'Think different'?

[David Berry]

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This is a Pale-headed Rosella. If you're familiar with backcountry Queensland, you'll certainly know this parrot.

Clearly—'unclearly'?—this image omits its identifying feature (the pale head); but, just this once, does that matter? Dare to be different, by putting 'the rules' aside now and again?

Please comment and, if possible, add your own 'keep-or-bin' photos.

 

[bleirer]

It threw me for a loop trying to get oriented. For a couple seconds my eyes were telling me the tail was the neck but the head was chopped off. Disconcerting. But I guess you answered your own question. If the head is the signature part of the bird and you hide it....

 

[DRwyoming]

Clearly—'unclearly'?—this image omits its identifying feature (the pale head); but, just this once, does that matter?

I'd say it's a near miss, great color but as posted above visually confusing.

Dare to be different, by putting 'the rules' aside now and again?

It's one thing to structure a shot to be abstract and different. IMO, taking a near miss and calling it an abstract isn't really the same thing. IOW, it's pretty clear that wasn't the intended image.

Just my 2 cents and others might see it differently

 

[Butlerkid]

Not a keeper for me......

 

[NorthernFocus]

A useful frame in a composite flight sequence. As a standalone I'd bin it. But that's me.

 

[BAL Land]

Not a keeper for me......

I completely agree. The bird is cut off, too large in the frame, flying away from the camera, not a good amount of motion blur in the wings(too much for a tack sharp shot, but too little for artistic purposes), and lack of the bird’s head.

 

[coachjohn57]

I think that there will always be images that can break the “rules” of composition...or images that can be technically imperfect…and still be good photographs. Yet for me, this particular image just has too much going against it.

 

[Viathelens]

I am not a fan of headless birds and always delete that kind of image, even when it has other things going for it.

 

[Mike Delgado]

Everyone is their own artist.

 

[JAS]

I will be the contrarian a bit. Sometimes you are looking for the whole bird to document your find. However, sometimes you want something different. This shows the wing structure, feet and colors. It would be best if paired with a full view and maybe a couple of other views as a framed group showing this obviously beautiful bird.

 

[PhD69]

When I discovered this photo, it was the colors that spoke to me: blue, white and red... the colors of the French flag. But our standard bird is the rooster. Not the Pale-headed Rosella.

 

[Anjin San]

Me…I like it. Colors are very nice and yes…a head included shot would be better but depending on how hard it is to get a shot of the species…a decent but not spectacular shot is better than no shot at all. While we would all like 100% excellent shots for keepers…that just doesn't happen in real life…especially if it's a rare bird. OTOH…even if it's not a rare bird…it's a different shot of a common bird and I've put plenty of shots of great blue herons or what have you on my blog because that was what I got that particular day even though they might not have been the once in a lifetime pose.

 

[JamesFarrell]

Hmmmm ?? Sorry, soft detail. Confusing composition. I am willing to think differently and understand the effort to create ’art’, but this just doesn’t work for me. Happy New Year to you and yours.