Wet-backed Doves

[hunter58]

No, not a new species. I took this after a rain shower, if you look closely you'll see water still beading on their backs.



And a Cardinal at one of my feeders.

[Litespeed]

Great background color for the doves. Nice capture of the sparrow on the feeder.

[Sudhakar Redddy]

They are so pretty.

Do u shoot in Raw?

[hunter58]

They are so pretty.

Do u shoot in Raw?

Thanks.

No I don't shoot RAW. I do from time to time but I always switch back to JPG.

[Bushhed]

Beautiful work.

[chicagojohn]

interesting how the bright red background in the first one makes the essentially B&W mourning dove lack of color pop

[hunter58]

interesting how the bright red background in the first one makes the essentially B&W mourning dove lack of color pop

Could also be due to the birds being a little wet.

[chicagojohn]

Could also be due to the birds being a little wet.

OK, I see what you're saying.
"Wet birds never fly at night." - Jackie Vernon

[EricD]

Nice scores!

[willard3]

Nice birdies, but the color of the mulch in no 1 is odd.

What is its source if you know?

[chicagojohn]

This what I think about color; it's all odd.

Color occurs in our minds in the very narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum from around 400 to around 750 nanometers; that equates to just under the one-tenth the diameter of a human hair; small, but not at all unimaginable.

The photochemicalelectrical mechanisms within the eye, which our camera sensors try to simulate, construe this range of electromechanical wavelengths into R, G, and B receptors, and then the mind/brain forms the "colors" we see from that.

So what we take for granted as "real" is merely an artifact of the processing of light.

I suppose one could say it is arbitrary, but it is has arisen as a result of a long time and lots of trial and error and lots of suffering and triumph of what we have come to call "evolution". So it is not entirely arbitrary, by any means.

However, once we have gone beyond the constraints that necessitated the discrimination of this part of the electromagnetic spectrum in to the RGB color space, once we have technology, for instance, that can record wavelengths in the range form 750 to 1100 nanometers, the near infrared, and below 400 nm, the ultraviolet, I think we should take advantage of that in photography every bit as much as we do magnification; to see beyond what the naked eye can into both much larger and smaller realms; distances closer and further away than we normally see.

Oftentimes, when we see an intense macro of a spider, we think, "that is odd.", and that is, after all, the whole point. I am actually coming to the view, and this is just me, that maybe color is like that too, especially since it doesn't really "exist" in and of itself the way we think it does in the first place.

Certainly, no one should eschew the results of evolution we have all inherited, more or less. But it should also be said that no two of us perceive color exactly the same as empirical evaluation of color perception in individuals clearly shows. But more or less, there is this RGB eye/mind domain within human perception and hence our camera sensors, color TV's and so on.

At the same time, I think we should be cognizant of the fact that what we take for granted is merely one possibility among many.

postscript -- so I guess what I'm saying is that B&W is a pure form of photography, one which can be made even in the NIR range from 750 - 1100 nm, or any other range in the electromagetic apectrum one can build a photon sensor for. That can be translated into an intensity scale of black (0%) to white (100%). That is pure in the sense of what the eye/mind will perceive.

But what I am thinking now, is that when it comes to color, everything changes. It is definitely not as well defined anymore and much more open to artistic infusion of intent, not that B&W is devoid of that, but that I think what we call "color" is much more detached from an empirical referent.

[hunter58]

Nice birdies, but the color of the mulch in no 1 is odd.

What is its source if you know?

To shorten John's answer... "Lowe's" and it's their "Premium Red Mulch". Also it isn't quite that red when dry, when it's wet it seems to make it a little darker red.

[chicagojohn]

To shorten John's answer... "Lowe's" and it's their "Premium Red Mulch". Also it isn't quite that red when dry, when it's wet it seems to make it a little darker red.

No need to shorten my answer, as it wasn't an answer; it was a statement. And I never appreciate it when people try to shorten my statements (especially when they are my wife; and I am sure she will be more than happy to verify that

But, quite frankly, to whom this may concern, I don't like anyone else presuming to do so either. If you don't like what I say or how I say it, or how many words it takes me to say it, fine; say so directly. However, DO NOT presume to "shorten" it for me, and especially to do so in a way that completely avoids the meaning I intended.

What I said in my previous post is intended to be read in its entirety, not in the "shortened" form you provided, hunter58. And please note that a smiley face does not conclude this post.

If this is a problem, I assure you I can correct it quickly and permanently. I expect to be treated with the same courtesy I afford others here.

postscript -- and I don't mean this response to be directed to my my dear friend hunter58, whose work I really love, but the thing is, when I write these things, whether or not you care to read them, remember that they are genuine expressions that take time to formulate, and I wouldn't post them if I thought nobody else in the universe might be listening or benefit from them.

So I'm just asking that we abide by Wittgenstein's dictum, "what cannot be said, we must pass over in silence." I would be fine with that.... Just let me ramble on and ignore it without comment. OK? Then we'll all be happy

[hunter58]

No need to shorten my answer, as it wasn't an answer; it was a statement. And I never appreciate it when people try to shorten my statements (especially when they are my wife; and I am sure she will be more than happy to verify that

But, quite frankly, to whom this may concern, I don't like anyone else presuming to do so either. If you don't like what I say or how I say it, or how many words it takes me to say it, fine; say so directly. However, DO NOT presume to "shorten" it for me, and especially to do so in a way that completely avoids the meaning I intended.

What I said in my previous post is intended to be read in its entirety, not in the "shortened" form you provided, hunter58. And please note that a smiley face does not conclude this post.

If this is a problem, I assure you I can correct it quickly and permanently. I expect to be treated with the same courtesy I afford others here.

postscript -- and I don't mean this response to be directed to my my dear friend hunter58, whose work I really love, but the thing is, when I write these things, whether or not you care to read them, remember that they are genuine expressions that take time to formulate, and I wouldn't post them if I thought nobody else in the universe might be listening or benefit from them.

So I'm just asking that we abide by Wittgenstein's dictum, "what cannot be said, we must pass over in silence." I would be fine with that.... Just let me ramble on and ignore it without comment. OK? Then we'll all be happy

Well I for one thought your reply was most enlightening and something I have pondered from time-to-time, however my response to your response was not an accurate reflection of shortening your response (a really bad misstatement on my part) but mainly in some sort of sarcastic way to state the source of the mulch not the color. Thanks for alerting me to my shortcoming in responding to others... I will take this under advisement and most likely will not cross that bridge again.

[chicagojohn]

Hi Hunter58,

After further consideration, I realize that your thread was not the proper place to post the comments on color which were, at best, tangentially related to your image, the topic of this thread.

In the future, I'll put anything like this in the general discussion forum.

I also apologize for reacting the way I did to your subsequent post. That was also inappropriate.

Anyway, thanks for posting the image of the doves; it was definitely thought provoking.