Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Grey-cheeked Thrush
‹ PreviousAvian GalleryNext ›

Grey-cheeked Thrush

by Jim DeWitt

Gallery: AvianPosted June 11, 2010141 views15 comments
Olympus E-3, 300mm x 2.0TC, tripod
f5.7, 1/250, ISO250

Denali Highway, last weekend. This guy was still singing on territory. Is the willow catkin behind his head distracting (and should it be cloned out?) or is it part of the habitat?

C & C, please. Thanks for looking.

Comments

15 comments
Comment posted by Derrick Lipinski on June 11, 2010 at 1:48 AM
Fine as presented, Jim. I'm not a big fan of cloning unless it's absolutely necessary - besides, it takes too long (for me at least). In this case, I just see the BG as part of the habitat. :smile:
Registered on October 5, 2007, 58 Posts, 2039 Comments
Comment posted by Gary Gulash on June 11, 2010 at 2:11 AM
I really like the overall composition and lighting Jim. Excellent exposure and sharpness as well. Regarding the catkin, I will suggest reducing the contrast or saturation to make it less obvious while not removing it per se.
Registered on January 28, 2005, 879 Posts, 12098 Comments
Comment posted by Philip Hodgkins on June 11, 2010 at 6:59 AM
I like Gary's idea. If it doesn't work, take it out.
Registered on July 24, 2006, 2741 Posts, 12349 Comments
Comment posted by denise ippolito on June 11, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Jim, My personal opinion is that it should be evicted. It does appear to be coming out of it's head w/ no anchor of it's own. Nice colors in the sky and foliage. Do wish that the bird's head was turned a bit more and that the eye was a bit more illuminated.
Registered on December 17, 2009, 202 Posts, 1529 Comments
Comment posted by Cheryl Molennor on June 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM
To clone or not to clone.I definately fall more to the naturalist side but sometimes I just can't let it go. This one I'd be tempted to remove it or try Gary's idea first.
Registered on June 30, 2009, 300 Posts, 5051 Comments
Comment posted by richard remington on June 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM
I think the cattail adds interest and looks like a natural part of the surroundings. Great shot!
Registered on March 12, 2010, 105 Posts, 368 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Gatlin on June 11, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Jim, I like the habitat and composition. I agree with Denise that the lack of an anchor for the catkin makes it more objectionable. I agree with the suggestion to try to tone it down at least, if not clone it.
Registered on March 21, 2009, 202 Posts, 4187 Comments
Comment posted by Nate Chappell on June 11, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Nice shot of a tough species Jim, I could go either way on the cloning. :toast:
Registered on February 1, 2006, 1158 Posts, 19528 Comments
Comment posted by Richard Ditch on June 11, 2010 at 7:43 PM
A species I can't recall seeing posted before. I haven't seen one since my NJ days.

The catkin may not be ideal, but I wouldn't clone it out.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 1031 Posts, 12705 Comments
Comment posted by Ronnie Gaubert on June 11, 2010 at 8:14 PM
Hi Jim,
The entire scene is nice with good lighting. I'm not a purist so out with the catkin. Was this a big crop or was the original under exposed. Just seems like the clarity is down some in the large image. It also appears the focal point was on the wings as the head is not as sharp as the rest of the bird. It becomes more apparent in the large image.
Thanks for posting,
Ronnie G.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 810 Posts, 3495 Comments
Comment posted by Steve Balke on June 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM
A pretty shot but I would hope for a bit more detail in the bird in the larger version, Jim, especially in the shaded whites. Also, I'm with the "the catkin should go" gang.
Registered on June 18, 2009, 229 Posts, 2915 Comments
Comment posted by David Haynes on June 12, 2010 at 9:44 PM
Jim,
Nice capture here. As far as the branch behind the head it is a little distracting to me ONLY because I can't see where it's coming from. It looks as if it's free foating in space or growing out of the birds head. The only other small nit I have is that it looks like you were focused near the tail of the bird and not the head as it appears to be just a tad softer than the rear of the wing feathers and tail and there is no catchlight in the eye. Otherwise I really like the composition, and the inclusion of all the branches and leaves. They frame the shot nicely for me. The OOF lower third is very nice as well. Are they mountains in the distance? I really like this shot Jim and the removal of that one branch behind the head would put this over the top for me. Thanks for sharing this one Jim.
Registered on February 20, 2010, 110 Posts, 1511 Comments
Comment posted by Bill Maile on June 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM
I like what Cheryl said, it's a beautiful image and I hardly ever clone things out, but this is a good case for it. Nicely captured!
Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments
Comment posted by David Chauvin on June 13, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Nice setting for this little guy, Jim. If it were mine, I'd get rid of the catkin. But there's no reason not to keep both versions for different uses.

Registered on August 5, 2004, 1007 Posts, 5595 Comments
Comment posted by Mia McPherson on June 13, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Jim,

I've been a little slow commenting this week due to a couple things, but I am very glad to see this image you posted from last weekend. I hope that gave you a break from the smoke and fires near Fairbanks and that you have had some relief in the form of rain, if not maybe we can send you some from Utah, I have seen enough of it ;-)

I don't mind the catkin behind the bird much because my mind figured out where it comes from easily. I do think the timage would be stronger without it, but I am not a big fan of cloning so I would try Gary's suggestion or something similar to minimize the impact of the catkin a bit.

I like the setting, the pose of the thrush aling with the smooth gradation of hues in the background.

If this were mine I would be very tempted to tone the exposure down -0.03 to -0.8 which seems to show more of the feather details and while it does not change the actual saturation of the colors in the image it does seem to make them look richer. I might also give the thrush a touch more selective sharpening.

I envy you, I was never able to get this species out in the open in FL and they are uncommon here in UT.
Registered on June 25, 2007, 491 Posts, 12566 Comments