"Keeper of the Ashes" is my favorite of the pictures. Found the photographer is selling prints here: https://www.maximelegarevezina.com/en/tirage-gardien-des-cen...

It's amazing that you can just see something that you like and then order it.

Funny that the print version has been photoshopped to move the vapour closer to the beak.

The print is a different picture from the one in the submitted article. That looks like it could be a different angle (90deg) of the bird on the same burnt stump.

Interesting. Apparently the photo from the article is "Voice of the ash forest" (https://www.maximelegarevezina.com/en/tirage-voix-de-la-for%...) and the one linked above is "Keeper of the Ashes."

These are professional artists. Selling prints is a major income stream. It seems pretty normal to me.

That winning photograph with the bird in front of the solar eclipse is really incredible. I wasn't sure if it was real or not (some photography competitions will allow composites stitched together in photoshop).

But the photographer uploaded a video on YouTube of him taking the photo, and just looking at the environment (he's in a small boat off the coast of Mexico) you can see it really did require a remarkable amount of planning. And I think it is indeed a real photograph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voTNPeHR7Jc

Thanks for sharing, can't imagine how bird photographers devote weeks to plan for a single shot - may seem extreme. Being in the right location at the right time is the key. Wow!

This skill is often underrated. World is moving faster than ever. Another underrated skill is quick-decision making.

For anyone curious, the competition rules are here:

https://www.birdpoty.com/rules

"With the exception of HDR, stitched panoramas, focus stacking, and in-camera multiple exposures, composited images or AI-generated images are not permitted in any category. Sky swapping or removal of objects through cloning, for example, is not permitted."

> As an added plus: nobody cares how the photographer took the shot. On one leg, in a boat before eaten by a shark, whilst taking a dump, on top of an elephant, whatever. The photo must speak for itself. Just like you check a painting and if you like it at first sight, if it talks to you, then that's a good painting by your standards. So check the painting, do not read any added text. If it's good, it's good. If you need description, then it's not a good shot.

Some people connect with the history and context of a piece.

There's a reason the real Mona Lisa is worth considerably more than even the most faithful reproduction.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that _you_ have to care about context. Nor that caring about context is good (or bad). I'm just saying that many people do care about context.

People nowadays do not have any means to connect with whatever. They see a picture somewhere and they only see the picture, and maybe the name of the artist. So the piece has to talk for itself.

You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, or any other heavily marketed artwork. And in terms of pricing. It's all a game.

> You can be sure people never actually see the original Mona Lisa, [...]

Long queues in the Louvre disagree.

Is that the original or an almost perfect copy?

That's an interesting question!

I believe it's the original. But it would be fun to think about an (almost) perfect copy hanging there.

For a case in point: the British museum has the original Rosetta stone. Complete with long queues and keeping visitors at a respectable distance.

In the same building, the British museum also has a very good copy of the Rosetta stone. That copy just stands there without any case around it, you can just go and touch it.

Cool to see that kind of effort rewarded in a space often dominated by post-processing tricks

It's not even a new thing. I remember an article, in Outside maybe, about the controversy around how many photos in the wildlife/landscape space were heavily post-processed in various way.

I had a friend who prided himself in his (very good) nature photography and he got quite discouraged with respect to nature photography contests when so many people weren't stopped taking photos "out of the camera."

Stunning image.

Although, having experienced a solar eclipse and the associated hysteria around protective glasses, I wonder how risky it was for his eyesight to look through a magnifying lens.

It looks like he is using an EOS R5, in the video he uploaded of him taking the photo. This is a mirrorless camera (very common nowadays) so the viewfinder is merely an LED screen with a live video.

Wow, the photo burst was insane...

This link seems worse than the original at https://www.birdpoty.com/2025-winners

I find photographers have a particular knack of seeing 'just slightly into the future'. Almost like the eyes are constantly analysing environmental studies and able to form a sixth sense for patterns and predictability. Most notable would be Henri Cartier-Bresson who coined much of the concepts of 'the decisive moment'

Bresson is from a time where you had 38 shots maximum, before you need to reload your camera. It takes an immense amount of attention, but also you’re statistically unlikely to take the kind of photo that you can get today (eg most of these bird images).

My current camera takes 20 photos per second sustained AND comes with a pre-buffer that captures 2s of images before you press the trigger. It’s wild!

(I don’t take photos anywhere near Bresson’s but still, it helps)

I don't do much sports or concert photography these days--or indeed a lot of photography outside of my iPhone--but I observe that while I still have some photos from film days that I think are pretty decent, being able to just shoot thousands of photos of some event helps to get the few keepers.

Getting expressions/the way people are aligned/etc. is just so unpredictable that, even if you're in the a reasonable location to shoot and the light is generally good, high-speed shooting and maybe thousands of frames helps to beat a few rolls of film. Even pros with motor drives were relatively constrained.

As others have observed though, there's also planning and just spending the time. The favorite photo I've taken in Death Valley over many visits is a fairly standard location/view but the sky is just really unusual for the area. I suppose these days (or really at the time given enough skill and imagination), I could just have done a photo-composite.

I'm sure there's a talent to it, but practice helps a ton. I'm certainly not comparing myself to Cartier-Bresson, but in the very specific type of photography I regularly shoot (youth sports) you learn the rhythm and patterns and what to look out for. I'd imagine street or wildlife photography is much the same. Patience, practice, and accepting that 99% of the picture you make will be crap.

I’m not anything but an enthusiastic hack, but the 99% rings true. I’ve made a goal for myself to get just one photo I’m happy with of as many cat species in the wild as I can. It’s taken me about ten thousand shots to cross off lion, cheetah, and leopard. Going to shoot bobcats in California for four days in a couple months, and I suspect I’ll get lots of interesting photos, but I’ll be very lucky to get “the shot”.

Have you ever shared "the shot"s you got of those 3 cats? Would love to see them if you have :) Best of luck with the bobcat!

Here's the leopard one:

https://imgur.com/9YkWlRf

Ooo bobcats! I live in the bay area near Tilden Park, and I spent a while on iNaturalist trying to figure out where the bobcats hang out, as my 6 year old is very interested in wild cats. I realized sadly that bobcats are usually out at morning/evening, when we are not in the parks. Still used the bobcat stalking as an excuse to take a walk in Tilden today though.

What's your approach to finding the bobcat locations for your shot?

I'm going up to Point Reyes with a guide and a tracker, so that I'll at least have a pretty good chance of seeing the cats. Getting good shots is on me though!

I've done a lot of street photography, and yeah I think the fundamental skill is scanning the environment, then predicting what will happen in order to snap the perfect shot. For example, you might see a fence making an interesting shadow, then figure out how to position yourself such that passers-by fit into the scene.

In practice, you end up standing around and waiting a lot. Moving quickly through a city is almost guaranteed to result in missing some great shots. (Saying this from experience.)

I take wildlife shots but mainly for the record, which I post on iNaturalist. On occasion, I do need to see 'slightly into the future' for some shots, like predicting where birds and flying insects might be when I'm tracking them for shots. (This can be hard for pollinating insects flying from flower to flower.)

Wildlife photogs feel a bit like magicians, in that no one would believe the level of effort required to get the result.

Yep, wildlife photographers are just outdoorsy wizards with cameras instead of wands

Liron is an incredible photographer. Well worth checking out his instagram at https://www.instagram.com/liron_gertsman_photography

He and another photographer recently did a project to photograph a bird in front of erupting volcano. I’m really looking forward to seeing that one.

My BIL is a wildlife photographer. One day he went into his favorite area to photograph the local Bison. He was as quiet as he could be moved into the terrain slowly and stopped every few minutes so as not to spook the animals. Only to be suddenly berated angrily that he was spoiling the shot... another, far more experienced wildlife photographer had been lying in wait there for days knowing the bison would have to head his way. In spite of that bad introduction they became fast friends. Wołkow has since died, he was one of a kind. I spent a night with him just looking at some of his slides, he found so much beauty.

This reads like a poem

I can assure you that the words that Wołkow spoke were, while colorful, definitely not poetry ;)

He'd been covered by a pile of leaves, had had bugs crawling all over him and then saw his perfect shot ruined. His talent for photography was apparently absolutely matched by his talent for the use of the Polish language.

Of course, I just mean that your comment was written so beautiful. Like a poem

That frigatebird eclipse shot? That's not just a lucky moment, it's a literal alignment of science, nature, and patience. You don't get that without obsession-level planning and deep respect for the subject

ChatGPT

You’re almost there! But let’s unpack that further.

Not a chance, troubled human...

Title is wrong. They're all human photographers.

(pun only possible in English)

Title is correct for about half the entries. Half are men.

(joke only works in UK slang)

I love birds, birds are awesome, intelligent, and prime candidates for taking over the planet after primates and cephalopods, but they can be cruel motherfuckers (don't watch birds eating other birds on YouTube), just like humans I guess.