American Avocet Mother with 2 Chicks Under Her Wings

Here's picture of an American avocet mother, warming a chick under each wing, which I photographed on Monday, at the Palo Alto Baylands. (Note the extra feet.)



The weather was uncooperative, so I'll be going back, to get better shots, soon.

This was made with a canon 1Ds Mark II, with a 600 f/4 IS lens, with a 2x tele-extender. It was shot wide open (f/8) at ISO 1,600.

Thanks for looking.

Very nice job, Mike - you made the best of flat light, and came away with a very pleasing image. I especially like the way the curve and detail of its beak is highlighted against the white background, really emphasizing its appeal.

Mike Spinak said:

Here's picture of an American avocet mother, warming a chick under each wing, which I photographed on Monday, at the Palo Alto Baylands. (Note the extra feet.)

The weather was uncooperative, so I'll be going back, to get better shots, soon.

This was made with a canon 1Ds Mark II, with a 600 f/4 IS lens, with a 2x tele-extender. It was shot wide open (f/8) at ISO 1,600.

Click to expand...

Hello Mike,

All your best shots have a sense of careful isolation and here you have done a great job. This 600 mm lens and the extender creates the needed separation from the background in such a gentle way and you have.

As Don points out, you used the light well to achieve that. The special feature of the bird with the chicks is balanced by the fantasy curve of the avocet beak, that one would not believe!

Here's an idea to think about. Why not consider painting in the shading of the feet to bring out the separate identity of chicks versus the mother. Just because the light didn't give that is no reason for not working on this by hand. Ansel Adams went to great lengths to do that with his etching tool.

Also is the amount of space around the picture idea for the photograph's composition. Just challenging you to think about your pictures as a work of your artistic freedom as opposed to a wonderful nature shot.

Asher

Thank you both.

Aesthetically, and also in terms of clearly showing the point of interest in this photo, I think that a painted in shadow could be preferable. However, Id just rather not. For a nature subject, that would be straying further from verisimilitude than my tastes will allow.

I think the amount of space is pretty good, but not ideal. (This is the full vertical height of the picture, by the way, and slightly cropped on the right and left, into a 4:5 ratio.) I would've liked just slightly more space on the top and the bottom, but that was not an option, during the shoot.

I suppose it could be easily achieved in post-processing.

In any case, I will be going back and shooting better, when the weather allows.

Mike Spinak said:

I think the amount of space is pretty good, but not ideal. (This is the full vertical height of the picture, by the way, and slightly cropped on the right and left, into a 4:5 ratio.) I would've liked just slightly more space on the top and the bottom, but that was not an option, during the shoot.

Click to expand...

Mike,

By simply choosing your unique vantage point and none other, you have already determined a highly subjective presentation. This bird was surrounded by a wide space. It would never naturally be confined in a box!

I think it's one thing to frame carefully. That insures that you devote all the pixels you can to the bird. Still, you can also take a wide angle shot. That does not have to have the same richness in detail. after all the brain will demote the b.g. if you have photographed the scene well.

I consider it's a big mistake getting religiously devoted to these artificial framing boxes that are never part of nature. It's out job to develop and build a picture, and not just rely on what the camera shows us, for that's not how we see and experience things. we don't see things normally limited to boxes unless we are looking at an Audobon collection or a birding identification book. In the first instance, you'll immediately have to concede that he allowed an abundance of free space arounf the birds he painted.

Asher

Nice shot Mike.

Asher, why don't you post one of your photos to illustrate your comments, that would be helpful.

Thank you, Bill.

Asher, just to be clear, is your issue the closeness, with isolation of the subject?

I must say that I totally disagree with everything you've said.

If others want to emphasize environmental wildlife photography, with a wide angle lens, they are welcome to do so. There is room and value to both.

I sometimes shoot that way, too, when the environment can be constructed in a meaningful way into a composition that expresses what I want to communicate. (In this case, a wide angle shot would've meant a bad picture.) I shoot the best compositions I see available to me, tight or wide.

However, I don't shoot environmental wildlife photography as often, because ... it's not my preference. I like to shoot close.

Your argument that shooting close is "artificial", because the bird would never be confined in a box, is, in my opinion, without merit..

Your concept that, because I'm showing close-ups, I'm "just relying on what the camera shows us", is not accurate. My pictures are often quite considered, purposeful, and interpretive.

To say "that's not how we see and experience things" is not true. Both close-and-isolated and wide-including-the-environment are ways that we see and experience things. But, the proportion differs for each of us. As for me: a high, very high, proportion of the way I see things is extremely close and isolated; and this works for me photographically.

I intend to further develop and mature this photographic path of presenting interpretive close ups. I intend to mine it deeply, while not watering down my efforts on side avenues that I don't want to, for the sake of others. I can't please everyone, all the time, and I'm fine with that.

I hope you will respect my choices to conduct my photography as I see fit.

“If your photographs aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”
– Robert Capa

Mike, If you go back and look at Asher's comments on various photos, they are always the same. "I would like to see more". Look at the comments on Union Station "How did you gain entrance? Were you doing this for the Railway Station, fun or a client? Also how did you come to take the first picture. " He wants to know the who, what, why and where of each photo. None of that matters unless its a journalistic endeavor. Otherwise its a matter of the photo being presented. You judge a photo on what is being presented, not what's missing or could have been.

In this case you have a excellent caption and no other explanation is necessary.

Bill Miller said:

Nice shot Mike.

Asher, why don't you post one of your photos to illustrate your comments, that would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Bill,

That comment is out of place, at least the tone. But I'll put aside the bite in that remark. It's an important issue you raise, confrontational or not.

A few photographers have made an impression on me that I have visited them in their city and even photographed alongside them. Mike Spinak is just one of those I chose to get to know. So, Bill, I do posses a little measure of understanding of where he is going with his artistic endeavor. Certainly it's sufficient for me to suggest ways to look at his photography to possibly increase it's presentation impact and meaning.

I am not a bird photographer. Mike is! Not only that; he understands what he photographs better than anyone I know. He is embedded spiritually in what he chooses as a subject. His knowledge is not perfunctory but based on many years of devotion. He's at home in the wilderness understanding the nature and flight patterns of birds and the habitat of the most rare flowers. He carries this appreciation of beauty to photographing women and their children.

There's no way I can show my photograph of his experience!

However, the esthetic presentation is another matter. Because I'm so impressed by his work I have visited him several times in San Francisco. We have discussed his ideas extensively. On occasion we have photographed together; a wedding, flowers and just for fun. He has introduced me to rare plant species to photograph. So I do know how he approaches his subjects. So I am in a position to suggest how his work might be shown. That is where my own experience and aesthetics can give feedback. That's where I offer ideas that can be considered.

In future, please don't undermine my input. My ideas are only offerings and easily understood in their context. I have shown previously at least one example you ask for, (using the original photograph for this with permission). Still, you are free to make your own separate comments and give alternative opinions; you certainly have the experience in lighting and photography to do so.

Asher

Asher,

You do not need to show a photo of a bird, it could be of anything that would illustrate the coments. Subject matter does not matter, only your photo illustrating the example you have described in words.

I want to be clear that I have a lot of respect for Asher, as a photographer, as a photo critic, and as a friend.

I see this instance as an exception, which I disagree with; but I still value his commentary.

Bill Miller said:

Asher,

You do not need to show a photo of a bird, it could be of anything that would illustrate the coments. Subject matter does not matter, only your photo illustrating the example you have described in words.

Click to expand...

Bill,

You are being repetitive and confrontational. Feel free to give opinions on work shown or email me privately. I'm answering this openly and I won't say this again.

Asher

Mike Spinak said:

If others want to emphasize environmental wildlife photography, with a wide angle lens, they are welcome to. There is room and value to both.

..........I shoot the best compositions I see available to me, tight or wide.

However, I don't shoot environmental wildlife photography as often, because ... it's not my preference. I like to shoot close.

Your argument that shooting close is "artificial", because the bird would never be confined in a box, is – excuse me for putting it bluntly, but it must be said – a specious argument with no merit whatsoever.

Your concept that, because I'm showing close-ups, I'm "just relying on what the camera shows us", is insulting and false. My pictures are often quite considered, purposeful, and interpretive.

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

I'm glad you have passion behind your decisions! Still, when I visit S.F. in several weeks, we can get together and look at this further in front of a screen. There's a difference between wide angle environmental photography and how your carefully made image is presented. We can discuss it further then. I too get in close. However, presentation is another matter we we can explore together.

Mike Spinak said:

“If your photographs aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”
– Robert Capa

Click to expand...

Mike,

Cappa was the photographer who put himself in the thick of things. If he could do so, he'd be in the scrummage itself. But his work was news reportage and that is what happens, often fast. Your work happens but you plan much more. He was an almost athletic photgrapher at the cutting edge of changing things and able to turn on a dime. You follow the birds and know where they will arrive and so wait for them or go to a favorite place in the woods where a flower might reappear right now.

In news photography, impact is the most important. For you that's essential too but you approach it in a very different way. His pictures take up preciously allocated real estate on a newspaper page, yours have no such limits.

But we need to talk more and have a pencil and sketch pad. Perhaps my ideas here might find favor in a few select circumstances. I think you can do what you wish to do and still have space for nature. One does not need to have the details of it, just the sense. That's my idea and it will be fun to look at this further.

Asher

Folks

can we calm down here?

In the past it happend quite some times that I did dissagree with Asher, even on stronger points that these involoved here. But never, never I used these rough sayings, even privately.

I'm happy and do appreciate that Mike did write the following:

Mike Spinak said:

I want to be clear that I have a lot of respect for Asher, as a photographer, as a photo critic, and as a friend.

I see this instance as an exception, which I disagree with; but I still value his commentary.

Click to expand...

It does show the real way we have always wanted OPF to be, controversial: yes! but polite and friendly!

Pro or amateurs we all share the same love for photography, so please let's keep fully and completely respectfull to each other.

Never, never forget that without Asher, OPF wouldn't be there.

Having different point of views aren't a reason to be harsh.

If Asher hadn't be on the center of this "discussion", I wouldn't have shown the same patience as he did.

Thank you for reading me, let's go back to constructive -and polite!- comments.

Cheers to all!

PS forgot to say that I loved Mike's image at first view some day ago…

I think there has been some misunderstanding that my words were in anger. I'm calm; I was being direct, not trying to be attacking. I do think I remained polite; I stated bluntly that I felt his comments did not have merit, but I did not do anything along the lines of resorting to epithets.

Nonetheless, I can see how my words could've been misinterpreted that way.

I certainly appreciate Asher's efforts and expenditures of resources, hosting and running OPF. And, like I said, I also appreciate him as a fellow photographer, and as a friend.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, Asher's comments are fundamentally criticizing the way I see and what I choose to show, and doing so for (as per the reasons explained in his comments) reasons that I felt false, and unfair. Thus, I do feel that it demanded a vigorous nullification.

That said, I do not want this forum to become a place of nasty argumentation, and I would be glad to edit my comments, to prevent this, if necessary.

Asher, if I have misunderstood, then I apologize, and I welcome you to explain your point of view further, either here, or in person.

Mike Spinak said:

Asher, just to be clear, is your issue the closeness, with isolation of the subject?

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of closeness, but rather of presentation of that closeness you choose in your work. I think we might look at this, you and I when I arrive in S.F. There are really creative possibilities in allowing space but not take anything away from your core ideas and volition.

I must say that I totally disagree with everything you've said, and I will be rejecting your suggestions.

Click to expand...

That's also an important thing to do. No matter what is suggested, each of us must defend vigorously our core artistic constructs. Still, being open to other ideas is not without benefit. I appreciate you considering my offerings even when they seem, at least right now, to fly in opposition to your own vision.

Your art is, after all, a journey and a very personal one at that. I'm someone on the way with offerings. Some may be useful, some not. Each of us has to know our own destination well enough to choose suggestions to value or not. That you do that is what should be happening!

Mike Spinak said:

That said, I do not want this forum to become a place of nasty argumentation, and I would be glad to edit my comments, to prevent this, if necessary.

Asher, if I have misunderstood, then I apologize, and I welcome you to explain your point of view further, either here, or in person.

Click to expand...

Mike
Thanks, that's fair enough to me…

Asher Kelman said:

Mike,

By simply choosing your unique vantage point and none other, you have already determined a highly subjective presentation. This bird was surrounded by a wide space. It would never naturally be confined in a box!

Click to expand...

Mike,

I'm rereading what I wrote. This first point refers to a custom, following the greats like Cappa, who advocated getting into the action and framing closely. For news especially, this works very well. For your intimate pictures, like the 4 hands around the pregnant abdomen, it's view is perfect for it's presentation, after all we are being presented a rich metaphor about responsibility, care and community and nothing more is needed. It looks intimate and that's what it's supposed to be! No borders needed!

This photograph of the Avocet and chicks is perfectly fine as it is.





However, it seems to me that the free space around these whole living creatures is small. That limitation, as far as I can see, provides no extra artistic weight. A large world, however, would seem to protect; they have choice and somewhere to go.

If, instead, the picture was much, much closer, say just including the all the legs and feet in a composition, together, then, like your picture of the hands around the abdomen, there is no need to be so worried about the setting. Getting that close that we are intimate and the rest of the world vanishes. We don't have to worry about it any more.

Here, an entire bird is presented. They now are considered as living things subject and vulnerable to the risks and hazards of wild life. We look at the creatures surroundings and wonder if there might be possible existential threats nearby. Because only a sliver of this outside world is shown, we do not know the birds are safe. By expanding that background and making it essentially empty, we seem to secure a more favorable setting for the bird!

This next comment was not directed to you and was an aside, some general thoughts I have on how we photograph living things. Your picture triggered my ideas right then and it's apposition here did give the impression that you are putting the birds in a cage, and that is not applicable. The space around the birds is adequate. my point is that it can go beyond that and be generous to them.

Asher Kelman said:

I consider it's a big mistake getting religiously devoted to these artificial framing boxes that are never part of nature. It's out job to develop and build a picture, and not just rely on what the camera shows us, for that's not how we see and experience things. we don't see things normally limited to boxes unless we are looking at an Audobon collection or a birding identification book. In the first instance, you'll immediately have to concede that he allowed an abundance of free space arounf the birds he painted.

Click to expand...

Asher