Hawk Owl Pics

[ajax]

Jackie have you read this thread, or just leaped in asking questions? Someone called Sam already accused the OP of somehow faking the photos with tame birds and dead rats!! Why don't you read the answers?

I don't know why I am defending Keith, the OP. I suppose I find it distasteful when the reaction to outstanding photos is not one of admiration and congratulations, but mean-spirited suggestions that somehow the image was faked or posed. Why do people try so hard to diminish and reduce fine pictures?

When you consider the rubbish that is often posted on these forums, babies and pets etc, - these pics are A grade. Why don't you just say well done, or pass by in silence if you don't like them?

the more I wonder whether the rodent in the 4th photo is a black
rat that you could find in any pet store. There is no tail evident
in the photo, but both rats and voles have tails. So perhaps the
tail has been photoshopped out. Rats have longer, pointier faces
than voles. This rodent seems to have the longer head of a rat.
I'm not saying I know for sure what happened, but I'm not
completely persuaded that this is a vole. I should mention that as
a teen I had several pet rats and this looks like a rat to me.
Rats come in a huge variety of colors, but the proportions are very
familiar to me.

Don't get me wrong, these are beautiful images. But I'd like to
know the real story. And, I'm a little uncomfortable with using
live bait - not in terms of photographic ethics as much as from a
humane treatment standpoint.

Some links with images to compare:

http://www.fcps.edu/StratfordLandingES/Ecology/mpages/meadow_vole.htm

http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/snp/Animals/meadow_vole.htm

http://www.spoiledratten.com/lyre.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whtnyte1962/262433335/in/pool-frc/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatratcentral/page2/

 

[Jackie W.]

I have read the thread. And I agree that these photos are beautiful. I am not suggesting that the rat is dead. It looks very much alive and frightened. (The ears pressed down like that is a sign of fear in my experience.)

I don't intend to be mean spirited. Like I said, I did read the thread. The photographer has discussed the hunting habits of the hawk owl. He also said that he would not be able to see 'vole' tracks at a distance. But if you read the thread carefully, the photographer has not addressed whether the shot was baited with a live rat. In my experience, a rat or a vole would leave tracks in the snow. I looked at this shot at 100% and could not see any tracks. The truncated tail is also very peculiar.

I think it's a fair question for us to understand the technique. As I mentioned, I'm very familiar with rats, having had many as pets, and the rodent struck me instantly as a rat. I provided links to images of rats and voles so the readers of the thread could look for themselves. I'm not saying I know for sure. I just think it's a fair question. I'd like to know if the rodent is a rat placed there by the photographer.

Again, I agree these are stunning photos. But it's a fair question to ask if the owls were attracted to a live rodent, most likekly a rat, placed there by the photographer(s).

So yes, ajax, I have read the thread. I did not, as you suggest, accuse the photographer of a tame bird or a dead rat. You'll also notice that in my post I praised the photos.

 

[Justme]

Cool shots of the Hawk Owl. Especially like that first photo. Photographers in the Ottawa and surrounding area have had plenty of opportunity to observe and photograph one not far from here in Low, Quebec. I hear that it's even friendlier NOW than ever before. From what one guy told me, it now flies right toward you when it sees you walking to the field from your car (I think there's a reason for that but I won't go into it here). Of course as a photographer it's great to hear that

Here are some great links to get info on the Hawk Owl (some quoted here already):

http://www.owling.com/Northern_Hawk.htm#fieldnotes

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Northern_Hawk_Owl_dtl.html

http://www.owlingpages.com

Very sorry for my tardiness in replying, to save bandwidth, i would
like to just thank everyone for taking the time to look and
comment. It is truly appreciated! I just returned from a long
trip up north to photograph these guys again, unless you have had
the opportunity to spend time with them it is hard to appreciate
what a fascinating bird these are.

The Northern Hawk Owl is not likely to be confused with any other
owl. This is one of the most diurnal Owls (meaning he hunts during
the day). The distinctly Hawk-like owl is usually seen perched in a
high vantage point, tree limb, scanning for prey. The sexes are
alike in appearance although male and female can be distinguished
by voice. They are about 14"- 16" inches in size, head to tail,
and a relatively long tail at that. They are expert marksman when
hunting prey and fly at machI for such a little bird, its
incredible and it will test your skills!

Interesting fact is the NHO can detect prey by sight at a distance
of up to 800 meters (half a mile). thats incredible.

Now to the gentleman that would like to see mice tracks at 40ft to
show if the vole is alive, well I dont think I need to elaborate on
that, heck I couldnt see those tracks at 2 ft I have yet to
see a NHO take dead rodents, nor could they ever spot it. They are
attracted to to the slightest bit of movement and will act readily
upon an opportunity. So before stmts as such, know and understand
what it is you are shooting and trust me your success will rise
tremendously. I have spend a ton of time learning, and observing
in the field these which has given me the opportunitiy to
photograph these gems. Just when you think you have it figured
out, I learn some more

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/great_gray_owls

 

[Justme]

I haven't read this thread in its entirety but you raised some points which I'm curious about. What would be your concern (only asked out of curiosity and to get various opinions on the matter) IF the rodent would be a store bought one or a trapped one?

I have read the thread. And I agree that these photos are
beautiful. I am not suggesting that the rat is dead. It looks
very much alive and frightened. (The ears pressed down like that
is a sign of fear in my experience.)

I don't intend to be mean spirited. Like I said, I did read the
thread. The photographer has discussed the hunting habits of the
hawk owl. He also said that he would not be able to see 'vole'
tracks at a distance. But if you read the thread carefully, the
photographer has not addressed whether the shot was baited with a
live rat. In my experience, a rat or a vole would leave tracks in
the snow. I looked at this shot at 100% and could not see any
tracks. The truncated tail is also very peculiar.

I think it's a fair question for us to understand the technique.
As I mentioned, I'm very familiar with rats, having had many as
pets, and the rodent struck me instantly as a rat. I provided
links to images of rats and voles so the readers of the thread
could look for themselves. I'm not saying I know for sure. I just
think it's a fair question. I'd like to know if the rodent is a
rat placed there by the photographer.

Again, I agree these are stunning photos. But it's a fair question
to ask if the owls were attracted to a live rodent, most likekly a
rat, placed there by the photographer(s).

So yes, ajax, I have read the thread. I did not, as you suggest,
accuse the photographer of a tame bird or a dead rat. You'll also
notice that in my post I praised the photos.

 

[Jackie W.]

My primary interest is in understanding the technique and the story behind this 4th photo. Did the photographer chance upon a native prey animal in its natural habitat and photograph it just before its capture? Or did the photographer bring a rat, trapped or bought, and use it to set up the shot?

I have personal sympathies for an animal taken out of the habitat it has known, be it a pet store or urban/suburban alley, and thrust into a foreign terrifying situation. (The rat in the 4th picture, if I am seeing it correctly, is not native to the woods. It is either domesticaly bred, or the type one traps in homes/garages, etc.) I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, and it's not the point of my question. Because I have had pet domestic rats, and also live trapped and released a couple of dozen 'pest' rats that got into my shed, I am very familiar with rats. The rodent in the 4th shot struck me instantly as a rat. I am not making any assertions, mind you, but I have questions. I could be seeing this wrong - it could be a native rodent that wandered out into the bright sun, but it just doesn't look that way to me and I'd love to know for sure. I'd love to hear the photographer address this directly.

I don't think my softhearted issues about rats are the issue here - I hesitated to even mention it because it brings tons of ridicule. I brought it up just to let readers know that I've seen and handled a lot of rats. But I do think it's important for the photographer, if he posts here to let us know how he got the shot.

 

[Jackie W.]

I'd like to know why the owls approach people as they walk from their car to the field.

 

[Justme]

I'd like to know why the owls approach people as they walk from
their car to the field.

If you have ever seen any of the boreal owls they appear quite tame. A Hawk Owl can have a dozen people standing near it and it could care less. Same with the Great Gray Owl. Same with the Saw-Whet and Boreal Owl. There are many ways to get an owl such as that to come near you and one is by making a squeaking sound like some birders do. Also, having people tromp through the snow breaks up the heavy cover and this exposes troughs where rodents can be more easily spotted and believe it or not I saw a Hawk owl do exactly that just recently. It pulled out a dark brown hairy rodent.

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/great_gray_owls

 

[Jackie W.]

Interesting. Thanks

 

[Juli Valley]

--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon FiveDee, Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o, Fuji Eff30.

 

[Justme]

Interesting. Thanks

Keep in mind I wasn't there so I'm just going by what someone told me. Now there could be many or various reasons why an Owl such as a Hawk Owl would do that. But I won't speculate here. Squeaking, if done right may get an owl's attention and certainly I have read where someone squeaked quite a few Short-eared owls right near to his car at night.

 

[Justme]

My primary interest is in understanding the technique and the story
behind this 4th photo. Did the photographer chance upon a native
prey animal in its natural habitat and photograph it just before
its capture? Or did the photographer bring a rat, trapped or
bought, and use it to set up the shot?

I have no idea.

I have personal sympathies for an animal taken out of the habitat
it has known, be it a pet store or urban/suburban alley, and thrust
into a foreign terrifying situation.

You do know that some mice are bred and sold specifically for the purpose of feeding exotic type "pets" that people keep such as reptiles and snakes. I'd rather see such a rodent go to an owl rather than a snake (snake owners will disagree with me of course) but either way it's fate is usually the same. Then there are also people who keep some rodents as pets as well and that's fine. To each his/her own. Owls are efficient hunters and will catch hundreds of rodents over the course of their stay here (to me a rodent is a rodent...either you feel sympathies for them all or....but that's just me and everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course).

(The rat in the 4th picture,
if I am seeing it correctly, is not native to the woods. It is
either domesticaly bred, or the type one traps in homes/garages,
etc.) I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, and it's not
the point of my question. Because I have had pet domestic rats,
and also live trapped and released a couple of dozen 'pest' rats
that got into my shed, I am very familiar with rats. The rodent in
the 4th shot struck me instantly as a rat. I am not making any
assertions, mind you, but I have questions. I could be seeing this
wrong - it could be a native rodent that wandered out into the
bright sun, but it just doesn't look that way to me and I'd love to
know for sure. I'd love to hear the photographer address this
directly.

I don't think my softhearted issues about rats are the issue here -
I hesitated to even mention it because it brings tons of ridicule.
I brought it up just to let readers know that I've seen and handled
a lot of rats. But I do think it's important for the photographer,
if he posts here to let us know how he got the shot.

Why would that be of importance? As someone already mentioned, some pro nature photographers and cinematographers may use mice to get a certain shot. They have a choice. They can spend weeks or months in the wild trying to capture the right shot or scene or spend lots of man-hours and $$$$ and time to do so. Or they can make more efficient use of their time by assisting the action.

 

[Jackie W.]

You do know that some mice are bred and sold specifically for the
purpose of feeding exotic type "pets" that people keep such as
reptiles and snakes. I'd rather see such a rodent go to an owl
rather than a snake (snake owners will disagree with me of course)
but either way it's fate is usually the same. Then there are also
people who keep some rodents as pets as well and that's fine. To
each his/her own. Owls are efficient hunters and will catch
hundreds of rodents over the course of their stay here (to me a
rodent is a rodent...either you feel sympathies for them all
or....but that's just me and everyone is entitled to their own
opinion of course).

Yes, of course I know. I thought I was clear, but I guess not. I am not trying to persuade anyone to be kinder to rats. I mention that I've handled many rats (and other rodents, btw) to explain why I believe that the animal in the 4th shot may be a rat. Of course I have personal feelings about it, but I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am trying to understand what went into the creation of these lovely images.

Why would that be of importance? As someone already mentioned,
some pro nature photographers and cinematographers may use mice to
get a certain shot. They have a choice. They can spend weeks or
months in the wild trying to capture the right shot or scene or
spend lots of man-hours and $$$$ and time to do so. Or they can
make more efficient use of their time by assisting the action.

That's fine with me, just say so. There is no reason for it to be a secret. This is a forum where we share photographic technique. In the case of a difficult wild predator shot, whether the scene was baited is a relevant aspect of technique. If you watch nature specials on tv you will sometimes see fine print disclosure to this effect at the end of the show.

We share exif info, lighting details, aspects of model relations and styling, and we share whether there was significant photoshopping. In the case animal shots, whether the bird/mammal was captive or wild, if a bird photo was taken at or near a feeder, and whether a predator was baited are all relelvant questions.

 

[Justme]

You do know that some mice are bred and sold specifically for the
purpose of feeding exotic type "pets" that people keep such as
reptiles and snakes. I'd rather see such a rodent go to an owl
rather than a snake (snake owners will disagree with me of course)
but either way it's fate is usually the same. Then there are also
people who keep some rodents as pets as well and that's fine. To
each his/her own. Owls are efficient hunters and will catch
hundreds of rodents over the course of their stay here (to me a
rodent is a rodent...either you feel sympathies for them all
or....but that's just me and everyone is entitled to their own
opinion of course).

Yes, of course I know. I thought I was clear, but I guess not.

No, I do know you have handled rodents. I was merely responding to your comment "I have personal sympathies for an animal taken out of the habitat it has known, be it a pet store or urban/suburban alley, and thrust into a foreign terrifying situation. " Pet store mice bred for the purpose of being fed to snakes, reptiles and other such exotic type "pets" would fit the situation you're describing as well.

I
am not trying to persuade anyone to be kinder to rats. I mention
that I've handled many rats (and other rodents, btw) to explain why
I believe that the animal in the 4th shot may be a rat. Of course
I have personal feelings about it, but I am not trying to change
anyone's mind. I am trying to understand what went into the
creation of these lovely images.

Why would that be of importance? As someone already mentioned,
some pro nature photographers and cinematographers may use mice to
get a certain shot. They have a choice. They can spend weeks or
months in the wild trying to capture the right shot or scene or
spend lots of man-hours and $$$$ and time to do so. Or they can
make more efficient use of their time by assisting the action.

That's fine with me, just say so.

Well, sometimes things are best left unsaid (just my opnion of course).

There is no reason for it to be
a secret.

Maybe some people just prefer not to disclose such things for whatever reason. I suppose they then have a reason to keep it a secret, whatever that reason may be.

This is a forum where we share photographic technique.
In the case of a difficult wild predator shot, whether the scene
was baited is a relevant aspect of technique. If you watch nature
specials on tv you will sometimes see fine print disclosure to this
effect at the end of the show.

Yes, the key is "sometimes" and "small fine print" most people can't see on their TV screen. I've watched hours of Nature, Animal Planet and whatever other nature show there is and have never ever been made aware of any such fine print. Many if not most photos you see published never mention any such thing even if the mouse was placed there by the photographer or an assisant. Perhaps the story isn't about the rodent but about the bird. But I don't blame anyone for being curious though. I am often curious and I sometimes do ask but understand if someone doesn't want to say. I can then usually figure it out for myself (not in all cases nor that I can figure it out correctly). And you sound pretty smart.

We share exif info, lighting details, aspects of model relations
and styling, and we share whether there was significant
photoshopping. In the case animal shots, whether the bird/mammal
was captive or wild, if a bird photo was taken at or near a feeder,

and whether a predator was baited are all relelvant questions.

Not everyone shares this kind of info. It is usually done on a voluntary basis. It may also depend on the purpose and use of the photo. Just my 2 cents.

--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/great_gray_owls

 

[Jackie W.]

We share exif info, lighting details, aspects of model relations
and styling, and we share whether there was significant
photoshopping. In the case animal shots, whether the bird/mammal
was captive or wild, if a bird photo was taken at or near a feeder,

and whether a predator was baited are all relelvant questions.

Not everyone shares this kind of info. It is usually done on a
voluntary basis. It may also depend on the purpose and use of the
photo. Just my 2 cents.

When I look at a wildlife photo, I like to know whether I am actually seeing a 'wild' photo, That is, am I seeing a wild animal in its natural habitat, catching native prey, in unmanipulated circumstances? For me, and for some others, I suspect, it's part of the meaning of wildlife photography. (If this was a rat, then it's unlikely that this is native prey.)

This is not to say that a set up shot can not make very beautiful images - and these images are indeed gorgeous. It's just a different 'story'. As lovely as they are, some images have left viewers unclear about what the story is. It's a fair question/critique of the image. Is this photo simply about the amazing beauty of the owl? Ok, then say you baited the owl with a handy rodent in order to make the photo possible (or happen more quickly). Is the image meant to show the owl as it lives and hunts naturally? Well... then... I'm not so sure about placing non-native prey into the set-up. At least be clear about it if you did. When an image is this good in all it's technicals and aesthetics, one ends up discussing the 'story', and in this aspect the phtographer has left some viewers perplexed. There is something about it that doesn't ring 'true' to some observers. Yet, it appears that it was meant to be taken as the capture of a wild, natural moment.

Judging from his images and comments, the photographer, Keith Rankin, is obviously a very talented and nice guy. He said some things in his comments that seemed to suggest that these were natural (not set up or baited) shots. I came to this thread late. I'm not the only one who has wondered about whether the shots were baited. Why not clear up the confusion? I'm sure he doesn't intend to mislead people. But then again, maybe the silence is meant to speak volumes.

Anyway, Justme, I appreciate your level-headed, respectful conversation on the matter.

 

[Justme]

We share exif info, lighting details, aspects of model relations
and styling, and we share whether there was significant
photoshopping. In the case animal shots, whether the bird/mammal
was captive or wild, if a bird photo was taken at or near a feeder,

On a technical aspect, I'm surprised you didn't question the double shot as only one shadow is visible in the snow Or maybe I don't understand shadows?

and whether a predator was baited are all relelvant questions.

Not everyone shares this kind of info. It is usually done on a
voluntary basis. It may also depend on the purpose and use of the
photo. Just my 2 cents.

When I look at a wildlife photo, I like to know whether I am
actually seeing a 'wild' photo, That is, am I seeing a wild animal
in its natural habitat, catching native prey, in unmanipulated
circumstances? For me, and for some others, I suspect, it's part
of the meaning of wildlife photography. (If this was a rat, then
it's unlikely that this is native prey.)

This is not to say that a set up shot can not make very beautiful
images - and these images are indeed gorgeous. It's just a
different 'story'. As lovely as they are, some images have left
viewers unclear about what the story is. It's a fair
question/critique of the image. Is this photo simply about the
amazing beauty of the owl? Ok, then say you baited the owl with a
handy rodent in order to make the photo possible (or happen more
quickly). Is the image meant to show the owl as it lives and hunts
naturally? Well... then... I'm not so sure about placing
non-native prey into the set-up. At least be clear about it if you
did. When an image is this good in all it's technicals and
aesthetics, one ends up discussing the 'story', and in this aspect
the phtographer has left some viewers perplexed. There is
something about it that doesn't ring 'true' to some observers.
Yet, it appears that it was meant to be taken as the capture of a
wild, natural moment.

Judging from his images and comments, the photographer, Keith
Rankin, is obviously a very talented and nice guy. He said some
things in his comments that seemed to suggest that these were
natural (not set up or baited) shots.

I'll have to read it again. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.

I came to this thread late.
I'm not the only one who has wondered about whether the shots were
baited. Why not clear up the confusion? I'm sure he doesn't
intend to mislead people. But then again, maybe the silence is
meant to speak volumes.

Anyway, Justme, I appreciate your level-headed, respectful
conversation on the matter.

Was nice conversing with you as well.

 

[ekimzulad]

The OP cleared up any confusion about whether the rodent was alive. But I too would like to know if it was "introduced" to the owl or was wild. Either way, it's an awesome shot.

But if it was a feeder rat, or was frozen, blink, stunned, whatever....it does take something away from the shot if the owl was baited. Kind of like taking a picture of a wild bird around a bird feeder. But don't get me wrong, I admire any shot of an animal if it's nicely done, even if it was taken at the zoo. There are just different degrees of appreciation, based on how "natural" or "wild" the subjects in the shot are.

I also feel that when posting pics of animals, it would be helpful if the photographer could give as much details as possible as to what went into taking the shot...as there will be many newbies (myself included) trying to learn something from it. And if it was an "introduced" rodent, then I'd like to know....cause perhaps I might give that technique a try myself in the future if I knew that it would work!

Ekimzulad

 

[Sam Jones]

Ekimzulad wrote:
And if it was an "introduced" rodent, then I'd like to know....cause perhaps

I might give that technique a try myself in the future if I knew
that it would work!

Ekimzulad

It appears the author wishes to refrain from divulging his techniques in deatail and has every right to do so.

There are those who are very generous in sharing full techniques however others who wish to show off their work and provide titbits of clues but not the full monty. It appears, to date, the latter applies in this case.

 

[Timberland]

Yes this stuff is just amazing (like I commented in your Pbase page).
The owl vs his catch shot is superb!

--
http://www.pbase.com/tvw

 

[finnhunter]

I've been admiring these and other images you have of hawk owls - they're beautiful. how do you manage such fine focus on this beautiful creatures?