If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

frdjohns

frdjohns

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
This guy has a band on both legs.



Banded Eagle-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Charles Loy said:
Recently I post and the Pelican had a band and it was pointed out - so, question is - why?
Click to expand...
If you're asking why the banding was pointed out, perhaps I can provide some of my own thoughts. I'm strongly into nature photography - wildlife and landscapes, and then I also do travel photography, taking images of anything interesting, including cityscapes, etc.

My own preference, when I make an image of wildlife or landscapes, is to show no human element in the image as far as possible - I want it to be completely "natural" if you will. For that reason a band around a bird's leg or a yellow tag on an swan's wing spoils it for me. That feeling of uniqueness is gone because the band proves that someone has been at the bird before me, and I can't fantasize that the bird is pristine and has had a completely wild and natural life up to that point - that it hasn't been handled by humans. Same with landscapes, I don't like to see any roads, buildings, fences, or anything man-made in my landscape image. Having said that, obviously cityscapes are different because with those the buildings are an essential part of the image. Also, some landscapes are absolutely enhanced by a meandering road or a fence. A lot depends on the scene.

Many folks have no issue with bands around birds' legs, or tracking collars around the necks of mammals. I'm not one of them so I avoid showing those in my images as far as possible. But those are my own preferences and I won't criticize someone else's image that shows a banded bird. While I don't like banding them, I also realize there's value in doing so to study their habits, ultimately with an eye on helping conserve them better.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
nice shot. If I'm reading this link correctly the bird was banded either in NY or FL. Perhaps you have other shots showing the letters better. Pretty cool shot.
ccbbirds.org

Eagle Band Colors - The Center for Conservation Biology

Atlantic Flyway Bald Eagle Band Contacts by Band Color Welcome eagle enthusiasts! If you’ve spotted a Bald Eagle banded with a colored leg band, this is […]
ccbbirds.org ccbbirds.org
Click to expand...

Jeff - I took this with the D850, so there may be enough resolution to read these bands on the original shots. I'll take a look when I get home - if I remember (I'm old so no guarantees).
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
If you're asking why the banding was pointed out, perhaps I can provide some of my own thoughts. I'm strongly into nature photography - wildlife and landscapes, and then I also do travel photography, taking images of anything interesting, including cityscapes, etc.

My own preference, when I make an image of wildlife or landscapes, is to show no human element in the image as far as possible - I want it to be completely "natural" if you will. For that reason a band around a bird's leg or a yellow tag on an swan's wing spoils it for me. That feeling of uniqueness is gone because the band proves that someone has been at the bird before me, and I can't fantasize that the bird is pristine and has had a completely wild and natural life up to that point - that it hasn't been handled by humans. Same with landscapes, I don't like to see any roads, buildings, fences, or anything man-made in my landscape image. Having said that, obviously cityscapes are different because with those the buildings are an essential part of the image. Also, some landscapes are absolutely enhanced by a meandering road or a fence. A lot depends on the scene.

Many folks have no issue with bands around birds' legs, or tracking collars around the necks of mammals. I'm not one of them so I avoid showing those in my images as far as possible. But those are my own preferences and I won't criticize someone else's image that shows a banded bird. While I don't like banding them, I also realize there's value in doing so to study their habits, ultimately with an eye on helping conserve them better.
Click to expand...
I get your feelings about seeing bands in photographs but banding is essential to managing a species. Due to banding and tracking species it was possible to monitor and bring back Osprey and bald Eagles in NJ from near extinction. Bald eagle populations went from 1 nesting pair in the state to over 250 nesting pairs. Osprey are almost as common now as spotting a sea gull.
 
Member's gallery
Charles Loy said:
Recently I post and the Pelican had a band and it was pointed out - so, question is - why?
Click to expand...
Rassie said:
If you're asking why the banding was pointed out, perhaps I can provide some of my own thoughts. I'm strongly into nature photography - wildlife and landscapes, and then I also do travel photography, taking images of anything interesting, including cityscapes, etc.
My own preference, when I make an image of wildlife or landscapes, is to show no human element in the image as far as possible - I want it to be completely "natural" if you will.
--Snipped for Brevity--
While I don't like banding them, I also realize there's value in doing so to study their habits, ultimately with an eye on helping conserve them better.
Click to expand...
Ralph Bruno said:
I get your feelings about seeing bands in photographs but banding is essential to managing a species. Due to banding and tracking species it was possible to monitor and bring back Osprey and bald Eagles in NJ from near extinction. Bald eagle populations went from 1 nesting pair in the state to over 250 nesting pairs. Osprey are almost as common now as spotting a sea gull.
Click to expand...


This is a topic that each photographer needs to answer for themselves. Like Rassie, I prefer to take nature and wildlife images that do not display the "hand of man". However, sometimes it is not possible to photograph a subject without the hand of man, like this eagle. It is a wild bird, in the wild, that was captured at sometime and forced to wear these manacles. The researcher that banded this bird decided that the information being collected had more value than the quality of life and stress placed on the bird at the time of banding. I don't want to debate if that was true or not, if it was necessary or not.

For me as the photographer, the decision is whether to show the bands or not. The bands were there. They were clearly visible. This was the scene as I saw it. I could clone out those bands, but feel as if that would be a bit dishonest. Other photographers do not agree with that sentiment and routinely change images to appear not as they saw them, but as they wanted to see them. We each have to make this decision for ourselves.

For the record, I am not a purist on this issue. I have cloned ear tags off of elk images and other such things. It depends on the image and the circumstance. In this instance the bands on the eagle's feet were so prominent that I felt to remove them would be altering what I saw more than I felt comfortable with.

Whether you agree with me or not, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and the discussion it brings about. So thanks to everyone for the input.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
frdjohns said:
This is a topic that each photographer needs to answer for themselves. Like Rassie, I prefer to take nature and wildlife images that do not display the "hand of man". However, sometimes it is not possible to photograph a subject without the hand of man, like this eagle. It is a wild bird, in the wild, that was captured at sometime and force to wear these manacles. The researcher that banded this bird decided that the information being collected had more value than the quality of life and stress placed on the bird at the time of banding. I don't want to debate if that was true or not, if it was necessary or not.

For me as the photographer, the decision is whether to show the bands or not. The bands were there. They were clearly visible. This was the scene as I saw it. I could clone out those bands, but feel as if that would be a bit dishonest. Other photographers do not agree with that sentiment and routinely change images to appear not as they saw them, but as they wanted to see them. We each have to make this decision for ourselves.

For the record, I am not a purist on this issue. I have cloned ear tags off of elk images and other such things. It depends on the image and the circumstance. In this instance the bands on the eagle's feet were so prominent that I felt to remove them would be altering what I saw more than I felt comfortable with.

Whether you agree with me or not, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and the discussion it brings about. So thanks to everyone for the input.
Click to expand...
I prefer not to show them but nature is messy. Animals don't always pose perfectly for us. Sometimes they are behind a branch or against a busy background. Sometimes they have bands or collars or ear tags. It's just the way it is. I prefer to shoot nature photography as I see it. When someone views my photographs I want them to be drawn into the scene the same as I was which usually means showing the "messiness" of nature. I want the viewer to know in what environment the creature lives, if it was banded I want the viewer to see that and if I can gather any info from the band I want the viewer to know about it. When I can read the info on the band and get some detail about where and when it was banded I share that with the info about the photo. This bird was banded in ABC location X years ago. I think viewers find that info interesting and it shares a little more about the creature in the photo.

I don't mind the bands in your photo. It tells me something about that magnificent creature.

Jeff
(edited to fix an "autocorrect" error)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I never gave a thought to a band on the leg or tag in ear. I see the oppisition to it here. Still, I question if is it okay to chastise the photographer for taking a photo of the subject, as it is, in it's own elements.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
If you're asking why the banding was pointed out, perhaps I can provide some of my own thoughts. I'm strongly into nature photography - wildlife and landscapes, and then I also do travel photography, taking images of anything interesting, including cityscapes, etc.

My own preference, when I make an image of wildlife or landscapes, is to show no human element in the image as far as possible - I want it to be completely "natural" if you will. For that reason a band around a bird's leg or a yellow tag on an swan's wing spoils it for me. That feeling of uniqueness is gone because the band proves that someone has been at the bird before me, and I can't fantasize that the bird is pristine and has had a completely wild and natural life up to that point - that it hasn't been handled by humans. Same with landscapes, I don't like to see any roads, buildings, fences, or anything man-made in my landscape image. Having said that, obviously cityscapes are different because with those the buildings are an essential part of the image. Also, some landscapes are absolutely enhanced by a meandering road or a fence. A lot depends on the scene.

Many folks have no issue with bands around birds' legs, or tracking collars around the necks of mammals. I'm not one of them so I avoid showing those in my images as far as possible. But those are my own preferences and I won't criticize someone else's image that shows a banded bird. While I don't like banding them, I also realize there's value in doing so to study their habits, ultimately with an eye on helping conserve them better.
Click to expand...
Koos, I agree with every word you've written.
 
Member's gallery
I spent 2 weeks up in Yellowstone NP
Got my first shot of a Grizzly that trip

I was so excited about the shot. But he did have a ear tag.
Not a soul I have shown the photo ever said a thing about the tag.

Including here where I did share it
 
Member's gallery
I understand the discussion concerning having bands displayed in images or not. In a perfect world, the band wouldn’t be visible. But it’s hard to get the perfect pose. I for one see no issue if a leg band was visible, if that was your only option. Again…my opinion. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
If you're asking why the banding was pointed out, perhaps I can provide some of my own thoughts. I'm strongly into nature photography - wildlife and landscapes, and then I also do travel photography, taking images of anything interesting, including cityscapes, etc.

My own preference, when I make an image of wildlife or landscapes, is to show no human element in the image as far as possible - I want it to be completely "natural" if you will. For that reason a band around a bird's leg or a yellow tag on an swan's wing spoils it for me. That feeling of uniqueness is gone because the band proves that someone has been at the bird before me, and I can't fantasize that the bird is pristine and has had a completely wild and natural life up to that point - that it hasn't been handled by humans. Same with landscapes, I don't like to see any roads, buildings, fences, or anything man-made in my landscape image. Having said that, obviously cityscapes are different because with those the buildings are an essential part of the image. Also, some landscapes are absolutely enhanced by a meandering road or a fence. A lot depends on the scene.

Many folks have no issue with bands around birds' legs, or tracking collars around the necks of mammals. I'm not one of them so I avoid showing those in my images as far as possible. But those are my own preferences and I won't criticize someone else's image that shows a banded bird. While I don't like banding them, I also realize there's value in doing so to study their habits, ultimately with an eye on helping conserve them better.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part, I PREFER that they not have bands. But I also know it is important to track some species, and nearly impossible to find examples of some without tags. So if necessary I will still shoot them. I find that the endangered Hawaiian Stilts I find in the marshes around here are probably 90% banded, so I will take unbanded if I can find them (usually there is at least one), but this morning they were all banded so I shot anyway. Collars on a big mammal though I'll pass on, those are just too big. Same with the tracking devices on some green sea turtles that they glue to their backs. Too obtrusive.
 
Member's gallery
I do mind seeing bands on birds or tracker collars on animals in Africa.

But would you mind some suggestions about your edit of this photo? The white feathers below the head are blown out from either original over-exposure or could be from the way you processed this in LR or PS. They are missing details. Also the brown feathers making up the wings and body are way too dark and have lost the beautiful detail of this bird.

I took the following image of an adult bald eagle last weekend. It illustrates what I am saying. I think you can fix yours in LR or PS.
_Z993517 adult bald eagle signed wp.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
On the subject of bands, many photo contests have rules against showing the "hand of man" in a photo entered in any nature or wildlife category, but explicitly permit bands and tags utilized for species/individual tracking and management, especially on birds.

For me, the thrill of seeing nature's wild creatures in their home environment is never diminished by the presence of tracking and identification bands or tags. Same thing for photos, but your personal preference is your own, and your's is just as good as mine.
 
Member's gallery
jpawlan said:
Snipped for brevity --
But would you mind some suggestions about your edit of this photo? The white feathers below the head are blown out from either original over-exposure or could be from the way you processed this in LR or PS. They are missing details. Also the brown feathers making up the wings and body are way too dark and have lost the beautiful detail of this bird.

I took the following image of an adult bald eagle last weekend. It illustrates what I am saying. I think you can fix yours in LR or PS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your two cents. The whites are not blown out when seen on a calibrated monitor, nor does LR show any blown highlights on screen or in the histogram. Perhaps it is your monitor or phone screen that you are using to judge other people's images. The browns look as I remember them. The beauty of photography is that we all get to process our images as we see fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAS
Member's gallery
frdjohns said:
Thanks for your two cents. The whites are not blown out when seen on a calibrated monitor, nor does LR show any blown highlights on screen or in the histogram. Perhaps it is your monitor or phone screen that you are using to judge other people's images. The browns look as I remember them. The beauty of photography is that we all get to process our images as we see fit.
Click to expand...
I am using a very well calibrated 4K photography (not video) monitor with more than RGB coverage. I have been calibrating this monitor for 2 years to exactly equal the high end monitor that my professional printing company uses. I and the printing company use Adobe Pro Photo RGB exclusively. That way his prints come out looking just like what is on my screen. Thus I cannot explain why your whites appear blown out here. I do accept your artistic preference for the darker brown of the wings and body of the eagle.
 
Member's gallery
jpawlan said:
I am using a very well calibrated 4K photography (not video) monitor with more than RGB coverage. I have been calibrating this monitor for 2 years to exactly equal the high end monitor that my professional printing company uses. I and the printing company use Adobe Pro Photo RGB exclusively. That way his prints come out looking just like what is on my screen. Thus I cannot explain why your whites appear blown out here. I do accept your artistic preference for the darker brown of the wings and body of the eagle.
Click to expand...

Shrug. ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.