location: good visibility and
easy to defend from all but airborne predators.

Bob


I don't agree with that rule either. PSA is in transition, as are camera
clubs. IIRC Tony Cooper's camera club only permits extensive editing in
their creative category. My CC permits any amount of editing.

If the PSA rules are in transition, no slack in the area of
manipulation is apparent: "In the interest of credibility,
photographs that misrepresent the truth, such as manipulation to alter
the subject matter, or situations which are set up for the purpose of
photography, are unacceptable in Photojournalism competition. No
elements may be moved, cloned, added, deleted, rearranged or combined.
No manipulation or modification is permitted except resizing,
sharpening, cropping, selective lightening or darkening, and
restoration or original color of the scene. No special effect filters
can be applied. Any adjustments must appear natural."

The top image - http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg would be
accepted in the Color (non-creative) category at my CC with the
speaker on the left cropped out of the image and the speaker on the
right cloned out. That wouldn't be considered to be a change that
significantly alters the image. If that fish in osprey's claws was
from another image, that would be a clear example of significant
alteration.

Do you mean something like this?
http://db.tt/E1Umxus4



I can't see anyone submitting the other image for competition or
bothering to do a lot of post on it. It's a good catch for the
photographer, but it's not a competition-worthy image.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/7/2012 1:58 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:18:19 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/6/2012 10:09 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:39:05 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: On 8/5/2012 11:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
: On 2012-08-05 10:21 , me wrote:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg
:
: http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg
:
: Nice, esp. the first one (other than the cropped wing tip).
:
:
: Nice capture. The first is a strong image. Shame the speakers get in the
: way. They make the shot ineligible as a PSA nature shot. Cloning them
: out would make the first a lot stronger, but if you decide to play,
: don't enter the image in a PSA competition.

I don't understand that. I'm guessing that nobody told the ospreys to build
their nest there. So why is it less natural than if it were in a tree or on a
rock outcropping? It's probably a pretty good location: good visibility and
easy to defend from all but airborne predators.

Bob


I don't agree with that rule either. PSA is in transition, as are camera
clubs. IIRC Tony Cooper's camera club only permits extensive editing in
their creative category. My CC permits any amount of editing.

If the PSA rules are in transition, no slack in the area of
manipulation is apparent: "In the interest of credibility,
photographs that misrepresent the truth, such as manipulation to alter
the subject matter, or situations which are set up for the purpose of
photography, are unacceptable in Photojournalism competition. No
elements may be moved, cloned, added, deleted, rearranged or combined.
No manipulation or modification is permitted except resizing,
sharpening, cropping, selective lightening or darkening, and
restoration or original color of the scene. No special effect filters
can be applied. Any adjustments must appear natural."

The top image - http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg would be
accepted in the Color (non-creative) category at my CC with the
speaker on the left cropped out of the image and the speaker on the
right cloned out. That wouldn't be considered to be a change that
significantly alters the image. If that fish in osprey's claws was
from another image, that would be a clear example of significant
alteration.

So would cloning out the speakers.
When i made my comment, I was referring to the Nature Division, which
currently has rules similar to those in the PJ division.
The rule revisions referred to are related to the extent of permissible
adjustments for exposure compensation, sharpness and blurring. I have
heard noting about reality changes.





I can't see anyone submitting the other image for competition or
bothering to do a lot of post on it. It's a good catch for the
photographer, but it's not a competition-worthy image.





--
Peter

On 8/6/2012 7:57 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
me wrote:

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

I hope the speakers don't keep the chicks up.


In my younger days I would try to keep the chick up all night, if possible.
Wait, Oh! you mean THAT kind of chick.

--
Peter

On 8/7/2012 3:11 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/6/2012 7:57 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
me wrote:

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4947_1024.jpg

http://edwardgruf.com/_DSC4950_1024.jpg

I hope the speakers don't keep the chicks up.


In my younger days I would try to keep the chick up all night, if possible.
Wait, Oh! you mean THAT kind of chick.


"Keep...up all night"; surely not!

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.