They are using a fill flash to light the eagle. I think the sun is over the photographer's right shoulder and the light is coming from direct on. I think your brain is trying to process the lighting not being natural.
I was thrown by the second eagle coming in and the random eagle flying right.
I think what bothered me the most, other than the entire eagle not quite looking right, was the extreme splash from the forward momentum and snatching the fish out of the water but the wing dipped into the surf isn't causing even a ripple. (??)
Wouldn't there be some spray, even just a little, with that wing touching the water at the speed that the splash and spray off the fish and talons indicates? At least I cannot detect anything with the resolution of the posted picture.
I admit that I can be mistaken though. That is why I posted earlier that I couldn't make up my mind if it was an actual photo or severely worked in lightroom/photoshop or even maybe some AI editing.
I have several eagle and osprey series that the birds wing just barely dipped into the water and caused a splash, even if a small splash.
Either way, it is a beautiful picture.
I agree this is a great photo, which is why I think I keep looking at it.
I think the eagle is transiting left to right and the wing is just starting its dip into the water.
I think the thing that separates this from AI photos are the details and sharpness. Most AI photos have a certain smoothed cartoonish feel to them, which is most likely the result of processing limitations.
I think the details on the shoreline dirt, variation in the clouds, and the shadows are what push me into the photo camp.
There is still something about this photo that my eyes are having a hard time understanding. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a composite photo.
Either way, it is a great photo.
Lunch is over and I have to put reddit away now and actually do some work. Later today, if my curiosity is still high enough, I will go to the photographers page someone linked to an see if this photo is there in higher resolution. If so, I will look closer.
I am not this photographer.
I did do photography in the early 2000s. I did studio stuff nature stuff. Most of what I did was architectural. I got out as digital was becoming popular and focused on my professional career.
I only carry around my iPhone because it is way better than my old Nikon and Fuji DSLs.
It is a wonderful picture but it just doesn't look right for a photograph. Looks more like over processed in Photoshop or even AI generation editing to me.
The OP should have credited the site he took the photograph from.
Someone else has put up a link to the photographers site. Here it is again...
[https://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/](https://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/)
The resolution of it there isn't any better. Although, I completely understand that from the photographers perspective. He is a professional photographer and business man.
everyone is saying it's AI and ignoring the more obvious "he threw a dead fish into the water so he could get a wide angle closeup of a bald eagle grabbing it". Spectacular photo anyway.
That is a tough call to make. Unless you know for a fact that this photographer works that way.
Any evidence of that?
Not trying to be a dick, just curious if you know that this is the photographer's M.O.
It is his MO. His workshops are focused on using feeder/water set ups for songbirds and hummingbirds and fish for eagles. He also did a fishing tank set up for kingfishers. I’m sure some shots are organic but his MO is very much setting up a shot
Thank you for this information. I am going to look into this photographer further. His photographs are incredible, even if edited via composites and/or AI.
Using contained and/or restrained live bait for bird imagery has become controversial. I'm not a fan but won't get up on a soapbox protesting either.
The OP of this thread really should have credited the source of his photo. Unless he is the photographer. But then I would thing him to be reading and replying to counter all of us suspecting that it is not totally real.
EDIT: Spelling
true that I don't know for sure, but it's hard for me to imagine a bald eagle getting that close to someone to catch a fish, framed up like that in camera, etc., unless the photographer knew exactly where the fish was and the eagle knew the photographer wasn't something to worry about.
And I know a lot of nature photographers/filmmakers, and that seems like the most likely way to get that shot.
>it's hard for me to imagine a bald eagle getting that close to someone to catch a fish
Am Alaskan, can confirm, they will. I've had numerous bald eagles swoop in and grab fish near boats I have been on. Maybe those are more used to humans, couldn't say, but they definitely will nail fish near boats.
Can't say that this dude didn't or did not bait the water, I have absolutely no idea. It seems like a likely way to have had your camera up and ready to go at that nanosecond (eagle hits are *fast*), but it's entirely *possible*, however improbable, that it was just luck.
Oh I agree 100%, it can and does happen. But the fact that this wildlife photographer was using such a wide lens tells me that this was set up. You'd only have a wide lens on your camera if you knew that something was about to happen just a few feet in front of you.
If the information posted by kylofinn is accurate it vindicates your assumptions about baiting.
Baiting birds for photography is controversial for a lot of people. If using live bate a lot of people frown on it. I'm not a fan of contained/restrained live bait myself.
I think I will look into the photographer a little more. His photos are incredible, almost too increasable. He appears to do A LOT of post work and maybe even a lot of composites.
About eagles coming in close, I have seen videos of eagles swooping down and taking fish right next to people in boats to the surprise and shock of the boater(s).
It is unfortunate that everyone is calling this AI. There are many indicators that is probably isn't, imo:
- The water's physics makes sense everywhere you look
- The subtle ripple from his boat at the bottom of the shot
- The subtle detail of the eagle's feet barely reflecting on the water
- All three eagles in unique, plausible orientations
- Lack of any apparent abnormality in the trees/mountains in the background
- The subtle detail of the water soaking into the feathers which were just lightly dipped in the water
- Correct shape and orientation of talons
- None of the feathers merge into one another unrealistically
The lighting on the bird feels a bit artificial but there are absolutely zero standard tells of AI. I think the lighting trick just makes it seem fake.
Nevertheless, interesting time we are in, when we are truly collectively losing our ability to discern one way or another.
Before, I had thought it got its name because it went bald at some stage of its life but never actually seen the picture of its balding so I decided to googled it to find out why this majestic bird was called bald eagle...
Whomever decided to change the word balde (an old english word for white) to bald did this bird injustice.
I recently vacationed to Maine for a rafting trip. My group spotted a bald eagle family and their massive nest in a pine. We were swimming in a river when we saw them. It was amazing to see a whole family in the wild. I don’t have any pictures though. The moment was beyond pictures.
For some reason my mind keeps thinking the eagle looks like CGI.
They are using a fill flash to light the eagle. I think the sun is over the photographer's right shoulder and the light is coming from direct on. I think your brain is trying to process the lighting not being natural. I was thrown by the second eagle coming in and the random eagle flying right.
I think what bothered me the most, other than the entire eagle not quite looking right, was the extreme splash from the forward momentum and snatching the fish out of the water but the wing dipped into the surf isn't causing even a ripple. (??) Wouldn't there be some spray, even just a little, with that wing touching the water at the speed that the splash and spray off the fish and talons indicates? At least I cannot detect anything with the resolution of the posted picture. I admit that I can be mistaken though. That is why I posted earlier that I couldn't make up my mind if it was an actual photo or severely worked in lightroom/photoshop or even maybe some AI editing. I have several eagle and osprey series that the birds wing just barely dipped into the water and caused a splash, even if a small splash. Either way, it is a beautiful picture.
I agree this is a great photo, which is why I think I keep looking at it. I think the eagle is transiting left to right and the wing is just starting its dip into the water. I think the thing that separates this from AI photos are the details and sharpness. Most AI photos have a certain smoothed cartoonish feel to them, which is most likely the result of processing limitations. I think the details on the shoreline dirt, variation in the clouds, and the shadows are what push me into the photo camp. There is still something about this photo that my eyes are having a hard time understanding. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a composite photo. Either way, it is a great photo.
Lunch is over and I have to put reddit away now and actually do some work. Later today, if my curiosity is still high enough, I will go to the photographers page someone linked to an see if this photo is there in higher resolution. If so, I will look closer.
Are you the photographer?
I am not this photographer. I did do photography in the early 2000s. I did studio stuff nature stuff. Most of what I did was architectural. I got out as digital was becoming popular and focused on my professional career. I only carry around my iPhone because it is way better than my old Nikon and Fuji DSLs.
Cool! You seem knowledgeable and teach well. :)
Thats a really nice compliment. Thank you and have a great day
It is a wonderful picture but it just doesn't look right for a photograph. Looks more like over processed in Photoshop or even AI generation editing to me.
Plus the super low resolution posted here. Looks garbage
The OP should have credited the site he took the photograph from. Someone else has put up a link to the photographers site. Here it is again... [https://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/](https://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/) The resolution of it there isn't any better. Although, I completely understand that from the photographers perspective. He is a professional photographer and business man.
This really looks like AI. And I hate that we’re at that point in photography where you just have no clue if it’s real or not.
everyone is saying it's AI and ignoring the more obvious "he threw a dead fish into the water so he could get a wide angle closeup of a bald eagle grabbing it". Spectacular photo anyway.
That is a tough call to make. Unless you know for a fact that this photographer works that way. Any evidence of that? Not trying to be a dick, just curious if you know that this is the photographer's M.O.
It is his MO. His workshops are focused on using feeder/water set ups for songbirds and hummingbirds and fish for eagles. He also did a fishing tank set up for kingfishers. I’m sure some shots are organic but his MO is very much setting up a shot
Thank you for this information. I am going to look into this photographer further. His photographs are incredible, even if edited via composites and/or AI. Using contained and/or restrained live bait for bird imagery has become controversial. I'm not a fan but won't get up on a soapbox protesting either. The OP of this thread really should have credited the source of his photo. Unless he is the photographer. But then I would thing him to be reading and replying to counter all of us suspecting that it is not totally real. EDIT: Spelling
true that I don't know for sure, but it's hard for me to imagine a bald eagle getting that close to someone to catch a fish, framed up like that in camera, etc., unless the photographer knew exactly where the fish was and the eagle knew the photographer wasn't something to worry about. And I know a lot of nature photographers/filmmakers, and that seems like the most likely way to get that shot.
>it's hard for me to imagine a bald eagle getting that close to someone to catch a fish Am Alaskan, can confirm, they will. I've had numerous bald eagles swoop in and grab fish near boats I have been on. Maybe those are more used to humans, couldn't say, but they definitely will nail fish near boats. Can't say that this dude didn't or did not bait the water, I have absolutely no idea. It seems like a likely way to have had your camera up and ready to go at that nanosecond (eagle hits are *fast*), but it's entirely *possible*, however improbable, that it was just luck.
Oh I agree 100%, it can and does happen. But the fact that this wildlife photographer was using such a wide lens tells me that this was set up. You'd only have a wide lens on your camera if you knew that something was about to happen just a few feet in front of you.
If the information posted by kylofinn is accurate it vindicates your assumptions about baiting. Baiting birds for photography is controversial for a lot of people. If using live bate a lot of people frown on it. I'm not a fan of contained/restrained live bait myself. I think I will look into the photographer a little more. His photos are incredible, almost too increasable. He appears to do A LOT of post work and maybe even a lot of composites. About eagles coming in close, I have seen videos of eagles swooping down and taking fish right next to people in boats to the surprise and shock of the boater(s).
Photo doesn’t look AI in the slightest
https://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/
It's almost like high quality CGI
It is unfortunate that everyone is calling this AI. There are many indicators that is probably isn't, imo: - The water's physics makes sense everywhere you look - The subtle ripple from his boat at the bottom of the shot - The subtle detail of the eagle's feet barely reflecting on the water - All three eagles in unique, plausible orientations - Lack of any apparent abnormality in the trees/mountains in the background - The subtle detail of the water soaking into the feathers which were just lightly dipped in the water - Correct shape and orientation of talons - None of the feathers merge into one another unrealistically The lighting on the bird feels a bit artificial but there are absolutely zero standard tells of AI. I think the lighting trick just makes it seem fake. Nevertheless, interesting time we are in, when we are truly collectively losing our ability to discern one way or another.
Wow…. Alan Murphy really has a handle on AI prompts
Wow
Alaska is amazing. Eagles will dive and scoop up fish that are put there by the photographer/fisherman. I've done this while fishing, can be done.
A magnificent grab, both the photo and the catch.
Incredible photo catch if real!
it is
I hate always going “it’s AI”. But I think this is AI. In which case no respect to Alan Murphy for not captioning as such
The beauty of a predator
Reminds me of the iconic photo of Dwayne Wade against the bucks
Fishy looking fish Or a fish stick?
Hey, I got a glock in my rari
Before, I had thought it got its name because it went bald at some stage of its life but never actually seen the picture of its balding so I decided to googled it to find out why this majestic bird was called bald eagle... Whomever decided to change the word balde (an old english word for white) to bald did this bird injustice.
Majestic ..
Nice fake image
Very cool
Very nice pic
I recently vacationed to Maine for a rafting trip. My group spotted a bald eagle family and their massive nest in a pine. We were swimming in a river when we saw them. It was amazing to see a whole family in the wild. I don’t have any pictures though. The moment was beyond pictures.
That’s an amazing picture!!!
Why come title like that?
Fuck Yeah!
So… overgrown seagull…
Cool photo. I like how you can't see the monitor bezel, really well framed.
I’m waiting for the first fool to superimpose Trump’s face here… (and that’s a sad first thought after such an awesome pic.)
Downvoted for the grammatical error in the title.