Wild golden eagle

It's fascinating to read about different perspectives on what's 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of approaches to photographing wildlife. I've photographed captive golden eagles many times but this is actually a wild bird. Is the picture 'better' for being wild? It was a thrill certainly but does the image have more impact than my carefully engineered 'captive collection'? I don't think so. But others will disagree!

Canon 1dsII, 500mm lens, ISO320. f4@1/60sec.

Peter Cairns
www.northshots.com

A very powerful shot unique to the wild

Superb stuff whatever !
JR

A lovely shot Pete. Either wild or captive these birds are magnificent but I do think this is a particularly good shot.

What killed the buck?
His front leg looks broken at the shoulder. Roadkill?

Good behavioral shot

It's certainly a fine looking image Pete, it shows just what a magnificent bird the Golden Eagle is, super stuff.

Andy...

I do think it's a good shot. A very good shot if you ask me. OK, a little more room at the bottom would be perfect but boy...would I love to make one of these.

Great job Peter.

Edwin Kats

Magnificent! I knew these were big, but it looks monstrous against the deer.

A wonderful shot Pete!
I don't think it makes a huge difference if its wild or not,most eagle shots we see are captive birds with the odd wild scandanavian bird showing up or Laurie Campbells hard won images,picture editors don't seem to mind but must be very satisfying to obtain an image such as this and to justify all the time and effort that goes into getting it,but as you say I bet it does'nt sell as well as your captive shots!
But knowing what it took to get an image like this makes all the difference to me.
Would be interesting to see the verdict if you had put a large C after it?

Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk

I hate you even more than I hated you before

Just had this discussion regarding a hedgehog that was moved so won't bore the pants of you, but if I had took this shot and also had a large collection of captive images this would mean more to me because I know how difficult they are to get in the wild as I have done them myself so I just feel that the images are more powerful, but at the end of the day an image is an image and really thats all that it boils down to.

Did I mention I hate you

Danny

I took Golden eagles in the wild. Captive stuff doesnt do it for me....sorry Pete....so i like this image a lot!
Rene de Heer

I too dont like captive stuff but only because I would not have the satisfaction that almost certainly you must have got from doing this image.
I would be more than chuffed.

Major.

a very impressive image, IMO all the more impressive for being wild. Having never seen a Golden Eagle I can't get over how large it is compared to the deer. This may have been a small deer but even so...

A great image.

Matt

was this setup in Scotland? if so am very impressed, an excellent image though the comp is a little off to my eye

i personally don't like captive images at all, to take that is...and i think that is the real emphasis behind the question, whether the photgrapher is happy to do it. most people including editors don't give a stuff, they just want the content, so as 'tradesmen' so to speak, it's our job to provide that, but surely there is no photgrapher in the world that would not appreciate this reward after (x) time out in the field, rather than two hours at a falconry centre.

superb image, the sense of scale is astounding.

really nice shot made even better for the fact that its wild great stuff

Peter

Superb shot as is, I too appreciate just how difficult they are to track and then photograph.

Barry

Eastbourne

An Excellent shot

I agree with the point already made, photo editors would not care whether this was a captive set up or not. Personally I would get far more satisfaction out of a shot taken in the wild, but I suspect I would also be proud of myself had I taken a shot as magnificant as this of a captive animal. The only thing I really object to is when somebody attempts to pass a captive picture off as wild.

David

Hi All
Interesting comments about the 'difficulty' of obtaining such a shot - I'm betting Pete paid his money and took his chance at a site that was frequently baited and attracted 'habituated' wild birds - a bit like putting out peanuts for blue tits (sorry to shatter the illusion). This isn't a criticism, just a comment on the perspective of wildlife photographers - we love the ideal of 'pure' wild images and tend to de-value anything else (look at some of the comments about camera traps from the "WPOY" thread from earlier this month).

Getting wild, wary, animals to reliably approach bait is a massive achievement in itself and a very important, skilful part of wildlife photography craft. Apologies Pete if you have spent the last two years lugging deer carcasses to the top of the Cairngorms and freezing your nuts off waiting for eagles to arrive! No, it isn't your best golden eagle picture but, whether captive, habituated or wild it is a fine shot nonetheless.

Cheers,
Chris

The whole scene is excellent in my eyes,superb shot.


Keith.

However it was obtained, it is a very good image.....

As an amateur the baiting and essentially outwitting your quarry is an integral part of what is my hobby. However a captive image is no less valid; just not for me. The story behind people's posted images is always of great interest, so come on Peter and tell us how many toes you lost to frostbite getting this.

Regards

Jon

Executed with your usual mastery Pete

My only real nit would be as Ed pointed out - clipping the foot - what were you thinking

A very interesting spectrum of thought processes!

First of all Kenny, yes the deer is a roadkill victim.
Secondly to Danny - I hate you too as you know!
And then to Chris - what a cynic!! But of course he's correct - I paid my money and got the job done. It's not in Scotland (I wish), it's in Norway so no lugging carcasses up hills - just six days in a hide and home again. Though not captive, it is orchestrated. It could be termed photo-prostitution. I make part of my income from providing photographers with opportunities so I guess that makes me the pimp!! Yes Chris, we've had that conversation before!

Anyway, it's fascinating to see how perspectives on the 'merit' of the image are influenced by how it was achieved. For me, it's whether the image (or any image) has impact. What does it say? What does it make you feel? Does it ask questions or drive you to think differently? To this end, I'm not convinced that it matters whether a subject is captive, baited, stalked or whatever. I do think that in the interest of integrity, we should however be honest.
So there you go, the truth is out. I could have played the hero and told you it took me 2 years, equally, I could have told you it's captive. As it happens, it's neither and for me, that doesn't change the image one way or another.

Best for now
Pete

But I bet the buzz was totally different when it appeared than the buzz when a captive bird appeared. That's the difference for a mere amateur like myself. I would love to have experienced this Pete.

Nice one Pete.

Brings to mind a story my psychology tutor told me about a friend who had a very small line drawing by Picasso, obtained from a friend of Picasso's, which had pride of place in the living room, and had been there for decades. The owner was smitten by it, and talked about it in reverential tones to whomever would listen.

Visited by an art historian doing a book on Picasso's life and work, the picture was declared to be a fake, a well-executed copy, but a fake all the same. The historian had seen the original and knew its provenance and therefore knew beyond doubt this one was a forgery.

The owner removed the 'Picasso' from his wall, and put it in a closet, and it never went back on the wall again.

Funny how 'truth' can rob a masterpiece of all its magic!

I'm not a fan of captive/pet photography so a photo of a wild bird like this will always win with me. Very nice.



Paul