Front page of the Irish Times

thefly

Has anyone seen today's front page????

No offense to the photographer but it's a shockingly bad shot. I'm sure the guy that took it is a perfectly good photographer. I just think he didn't have the right equipment to take advantage of what could have been a cracker. He did everything he should have as a photographer but as I said, I feel his equipment let him down


I blame the photo editor for letting such a bad quality image make the front page!!!!! The guy who took it works for them. Surely if he went back down he would have got an equally good shot with better equipment????

I feel for the talented wildlife photographers of Ireland who would kill to get such exposure and have far far far better shots!

whyulittle

If he went back down with better equipment and there just happened to be an another kestrel with a rat in its talons?

magicbastarder

bad quality? as is explained underneath, the photographer was out looking for weather shots so obviously wasn't going to be kitted out for nature photography anyway.

image is quite clear - exposure is fine, focus is fine. how could he have improved it?

Tallon

it's printed on recycled paper, what do you expect?

I think it's a cracking shot. well done to the photog

http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

i see the fly is back trolling again :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

Tallon wrote: »

it's printed on recycled paper, what do you expect?

given your username, i suspect you're biased.

Tallon

magicbastarder wrote: »

given your username, i suspect you're biased.

bastarder!

thefly

whyulittle wrote: »

If he went back down with better equipment and there just happened to be an another kestrel with a rat in its talons?

Yes if he was willing to be patient and spend a couple of day's at it

magicbastarder wrote: »

bad quality? as is explained underneath, the photographer was out looking for weather shots so obviously wasn't going to be kitted out for nature photography anyway.

image is quite clear - exposure is fine, focus is fine. how could he have improved it?

Focus is fine???? He clearly didn't have a long lens and he has cropped the fook out of it therefore losing definition.

As I said, I have no issue with the photographer he did what any of us would do but that image is not worthy of front page. I'd say wildlife photographers are cringing nationwide as they see that shot

Tallon wrote: »

it's printed on recycled paper, what do you expect?

I think it's a cracking shot. well done to the photog

http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

i see the fly is back trolling again :rolleyes:

Not trolling I just have high exceptions and expect nothing but the best every time. Especially for a front page shot in a National Paper.

Clearly you dont and average shots are acceptable

thefly

Tallon wrote: »

it's printed on recycled paper, what do you expect?

I think it's a cracking shot. well done to the photog

http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

i see the fly is back trolling again :rolleyes:

You can't see either animals eyes

magicbastarder

'can't see his eyes! next!'

Thecageyone

It's a great image, but it is crappy quality and does look like it's been cropped to death. I agree it isn't exactly front page-worthy, maybe in the Wild-life section or something. there's not even a related story. Me thinks they were a little stuck for front page news.

eas

Surely we all know by now that there's more to a good photograph than textbook technicalities?

Ricky91t

I beat Tallon to it :pac:

Tallon

thefly wrote: »

Not trolling I just have high exceptions and expect nothing but the best every time. Especially for a front page shot in a National Paper.

Clearly you dont and average shots are acceptable

maybe you should send something in so. I'ts a newspaper, not a photography magazine.

I guarantee 90% of people will pick up that paper and go "wow, what a shot" without even thinking about what camera, lense, lighting, settings, focus was used!

The photo sells the paper, Job done!

thefly

Ricky91t wrote: »

I beat Tallon to it :pac:

Jesus thats a bad shot Ricky91t did you take it yourself. No offense but your photoshop skills leave a lot to be desired. I mean that trolls head is quite obviously and badly photo shopped. As for your choice of text. Again like your image, very boring indeed. Maybe next time bevel or emboss and I think an outer glow would give the text the punch that it sadly needs. Also maybe using the eye dropper on the trolls horns to get the same color yellow for your text. A bit of continuity would go a long way. <SNIP>

thefly

Tallon wrote: »

maybe you should send something in so. I'ts a newspaper, not a photography magazine.

I guarantee 90% of people will pick up that paper and go "wow, what a shot" without even thinking about what camera, lense, lighting, settings, focus was used!

The photo sells the paper, Job done!

Exactly my point. Which is why I vented my frustration on "photography forum" I thought we could have a professional conversation about what is potentially a cracker of an image but due to the wrong equipment is simply a holiday snap

Maytrix

Tallon wrote: »

The photo sells the paper, Job done!

I agree - I saw it on the news stand and thought it was very eye-catching. The shot on the front of the Irish Examiner of the world's largest cruise ship was a terrible shot by comparison. The Examiner photo failed to adequately convery the enormous size of the ship which, I imagine, must be quite an awesome sight. Sorry I cant add the Examiner shot ..just new to Baoards so finding my way.

Chochese

Tallon wrote: »

I'ts a newspaper, not a photography magazine

Totally agree... Not every photo that appears on the front page of the Irish Times, or any newspaper for that matter, is going to be a perfect, technically astute piece of photography.

The image tells a story and captures a moment thus doing its job, regardless of the quality.

Tallon

thefly wrote: »

Exactly my point. Which is why I vented my frustration on "photography forum" I thought we could have a professional conversation about what is potentially a cracker of an image but due to the wrong equipment is simply a holiday snap

Oh I see, so rather than post a half decent (savage shot IMO) the paper should have posted some crap news about a Kitten in a tree or nice photo of a duck?



kefln

I really love that photo :D:D

tricky D

I don't think people are giving enough credit on the basis that it's hard enough to get a decent ordinary shot of this fella if you're familiar with the location and the kestrel's habits. I know, I've tried in that area. However, getting one where a kill has just been made is pretty extraordinary despite failings in quality.

Right place, right time, not so great gear. 2/3 is bloody good for this subject.

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

Exactly my point. Which is why I vented my frustration on "photography forum" I thought we could have a professional conversation about what is potentially a cracker of an image but due to the wrong equipment is simply a holiday snap

this being a photography forum doesn't change the discussion.
**** over the technical details of the photograph is a futile exercise.
giving out about the very minor technical drawbacks would just be like one of those stereotypical exercises where camera club members are asked to critique famous photos, such as capa's d day landing shots.

thefly

Chochese wrote: »

Totally agree... Not every photo that appears on the front page of the Irish Times, or any newspaper for that matter, is going to be a perfect, technically astute piece of photography.

The image tells a story and captures a moment thus doing its job, regardless of the quality.

Fair point. I have a higher standard myself and as I said, there are many many very talented wildlife photographers in this country who have far better shots that are more detailed and have more of a "wow" factor than the one the was on the front page. Their images also tell a story and capture a moment but just look far better

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

one of those stereotypical exercises where camera club members are asked to critique famous photos, such as capa's d day landing shots.

meh. Bit grainy, and B&W, might have worked without the B&W conversion. Or maybe in Sepia. Also could have done with a bit of ooomph on the clarity slider. The biggest killer though is the shakyness. I'd suggest that he use a tripod in future, or if that's not possible, try to keep his shutter speed faster than the length of his lense. that guarantees no motion blur. or invest in a VR lense.

thefly

Tallon wrote: »

Oh I see, so rather than post a half decent (savage shot IMO) the paper should have posted some crap news about a Kitten in a tree or nice photo of a duck?



kefln

I really love that photo :D:D

No, nothing at all

Trev M

magicbastarder wrote: »

]

'can't see his eyes! next!'

Haha brilliant -

Its a great moment to capture , grainy yes , crap photo no IMHO.

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

there are many many very talented wildlife photographers in this country who have far better shots that are more detailed and have more of a "wow" factor than the one the was on the front page. Their images also tell a story and capture a moment but just look far better

there are a few obvious drawbacks for those photographers; first of all, and this one is one of those 'too bad' ones, but they don't work for the irish times, so their shots don't get the same consideration. and that will always be the case.
secondly, how many of them take photos of kestrels feeding in what was once a bit of a rubbish tip in an urban centre? that alone adds massively to the backstory.
thirdly, have they submitted any to the papers?

thefly

edit

Thecageyone

eas wrote: »

Surely we all know by now that there's more to a good photograph than textbook technicalities?

Yeah ... but front page? I see better wildlife shots on Flickr all the time. And I don't mean IQ-wise. I don't know why people are crying troll when it is photo related, this is a photography forum no? ... just saying before I'm eat

magicbastarder

what gives the photo its oomph is that the general public would not have expected to see kestrels hunting on dollymount strand. plus, it's kinda visceral, while remaining within bounds of taste.
sure, there are photos on flickr which are probably sharper, or better exposed, etc., but if they're of 'kestrel hunting in monasterboice', they're of much less interest.

edit: just as by the same token, robert capa's images mentioned above would just be 'some foolhardy souls go swimmed while clothed and armed' had they been taken on the other side of the atlantic on a training exercise, and would have been consigned to obscurity.

thefly

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yeah ... but front page? I see better wildlife shots on Flickr all the time. And I don't mean IQ-wise. I don't know why people are crying troll when it is photo related, this is a photography forum no? ... just saying before I'm eat

Thank you

Fajitas!

Public interest > IQ

Besides, I think it's quite a good photograph, grain/recycled paper included. Remove it from related context, and I think it looks great - More like an abstract study than a nature photograph.

AnimalRights

thefly wrote: »

Fair point. I have a higher standard myself and as I said, there are many many very talented wildlife photographers in this country who have far better shots that are more detailed and have more of a "wow" factor than the one the was on the front page.

But the fact is they were not there to capture this unfortunate Rat living his final moments!
I think it's a bloody great picture, the capture, incredible.
I'd have that in my collection of favs anyday, but yeah I'd say to myself "if Only I got it a bit better"

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

what gives the photo its oomph is that the general public would not have expected to see kestrels hunting on dollymount strand. plus, it's kinda visceral, while remaining within bounds of taste.
sure, there are photos on flickr which are probably sharper, or better exposed, etc., but if they're of 'kestrel hunting in monasterboice', they're of much less interest.

I think you are so far of the mark!!!! I would say quite a low percentage (unless they live there) would be more interested because of the location. It a national paper. People in Birr have probably never heard of Dollymount Strand. TBH the general public probably arnet aware that Kestrels live in Ireland. Anyway this is a photography forum as I have stated, not a location forum.


Just out of curiosity, who on this thread thinks the location of the shot adds more substance????

smelltheglove

Can I be in the middle? I like the shot, I wish it were better quality however I understand the limits of equipment and this was mostly in the right place at teh right time. I dont think the fly is trolling just because he is voicing his opinion negatively, everyone had a right to their opinions. I also believe that if the editor sees fit to put it ont eh front page then it may possibly have been the most interesting image put on his desk for that days publication.

Fair enough there are better images on flickr and in national geographical but those images were not submitted to the paper for that day. I do find it intersting that it happened on Dollymount Strand, one would assume that a bird of this kind would hunt more in the wilderness than in a city location so it does surprise me considering the location. I think I could agree with the fact that it is more interesting because of this. I also agree with Animal rights who says it would be a fav but id always think if only it was better!

Ok so its not the best picture but I dont think you could say the photographer was lacking in anyway to take note of this and think 'wow now that would make an interesting shot' to be honest if it was me I would just let it pass by and continue on with what I was doing:o so fair play to him for that!

mrboswell

thefly wrote: »

It a national paper. People in Birr have probably never heard of Dollymount Strand.

Just out of curiosity, who on this thread thinks the location of the shot adds more substance????

Yea people in the middle of the country have never heard about a beach on the coast?!? Birr isn't exactly middle America.

I think the location adds to the substance of the photograph particularly considering that Dollymount strand is rated as a blue flag beach that seems to provide Kestrel's with ample food supply of rats.

Tallon

thefly wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, who on this thread thinks the location of the shot adds more substance????

me, not only does it do wonders for the sale of the paper, it also puts Dolymound strand in the spotlight with people thinking, "Oh, I might venture out there soon"

So now the image is helping with tourism

thefly

thefly wrote: »

Has anyone seen today's front page????

No offense to the photographer but it's a shockingly bad shot. I'm sure the guy that took it is a perfectly good photographer. I just think he didn't have the right equipment to take advantage of what could have been a cracker. He did everything he should have as a photographer but as I said, I feel his equipment let him down


I blame the photo editor for letting such a bad quality image make the front page!!!!! The guy who took it works for them. Surely if he went back down he would have got an equally good shot with better equipment????

I feel for the talented wildlife photographers of Ireland who would kill to get such exposure and have far far far better shots!

Just to clear up, I have no gripe with the Photographer.

pullandbang

thefly wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, who on this thread thinks the location of the shot adds more substance????

Me for one. I think if that shot on the moon was taken somewhere else it would lose some of it's appeal.....

thefly

pullandbang wrote: »

Me for one. I think if that shot on the moon was taken somewhere else it would lose some of it's appeal.....

Well my old man rang me to tell me about the AMAZING" shot on the cover of the IT today and never once mentioned the location. Obviously when I saw the shot I rang him and pretty much told him what I said here. My point is he never once mentioned the location. Despite been a Dub and a wildlife enthusiast

Tallon

pullandbang wrote: »

Me for one. I think if that shot on the moon was taken somewhere else it would lose some of it's appeal.....

Not true.....

thefly

Tallon wrote: »

Not true.....

Still cant see either ones eyes

eas

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yeah ... but front page? I see better wildlife shots on Flickr all the time. And I don't mean IQ-wise. I don't know why people are crying troll when it is photo related, this is a photography forum no? ... just saying before I'm eat

sure - there are two separate discussions in there

1) Is it a good photo?
2) is it a newsworthy photo?

thefly

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46001792@N08/4229957392/in/photostream/

whyulittle

thefly wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46001792@N08/4229957392/in/photostream/

So what? The Irish Times is not a nature magazine, it's not meant to be a specimen shot. Their photographer was out and captured an unusual shot.

joeKel73

thefly you'll be delighted to know it made pic of the day over here...
http://irishmediawatch.com/?p=2818

Effects

thefly wrote: »

Still cant see either ones eyes

You don't have your monitor calibrated properly. You could see the Kestrels eye if you had.

Thecageyone

eas wrote: »

sure - there are two separate discussions in there

1) Is it a good photo?
2) is it a newsworthy photo?

1) It's alright
2) I didn't think so.

As i said, nothing wrong with the image, great capture - but it does seem like it has been cropped to death - so the original image may not be so fantastic. read any photography mag and you see amateurs send in amazing wildlife images all the time. And they didn't always set out to capture them either. Quick thinking and a bit of hope-for-the-best.

It's a great 'capture' more than anything else. But front page news? I really don't think so. It's all about opinion though, which is great, I'd hate us all to have the same

Kintarō Hattori

thefly wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46001792@N08/4229957392/in/photostream/

You're comparing a staged photo to one which was taken unexpectedly. That's not really a fair comparison now is it.

PCPhoto

guys ... i think its safe to say that the photographer caught a pic which he then made into a news story, I don't know if Dara was out there with the intention of catching a Kestrel searching for food or if he was just out there and quickly pointed his camera and clicked.

Personally if you consider that he wasn't hidden in a hide waiting for his target to come into shot (like a lot of wildlife photographers tend to do) and this was more than likely a quick flying bird grabbing a meal its a good capture - right place ... right time !!

just because it wasn't taken with a 600mm lens and isn't the type of photo you'd find on a wildlife magazine doesn't mean it isn't a great capture - its possible the whole event happened in a few seconds....I like the image, its more than likely a crop from a 70-200mm lens.

Anyone else here capture a pic of a kestrel in and around Dublin with a rodent in its tallons (thats what you call the feet/claws isnt it ??) ... fair play to dara for getting an image - how many other people were out on Dollymount Strand and didn't even see the bird.

oh and if people are wondering - Dara is a staff photographer with the Times (which makes it a lot easier to get a pic published in the Times)

rainbowtrout

thefly wrote: »

I think you are so far of the mark!!!! I would say quite a low percentage (unless they live there) would be more interested because of the location. It a national paper. People in Birr have probably never heard of Dollymount Strand. TBH the general public probably arnet aware that Kestrels live in Ireland. Anyway this is a photography forum as I have stated, not a location forum.


Just out of curiosity, who on this thread thinks the location of the shot adds more substance????

You have a low opinion of the people of Birr. My initial thought when I saw the photo this morning was 'Cool, photo, didn't think you'd find many kestrals in Dublin', because in my limited knowledge of kestrals, I'd see them as birds of prey and automatically think of them in rural areas and when I think of Dublin, I think urban not rural, O'Connell St tends to come to mind before the Dublin mountains. So I think location does have a lot to do with it, and if a photographer was out and about taking photos of something else and was lucky enough to see this sight and take this photo, I say fair play to him for capturing it, when he didn't have the proper equipment and probably didn't have any time to think about the shot.

However if kestrals flying about with rats in their beaks were a common sight on Dollymount Strand and can be seen any day of the week and the photographer had set up there with the proper equipment for half the day, then I might think differently, but that's not one of those occasions.

PaulieC

jesus, the begrudgery in here is sstonishing, although probably not unexpected from some of the posters.

it all reminds me of the joke...

how many photographers does it take to change a lightbulb?

100. 1 to change the bulb and 99 others to say "I could've done that"

bernard0368

I wouldn't mind this in my collection. I tried stalking two kestrel's for a month and got nothing like this. Fair play to him getting this whilst strolling along the beach.