Show your Bird Portraits

neuroanatomist said:
IMO, 'portrait' implies a living subject. Not that I'm squeamish about a few bones...not after eight years of teaching gross anatomy to medical students.

I'm willing to grant Atonegro some artistic license on this.

I guess if we want to nitpick: "ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, past participle (used as a noun) of Old French portraire ‘portray’"

Oh, and a bit of Googling: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/e/egyptian_mummy_portraits.aspx

Yes, it's a portrait.
 
Upvote 0
breakfast...
5d3
300 2.8 with 2xiii at 600mm
f7.1
1/1000
iso500

and then as I'm so proudly examining the images i just took of the herron eating a sunny, this beautiful bald eagle swoops down and snatches a fish right in front of me and starts flying away (second pic)
 

Attachments

  • 744C4810 (1).jpg
    744C4810 (1).jpg
    2 MB · Views: 487
  • 744C4849.jpg
    744C4849.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 515
Upvote 0
Orangutan said:
neuroanatomist said:
IMO, 'portrait' implies a living subject. Not that I'm squeamish about a few bones...not after eight years of teaching gross anatomy to medical students.

I'm willing to grant Atonegro some artistic license on this.

I guess if we want to nitpick: "ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, past participle (used as a noun) of Old French portraire ‘portray’"

Oh, and a bit of Googling: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/e/egyptian_mummy_portraits.aspx

Yes, it's a portrait.

What kind of cameras did they use in 16th century France? Oh, and from your link: "This has proved that the portrait did indeed show the person as they appeared during life."

I like picking nits... ;)
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
What kind of cameras did they use in 16th century France?
Dude, you're too smart and thoughtful for this kind of argument: if the skeleton had been painted rather than photographed would that have transformed it into a legitimate portrait in your estimation? Painted portrait or photographed portrait are irrelevant. What's important is that it "portrays."

Oh, and from your link: "This has proved that the portrait did indeed show the person as they appeared during life."
I almost addressed this in my original post, but figured you wouldn't go for the obvious fallacy: your original statement was that a portrait should portray a "living subject." The mummy portraits were painted after the death of the subject, and therefore portray a deceased subject. If we take your argument regarding the mummy portraits, then a photo of a taxidermied bird could be a portrait because it represents what the bird would have looked like in life. However, my example only addressed your need for a living subject. It would have been more legitimate on your part to argue that a bird skeleton is not a bird, but that's a different question.

I like picking nits... ;)

Can be a fun, social game since we all have nits. At least that's what I've learned from gorillas and chimps.
 
Upvote 0
[quote author=Wikipedia]
A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer.
[/quote]

What's the 'mood' of the dead bird? How well does a dead subject engage with the viewer?

I suppose a portrait is in the eyes of the artist and viewer. As the viewer, I don't think the bird skeleton was a portrait, any more than the drawings and photos in my bookcase full of anatomical atlases.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
I suppose a portrait is in the eyes of the artist and viewer.

Agreed. The reason I poked you about your comment is that the poster had brought out a memory of his childhood, an image that seemed to have inspired his future photography, and then presented it on the most appropriate forum he found here. I concede that it's in the gray area for a portrait; but it was heartfelt, and not a troll. And it was kinda funny too. Your comment struck me as petty, which your posts usually aren't.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
 
Upvote 0
serendipidy said:
I think his bird just took a tern for the worse. :o
Nice!

@Northstar - Love watching them catch large fish.

Here is a 'side portrait' of a Greylag Goose, now something of a resident now at one of the local lakes. I'm thinking about trying to recreate this with my 100mm macro lens but pretty sure that will involve some enticement.

LL1803-X2.jpg
 
Upvote 0
ERHP said:
serendipidy said:
I think his bird just took a tern for the worse. :o
Nice!

@Northstar - Love watching them catch large fish.

Here is a 'side portrait' of a Greylag Goose, now something of a resident now at one of the local lakes. I'm thinking about trying to recreate this with my 100mm macro lens but pretty sure that will involve some enticement.

LL1803-X2.jpg

Gorgeous head portrait. Really nice colors.
 
Upvote 0
ERHP said:
serendipidy said:
I think his bird just took a tern for the worse. :o
Nice!

@Northstar - Love watching them catch large fish.

Here is a 'side portrait' of a Greylag Goose, now something of a resident now at one of the local lakes. I'm thinking about trying to recreate this with my 100mm macro lens but pretty sure that will involve some enticement.

LL1803-X2.jpg

Great shot! Recently saw some Graylag's here in Colorado. Seems they are mainly a Russian species, but they have been cross-breeding with the common Canada Goose, so a diluted variety is showing up in the states lately.
 
Upvote 0