I had a nicer post, but it wouldn't compress <70k even at 400x400 pixels. This is pretty much how I found this bird, although I did drag it to a white patch of sand. Scanned from a 6x6 negative with a minolta dimage scan multi.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), September 01, 1999

Answers

Larry, unless your trying to show the ugliness of death, this is not up to the quality of your other work. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), September 02, 1999.

Really enjoyed most all of your other images but I have to say " What were you thinking". Dragging a dead bird to nice white sand to show what? Obviously I missing the point if there is one. We have to forgive you for this one, you have shown us much better.

-- steven sisti (stevesisti@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

I like this shot. It is an artistic portrayal of the other side of nature. (death and cruelty) We tend to concentrate on the beautiful side of nature but a good photograph doesn't have to be pretty. I like the positioning of the wings,head and leg.Even though badly decayed it is still obvious what the subject is. I like the black and white approach. Call me sick, but I like it.

-- Sean Corley (corley@plpk.uq.edu.au), September 03, 1999.

The problem with this photo is the harsh lighting. As with any photo, lighting is the most important element, and this one just does not work. Softer lighting would make it a good photograph. The other comments seem more related to the subject matter than to the merits of the photograph. Personally I think the only good buzzard is a dead buzzard. Those things have a real nasty habit of jumping in front of motorcycles and puking road kill on the riders.

-- Darron Spohn (sspohn@concentric.net), September 03, 1999.

I see the irony of taking a photo of a dead bird (Turkey Vulture, not buzzard) that feeds on dead things. I think this image is just as powerful as one of your other more popular ones.

-- John D. (doogie@wcnet.net), September 04, 1999.