this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
394 points (99.5% liked)
Superbowl
3497 readers
232 users here now
For owls that are superb.
US Wild Animal Rescue Database: Animal Help Now
International Wildlife Rescues: RescueShelter.com
Australia Rescue Help: WIRES
Germany-Austria-Switzerland-Italy Wild Bird Rescue: wildvogelhilfe.org
If you find an injured owl:
Note your exact location so the owl can be released back where it came from. Contact a licensed wildlife rehabilitation specialist to get correct advice and immediate assistance.
Minimize stress for the owl. If you can catch it, toss a towel or sweater over it and get it in a cardboard box or pet carrier. It should have room to be comfortable but not so much it can panic and injure itself. If you can’t catch it, keep people and animals away until help can come.
Do not give food or water! If you feed them the wrong thing or give them water improperly, you can accidentally kill them. It can also cause problems if they require anesthesia once help arrives, complicating procedures and costing valuable time.
If it is a baby owl, and it looks safe and uninjured, leave it be. Time on the ground is part of their growing up. They can fly to some extent and climb trees. If animals or people are nearby, put it up on a branch so it’s safe. If it’s injured, follow the above advice.
For more detailed help, see the OwlPages Rescue page.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
unnecessary blur on that there picture...
I ran Pixel's Unblur on it 4 times and cropped out the rest for you. 😉
It does seem a little excessive, but that's artistic license I suppose. It was supposedly a real photographer that took the photo, but this pic has been around the Internet for a while, and I couldn't confirm the original source.
lol, thanks... that looks a lot better
I accommodate you all when I can! 😆
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
yeah, duh, everyone has that effect on their camera
in this case, in was unnecessarily added in
Unless it was completely faked, the photographer likely has no choice for this. Lowering the aperture to get a wider depth of field wou reduce the amount of light significantly to either introduce motion blur (if not on a tripod) or significant noise. Also, this sort of angle on a telephoto lens would be very difficult to not blur out
Unless it is faked in, it's difficult to tell though
Thanks for the insight. I'm not a photographer, so I try hard to weed out fake pics, I'm just interested in sharing real owls.
I get a lot of stories from animal rescues off their Facebook feeds, so I get recommended all these "owl photos" where most are very unlikely to be real, but some like this are plausible, but I try to trace them back to an actual person. This was listed by a million reposts as being by EE Photography, which I couldn't find anywhere.
The pic is simple enough, and isn't showing anything unrealistic, so I figured what the heck. It's a fun pic I think, so this one made the cut.
When I say faked I more specifically mean the depth of field being faked which I would be very surprised if it was
Ooo I gotcha now. I do appreciate the insight though, my photography knowledge is very limited, so even though I don't totally understand, it's more than I knew before!
Pretty much, if I was shooting this with my D850 and 200-500mm at 500mm and f/7.2 and the owl was 20ft away the total depth of field would be 2.3 inches 5.8cm. That's half that in front of the plane of focus and half behind. That's about as shallow as I would want to go and so looking at that image I think it's shot at maybe 300mm