(((*>Another Photoshop job like the image posted here a while back. This one is
(((*>easier to spot though because of the way the lighting emanates from the bird
(((*>and fades, easily done in Photoshop. Very good "art" for sure but not
(((*>realistic.

Can you explain to me, then, how they got the reflection of the camera in the
bird's eye?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:00:11 -0400, "Drake Heron"
herond_fish1155 at (no spam) americaslight.net> wrote:

(((*>Another Photoshop job like the image posted here a while back. This
one is
(((*>easier to spot though because of the way the lighting emanates from
the bird
(((*>and fades, easily done in Photoshop. Very good "art" for sure but
not
(((*>realistic.

Can you explain to me, then, how they got the reflection of the camera in
the
bird's eye?

Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada

Just in case it is necessary.....

I started this thread with a pointer to another article about a goofy
helmet designed to lure humming birds close enough to see and photograph
up close and personal (that would make a catchy come-on, wouldn't it?).

My point, the troll not withstanding, is and was: you don't need all of
that nonsense, or any of it.

A little patience and peace and quiet are all you need.

I've not had a Hummingbird land on me that I know of, but I haven't
tried very hard.

I have had them approach close enough to feel the breeze from their
wings, either when they were trying to intimidate me, or when they were
trying to work out what I was doing with their syrup feeders.

I have had Scrub Jays take peanuts out of my hand, and stand on my hand
when I didn't let go.

I have had Chipmunks and Golden Mantle squirrels run up my legs to my
shoulders, I have seen the ordinary squirrels we have here (I don't
know what the names are) come to the sound of jingled keys and search my
pockets for nuts.

It really is possible to make friends with the critters, if you give
them a chance and you don't need any high-tech trickery to make it look
like it happened.

I'm out of this thread.

--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

Snip

These pontifications get more and more silly all the time. None of the
photos show any sign of cloning or combining of multiple images. "Drake"
probably doesn't even own a copy of Photoshop or know how to do what he
claims was done to these images. If he did know how to do those things, he
would easily be able to tell that it hasn't been done to these photos.

Two of the linked images (the first two) show the use some selective
manipulation of levels to create a false vignette (darkening of the
periphery of the images) but little more. The rest of the images have no
significant manipulation.

Seriously, Drake, show us a picture. Anything. Do you even own a camera?

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric, you are the one who needs to visit basic image repocessing
technique. Once you have studied such techniques and are prepared for
intelligent conversation instead of sabre rattling, then we'll talk.
I'm out of this thread.... 3,2,1,now. Bye, Drake

"Jester's mummy" <cocky2 at (no spam) nest.egg> wrote in message
news:dhdoe5hilgaeqgtsi1b5ei25sovh0cutoe at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:34:14 -0400, "Drake Heron"
herond_fish1155 at (no spam) americaslight.net> wrote:

(((*
(((*>"Jester's mummy" <cocky2 at (no spam) nest.egg> wrote in message
(((*>news:ns4ne59u6qkb1eha4hoae63kskktfir5ug at (no spam) 4ax.com...
(((*>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:00:11 -0400, "Drake Heron"
(((*>> <herond_fish1155 at (no spam) americaslight.net> wrote:
(((*
(((*>>><(((*>Another Photoshop job like the image posted here a while
back. This
(((*>>>one is
(((*>>><(((*>easier to spot though because of the way the lighting
emanates from
(((*>>>the bird
(((*>>><(((*>and fades, easily done in Photoshop. Very good "art" for
sure but
(((*>>>not
(((*>>><(((*>realistic.
(((*
(((*>> Can you explain to me, then, how they got the reflection of the
camera in
(((*>> the
(((*>> bird's eye?
(((*
(((*>I have no doubt that each image was taken outdoors, so that is an
actual
(((*>picture of the hummingbird, yes. However, it was probably taken
while
(((*>sitting on a twig or even a feeder against either a blue or green
(((*>background. Then a separate image of the finger was taken followed
by a
(((*>separate image of the background, again all outdoors and under the
same
(((*>lighting. Maintaining a blue/ green background in the case of the
bird/
(((*>finger made the later recombining job all too easy.

Now that you've explained the reflection of the camera, perhaps you can
explain
the natural position of the bird's toes, and their shadow on the person's
finger.

That's another easy task for Photoshop. Some folks specialize in shadow
creation and detail, not a difficult task at all.

For every explanation you come up with, I'm quite prepared to pose another
question about some aspect of the photograph.

As you wish, but keep in mind that Photoshop has become advanced enough,
especially over the last couple of years, to make anything digital very easy
to manipulate even for kids.

There are so many small details in the photo that to me say it's real,
that I
have to ask, why would someone go to such painstaking effort to Photoshop
it
just to stick it up on a website?

If it was a child or a teen looking for attention, he/ she has got it for
sure. Plus, they can show it off to friends and so forth.

For the kind of work you're claiming these photos to contain, I would
expect to
see them in advertisements or expensive books of photography, not shared
freely
at pixdaus or other sites.

Kids create stuff all the time, seemingly complex, but shared around the
world for no profit just for attention. I keep mentioning Photoshop, but
there are a good many other applications up to the task as well and there
are so many plug-ins that it's easy to lose track of them all.

(((*>Don't take my word for it. Motion picture artists do this all the
time, but
(((*>it's a bit more difficult because for film the foreground subject
and blue
(((*>screen lighting have to be just right at the right times. With
photos the
(((*>job is much easier and doable. There is all sorts of info around
the web
(((*>these days on blue/ green chroma screen work.

On the news yesterday evening, the weatherman used a green file folder to
hide
his head while he did the weather as "the headless weatherman" for
Halloween. We
could see the weather map wherever he placed the file folder. Made for a
giggle
when he put it over his tummy and we could see right through him.

Here, let me send you a green file folder. Or perhaps you work with blue
screen.
No matter, I'll send you a blue one too.

Not necessary, I'm well aware of blue/ green screen work. In fact, such
technique forms the basis for most motion picture work today, especially
sci-fi. The classic example, of course, is when actors are driving a car.
Hollywood used to replace the blue screen with moving film frame-by-frame
during the pre-digital era, but this is no longer the case, and a person
with only moderate program familiarity can pretty easily do it at home too.
And with still imagery the task is elementary.

Drake

Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada

thermazene wrote:
"Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l33fdF3buhocU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...


That is wrong more ways than the last troll was.

I'm really sorry I posted those picture-pointers.

I'm not trying to take a stab at the messenger here (it's not your fault
for criticisms beyond your control), but your comment begs the question
"why"? Would you want a flashbulb directly in the face or to be captured,
poked or proded? Don't think anyone would, least of all the

No, and no. But it happens anyway. But as I put you in the troll filter,
note that most of the pictures do not use flash.

And some of the birds get caught in the same traps, looking for the free
lunch.

Probably a lesson there somewhere.


(There are a number of things about our interface with that nature that
bother me, and have bothered me since before it was a political
correctness plaything. Just this week, I think it was, I complained about
the opinion some folks have that until you have looked at a bird over the
sights of a shotgun, you can't possible know if it is extinct or not. But
this is not the forum for that discussion.

And just for the record, I personally think the kinds of interventions you
whine about are responsible for the saving some of the critters from
extinction.)

I said it before, this time I will filter the thread name--I'm out. The
Turkeys (a reintroduction issue, I think) are looking for their free
lunch.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

I have been monitoring this thread with interest, however I am not
concerned with the technology but the hummingbirds themselves. What
emotional distress does flashbulbs in the face and all the other bizarre
behaviors, such as catching, banding, and releasing, have on the
hummingbirds? I don't think anyone is thinking of THEM here and many
have gotten away from the true subject at hand.

I don't think hummers should be pursued or photographed with a flash or
captured/ banded *because no one knows what the long term effects are to
the species.*

If you can't take a simple picture from a distance, don't
do it.

Stop screwing around with nature.

thermazene wrote:
I have been monitoring this thread with interest, however I am not
concerned with the technology but the hummingbirds themselves. What
emotional distress does flashbulbs in the face and all the other bizarre
behaviors, such as catching, banding, and releasing, have on the
hummingbirds? I don't think anyone is thinking of THEM here and many
have gotten away from the true subject at hand.


Okay, I'll bite. Just what do you think all those banders are thinking
of when they catch, band and release birds. Incidentally, they seem to
be recapturing banded birds multiple times in the same location. Do you
think that once the hummingbird dies from the shock of the initial
capture that the bands are then traded among birds as prized possessions
so that they can fool the banders into thinking that the same bird is
returning year after year, capture after capture, when really there is
just a thriving market among hummingbirds in bands taken from their dead
compatriots?

I don't think hummers should be pursued or photographed with a flash or
captured/ banded *because no one knows what the long term effects are to
the species.*

At least you agree that no one has any reason to believe than any of the
things you are whining about have any ill effects on the birds.

If you can't take a simple picture from a distance, don't
do it.

Why not? Please let us all know the answer to the question: What harm
does it cause?

Stop screwing around with nature.


You mean we should all stop feeding hummingbirds? Or should we all just
shoot ourselves. Aren't we part of nature too?

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of banding. What benefit
does mankind gain from such an activity other than to possibly cause
harm to the birds? Also, some of the photos out there of captured/
sedated/ banded birds doesn't look too kindly regarding bird health.

If I decided to expose you to a bunch of radiation where you had no
choice in the matter, but I said that you were probably safe, but not
absolutely, would you like it?

Let's say it was 100 Rems, which is
known to cause blood changes in the human body with unknown long term
effects, but probably leukemia in the long term. Going by your line of
thinking, everyone else says "do it" but then again it's not them, it's
YOU. But you have no choice because I'm exposing you anyway.

If you can't take a simple picture from a distance, don't
do it.

Why not? Please let us all know the answer to the question: What harm
does it cause?

Well, what harm does the radiation cause? Almost nothing in the short
term, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes over the next 20 years.

Stop screwing around with nature.

You mean we should all stop feeding hummingbirds? Or should we all just
shoot ourselves. Aren't we part of nature too?

I don't see where feeding is that harmful as long as they are left
alone.... no flashbulbs in their face, banding, feeding by hand, etc.
Your "shoot ourselves" logic doesn't make sense here and I fail to see
the point.

thermazene wrote:

...

To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of banding. What benefit
does mankind gain from such an activity other than to possibly cause harm
to the birds? Also, some of the photos out there of captured/ sedated/
banded birds doesn't look too kindly regarding bird health.

You don't know the purpose so you assume there is none. We can't protect
bird's habitats without knowing how and when you use them. Banding is
important for determining migration patterns and survival rates. If you
subscribe to the notion that ignorance is bliss, you might be very happy.
I believe (to cough up another cliche) that knowledge is power.

If I decided to expose you to a bunch of radiation where you had no
choice in the matter, but I said that you were probably safe, but not
absolutely, would you like it?

I get X-rayed, cat scanned and MRIed pretty often. On the whole, I'm
healthier for it.

Let's say it was 100 Rems, which is
known to cause blood changes in the human body with unknown long term
effects, but probably leukemia in the long term. Going by your line of
thinking, everyone else says "do it" but then again it's not them, it's
YOU. But you have no choice because I'm exposing you anyway.

No responsible person would do that.

If you can't take a simple picture from a distance, don't
do it.

Why not? Please let us all know the answer to the question: What harm
does it cause?

Well, what harm does the radiation cause? Almost nothing in the short
term, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes over the next 20 years.

You described the harm very well.

Stop screwing around with nature.

Do you mean that we shouldn't plow fields and all that?

You mean we should all stop feeding hummingbirds? Or should we all just
shoot ourselves. Aren't we part of nature too?

I don't see where feeding is that harmful as long as they are left
alone.... no flashbulbs in their face, banding, feeding by hand, etc.
Your "shoot ourselves" logic doesn't make sense here and I fail to see
the point.

If the flashes bother them, they wouldn't come back for more. There's no
coercion involved.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

To be honest, I don't understand the purpose of banding. What benefit does
mankind gain from such an activity other than to possibly cause harm to the
birds? Also, some of the photos out there of captured/ sedated/ banded
birds doesn't look too kindly regarding bird health.