Osprey returning to nest with dinner

On 8/7/2012 6:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:11:12 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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,
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.

I don't think you read my comment with understanding. I said that a)
PSA has not relaxed the rules on cloning, but, b) my camera club's
competitions would accept a version with the left speaker cropped out
(no requirement for a standard ratio) and a clone of the right speaker
(as the Duck did)

..

Then I certainly misunderstood, or forgot your statement about your
club. However, the PSA now has a creative category that allows only
images with "altered reality."

http://www.psa-photo.org/divisions/cpid/individual-creative-comp/


The club rules are pretty much on the honor system. If the submitter
doesn't think he/she significantly altered, it would pass.

There recently was a sick situation in another club, where a member
submitted work that was not his, in a national competition. He would
have been ranked the top shooter on LI, but was stripped of all his
winnings. I call it "sick" because the grand prize was about $250.



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.

agreed.


--

PeterN

On 8/7/2012 5:25 PM, James Silverton wrote:
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!


Well it now takes me all night to do once, what I used to do all night.
(Journalistic latitude taken.)

--

PeterN

On 2012-08-07 12:11:12 -0700, PeterN said:

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.

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/7/2012 7:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-07 12:11:12 -0700, PeterN said:

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.

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa



No! They are trying to evolve. I'v repeated a prior link. We would not
have to wait for the reality of your image to submit it in the proper
PSA category.

Well Done Image BTW, though the cloud on the right side is distracting.

http://www.psa-photo.org/divisions/cpid/individual-creative-comp/

--

PeterN

On 2012-08-07 19:53 , Savageduck wrote:

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa

I didn't think they ate fish.



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

On 2012-08-08 06:21:42 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-08-07 19:53 , Savageduck wrote:

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa

I didn't think they ate fish.

Hell! They'll eat anything.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:21:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-08-07 19:53 , Savageduck wrote:

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa

I didn't think they ate fish.

One of the vernacular names for the osprey is the "fish hawk".

A-

On 2012-08-08 16:37 , Chemiker wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:21:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-08-07 19:53 , Savageduck wrote:

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa

I didn't think they ate fish.

One of the vernacular names for the osprey is the "fish hawk".

You did look at the link?


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

On 2012-08-08 15:00:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-08-08 16:37 , Chemiker wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:21:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-08-07 19:53 , Savageduck wrote:

Damn! Are these CC fuddy-duddies trying to take the fun out of PS?
http://db.tt/P4xMpAXa

I didn't think they ate fish.

One of the vernacular names for the osprey is the "fish hawk".

You did look at the link?

I guess it is time for an update for the Peterson or Audubon field guides.

(Though I have found myself using iBird Pro 6 for the iPhone and iPad,
not free but very good and informative.
http://ibird.com/products/iphone-ipod-touch/pro )



--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

My comment wasn't intended to address the ethical or legal issues of editing.
What I question is the notion that the speakers have to be cropped or cloned
out. They were there before the birds were and are therefore part of the
birds' natural environment. That they built their nest there - and are
evidently willing to tolerate the noise - is interesting in its own right. A
possibly related fact is that various birds of prey seem increasingly willing
to consider developed areas of large cities to be a suitable habitat.

Bob