Are these pictures real or fake?

reply to post by DClairvoyant


Being an art lover I can totally agree with that. But why would an artist paint digital noise into something?? Which is evident everywhere on these images as they are most likely shot at a very high ISO (which is how sensitive the camera's sensor is to light) to allow for a very fast capture in poor light to reduce motion blur. It does however create a lot of image noise in darker areas.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

Originally posted by DClairvoyant


I'l take you more seriously IF you actually input the next 3 letter's of your bad spelling in the word WITH.

en.wikipedia.org...

When you're ready to get back on topic and show us your wealth of knowledge about oil paintings, you just feel free to let us know...

I don't want sound like some annoying know it all but Ive worked in graphic design, photography, and with photoshop for years and this sort of look is all over place.

Like someone else said, this reeks of the HDR style processing that is oversaturating the market right now...just google "the dave hill look" and you'll see what I mean.

Then again maybe Im completely wrong. Oh well, just my two cents.

reply to post by NightVision


True, but its a relatively tight shot of birds in the air, I wouldnt really expect to see many objects in such a shot. Especially since it appears the photographer is looking upward at the birds. It would seem you would get sky rather than landscape from that angle.

I agree it is one of those pictures that makes you go "hmmm." It certainly does have something about it that says it has had something done to it. But that something could be whatever the heck the person who seem to understand modern photography was saying. Not that I understood that, really.

Here is the photographers site - www.falconphotos.com...

31 hyper-real paintings of bald eagles just to trick people into thinking hes a good photographer??? Please....he's just a good photographer, theres be no conspiracy here!


How about debating something worth debating. Or is everything on the net or shown by the DailyMail clearly fake?

\thread

[edit on 15-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by DClairvoyant


I'l take you more seriously IF you actually input the next 3 letter's of your bad spelling in the word WITH.

en.wikipedia.org...

When you're ready to get back on topic and show us your wealth of knowledge about oil paintings, you just feel free to let us know...

I have been painting oil painting's through out many year's and it can be believable as there is always hidden talent in many individual's that is what makes us all unique within creation. I was stating its an oil painting because I know its possible to do that with lots of time and patience. What a wondeful photo of a bird.

Originally posted by DClairvoyant


I have been painting oil painting's through out many year's and it can be believable as there is always hidden talent in many individual's that is what makes us all unique within creation. I was stating its an oil painting because I know its possible to do that with lots of time and patience. What a wondeful photo of a bird.

That's great. I'm happy for you. Sincerely...


...It still has nothing to do with my asking you to post a picture of an oil painting that has similar clarity and resolution to the photos posted by the OP.

Originally posted by DClairvoyant
What a wondeful photo of a bird.

Damn right! Check out his site, some even more beautiful pics there, the guy has talent!

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by DClairvoyant


I have been painting oil painting's through out many year's and it can be believable as there is always hidden talent in many individual's that is what makes us all unique within creation. I was stating its an oil painting because I know its possible to do that with lots of time and patience. What a wondeful photo of a bird.

That's great. I'm happy for you. Sincerely...


...It still has nothing to do with my asking you to post a picture of an oil painting that has similar clarity and resolution to the photos posted by the OP.

Well in that case I shall present you with an oil painting of a similarity of The Bird of Prey one day soon. As I will prove it can be done with oil paints. That's gonna be a right task but i'l try.

Originally posted by Regenstorm
I had to post this here because I thought it is somehow related to UFOs.

I'll give you this, this is the second time I've seen a story about starlings on ATS in the past few days. The other was about 100's of starlings falling from the sky in a yard (though it seemed like a dozen or so from the pictures).

nice pictures.

it is like watching a Boeing 747 dog-fighting an ultra light plane.

Originally posted by sparrowstail
I pretty sure that these are fake because Bald eagles do not and more importantly can not hunt on the wing. Their wings are designed for soaring and gliding not fast aerial assault. The raptors that do hunt on the wing named accipiters include Goss hawk, Sharp shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, American kestrel, Peregrin falcon, Gyr falcon, Prairie falcon. Eagles are opportunistic and scavenge wounded and vulnerable animals.

This is not entirely true. They are primarily a scavenging bird but;

I grew up on a lake in northern Wisconsin and have watched, on multiple occasions, an Eagle swoop down to the water and pluck a fish out of it.

Looks completely fake to me, and not even that good a one at that. if it is a real photo it has been mucked about with one hell of a lot.

Try Photrealism, a school of art in itself..

en.artoffer.com...

This is oil on canvass from 1974

www.artlurker.com...

[edit on 15-3-2010 by FireMoon]

reply to post by FireMoon


Jeez, not everything is a conspiracy or is fake, just because it CAN be done in oils, doesn't mean it is.

Here is the photographers site, and more accurately, a link to the Bald Eagle page where he has more of these same photos.

www.falconphotos.com...

Now why would someone paint 31 super realistic oil paintings, adding in digital noise, and even some chromatic abberation in some, just to try and trick people into thinking he is a good photographer, when in actual fact he could get more recognition as a fantastic painter??? Thats what you are suggesting? Thats not even mentioning his other photos.

Either you are just trolling now, or you read the first post and thats it. It doesn't say much for the value of your opinion when analyzing photos if you can't even tell that these are real.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

reply to post by Magnus47


actually there is movement in the wing tips ,well a slight blurring in one of the pics ,have to say that they do look authentic to me, but thats just my opinion

I thought that they looked fake as soon as I saw them, however through reading this thread and seeing that the general consensus seems to be that they are genuine, I have been left surprised, confused and doubting my own perception.

There is just something about them that screams fake to me. Also upon reading more about the habits of these Eagles, it seems highly unlikely that they would be interested in catching a starling on the wing. I gather they prefer to dive for fish and fairly static animals, such as ducks on water, heron standing in water and unsuspecting baby deer etc.

JMO.

reply to post by NightVision


Now im not taking sides with anyone but BLAM! www.wykop.pl...
www.wykop.pl...

Yes people can pain better than pictures made with cameras. But that dont mean that the ones in the OP are.

[edit on 16am3 30 200 by goddogo1]

reply to post by Regenstorm


Fake? You're obviously not into photography, check out Rob Palmers website.

www.falconphotos.com

Originally posted by goddogo1

Now im not taking sides with anyone but BLAM! www.wykop.pl...
www.wykop.pl...

Yes people can pain better than pictures made with cameras. But that dont mean that the ones in the OP are.

[edit on 16am3 30 200 by goddogo1]

If you are suggesting that the paintings you are presenting are more realistic than photos, you are in dire need of an eye exam.

Originally posted by Neo__

Originally posted by sparrowstail

I would say these pictures are most definitely real. You're comment above about bald eagles not hunting on the wing are baseless. They most certainly do kill on the wing and have been seen on many occasions in BC taking down seagulls, ravens, crows, or anything they get close to. Yes, they are scavengers but they are also birds of prey.

See ishare.rediff.com... for images of eagles taking down wolves and foxes on the wing.

Edit to add: I've witnessed, on many occasions, eagles taking fish from air. At the very last second they turn their heads away from fish and rely on their proximity to grab the fish.

Taking a fish from the water or diving at foxes and wolves on the ground is not hunting on the wing. A goss hawk flying after a pheasant or grouse exploding into the air is hunting on the wing. I have witnessed crows and ravens and black birds harassing bald eagles all day long chasing them nipping at heir wings driving them away from their nesting areas because they are trying to maraud the eggs. Hardly the kind of behavior you would see if these birds were in danger of an aerial assault from the eagle. Top flight speeds of Starlings and martins are significantly higher than eagles.
Eagles are opportunistic and will take advantage of any situation. If those pics are real they are extremely rare. To take healthy starlings or martins in mid air is definitely not typical eagle behavior. By the way seagulls and raven and crows all are slow fliers compared to the starlings or martins in the pics.

Hunting on the wing at high speeds

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Neo__]