[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: A photograph of a manatee, bending over backwards in the water and looking at the photographer with its right eye. TEXT: “Things are tough for you right now, I know. But it will get better. It won’t always be this hard. Take things one step at a time. Everything is going to turn out great. You’ll see.”]
purple glossy starling, also known as purple starling
photossecond photo by aj havercamp)
Correction: The first photo, of a starling looking directly at the camera, is by Brian Scott; link to original flickr post is here.
Only the second photo, of a starling in profile facing to our right, is the work of Arjan Haverkamp / A.J. Haverkamp; link to original flickr post is here.
(For those who can’t view the photos: both depict the head, throat / upper chest and shoulder(s) of yellow-eyed birds with sharp, dark-gray beaks, and iridescent purple feathers on their heads shading through iridescent blue to iridescent turquoise on their shoulders and below their throats. The bird in the upper photo has its head tilted off the horizontal, giving it the appearance of a quizzical expression.)
Though both photos depict birds from the same genus, the glossy starlings or Lamprotornis, they might not be the same species within that genus. Brian Scott’s identification of his subject as a purple glossy starling (Lamprotornis purpureus) appears to be correct, or at least consistent with the purple starling’s eye color and as much of its plumage as is visible. M. Haverkamp’s identification of the bird in the bottom photo as a superb glossy starling (Lamprotornis superbus), however, doesn’t seem to match that species’ description as given on Wikipedia, as the bird in the photo has yellow-irised eyes, not white or red. As there are over a dozen species in the glossy starling genus, many of them very similar in appearance to one another, a definitive identification with only the head and neck visible is impossible.
The two photographers didn’t both capture portraits of the same individual bird, in any case; their two photos were actually taken in different countries, England and the Netherlands, respectively, even though all the glossy starling species are native to Africa. Their vibrant coloring makes them popular with aviaries, botanical gardens and zoos on other continents, as these two photos demonstrate.
Most importantly, starlings are pretty to look at. ;)
The gorgeous photo above was taken at Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve (possibly in this semi-separate creek/trail area) in Sonoma County, California, USA — which, in addition to at least two wheelchair-accessible paths(!), also features, for some of the park’s trails, “interpretive panels in Braille, and tree hugging platforms.”
[Image description: Facing up along a path through a pine forest thick with trees of various sizes and ages from sapling to ancient. Immediately in front of the photographer are what appear to be railings, made of wood and thickly-grown-over with bright green moss, at either side of the trail as it crosses a creek flowing horizontally across the vista; but the translucent (almost cloudy… mineral-rich?) and vividly blue-green water of the creek has flooded up high enough to submerge parts of the railing and nearly all of the bridge or walkway that now lies hidden under the water. The forest-green needles of the evergreens, the bright, slightly yellow-green of the moss, the startling deep-turquoise hue of the water, and the rich red-brown of the litter covering the forest floor on the near and far banks all compete with each other, yet also complement one another. Both the wood of the half-submerged railings, and the bark of the trees — where either remains as yet free of moss — are dark with dampness, appearing nearly black, and seeming almost to frame the areas of varying colors. The reflection visible in the sluggish water of the creek is entirely of the overshadowing forest of the far bank, with no sky visible at all, so that the striking appearance of the water is unmistakably a feature of the water itself, not merely a reflection.]
Source: Flickr / mclyte04
He did the strangest thing. Rolled up a joint in cardboard. Never seen that before but I guess if you got no paper you gotta make do. I’ve had a sheltered life.
Yet another mis-attributed work by an amazing artist that showed up on tumblr stripped of any connection to or mention of that artist.**
Like most such images I come across, finding the true source of this photograph took me less than five minutes.
It’s possible that one or more of the thousands of tumblr users who reblogged this image before me also found the correct attribution information and included it with their post. But, unless the original post contains (or is edited to include) that information, and a link to that post is preserved through all reblog branches, the majority of the reblogs aren’t going to include or even link to the correct source — that is, the artist who created the work being reblogged all over tumblrspace.
It really isn’t difficult or time-consuming to find sources for un- or mis-attributed works you come across on tumblr. If the work is (or includes as part of an image) text, you can put a quotation from it into your search engine of choice in order to locate the original source. With images, whether photographic or otherwise, Google Image Search has gotten really good at finding matching images even when they’re cropped differently or otherwise (un)altered; just go to google.com/imghp, click the camera icon in the search box, and paste in the URL of the copy of the image you found on tumblr. With most images, the source will be either one of the first web results, or on the results page accessed by clicking either the “All sizes” link (near the top of the page, above webpage results) or a matching image in the “Visually similar images” link (near the bottom of the page, below webpage results).
Even if you only look for the creator credit for things you want to reblog once in a while, every time someone takes those few minutes makes a difference…
* The photograph featured in this post is only one of literally hundreds of arresting portraits of homeless people that Jeffries has captured. His flickr photostream and website are both well worth the visit — though perhaps more wisely in moderation than marathon session, as the pain and adversity of life on the streets is more often highlighted than hidden in Jeffries’s work, and those harsh realities are disquieting.
Further comments from the photographer, as found on the flickr page:
The challenge of course is to try and make “colour” artistic. So much easier with a black and white shot. It helps having the right ingredients to start with. I saw his eyes from across the street and almost RAN to get to them!!!
I told him that he had stunning eyes too. He was a quiet man and just smiled and said thank you.
** This reblog ultimately — according to the information on the tumblr-reblog where I found it, at least — traces back to a post made by realsh1t; the source & image links previously went to realsh1t's main page, however, rather than the post that began this thread, and, with five-thousand-plus notes, I’m not checking whether that attribution is accurate.
الصورة تعتبر لـ كائن بحري ..
يمكن البعض ينخدع ويظن ان زرع.. مثل ماحصل
معاي في بداية الأمر ..
ويعتبر من الكائنات البحرية النادرة ويشابه بصورة كبيرة ..حصان البحر..
الي حاب يعرف معلومات عنة على هذا الرابط ..
(From what Google Translate yielded, the Arabic seems to mean something along the lines of, ‘the appearance of this marine organism can be deceiving, it is rare and closely related to the seahorse, click on the link to learn more about them.’)
Click either image (same credit) to see the full-size photo.
Leafy seadragons are incredibly rare in aquaria even in their country of origin (they’re native to the southern coast of Australia, and nowhere else in the world) because — thus far, at least — efforts to breed them in captivity have been almost universally unsuccessful, and also because they require very specific and difficult-to-maintain conditions, and live prey which are themselves tricky to source or breed. All of which is a shame, since leafy sea dragons are surely some of the most beautiful creatures in our seas.
Source: Flickr / xzisht
Peacock Rock, Macro¹
Gosh, I wonder why they call this mineral “Peacock Rock”? Also called “Peacock ore”, this bornite specimen displays the iridescence popular to collectors. The glowing blues and blue-violet colors predominate in this specimen I own. When there is a lot of copper in the mineral (up to 63%), the colors really shine in sunlight. It is found in several well-known deposits in the world, with Arizona being one of them. For more information, check out this website, the Minerals Zone, for Bornite [aka] Copper Iron Sulfide Cu5FeS4.
There are so many large copper mine areas in Arizona, so this is easy to find here.
The area of this photo is focused on about 1/2” square of the specimen which is about 5” long and weighs about 1/2 pound.
ɴοτε ₁: The word macro in the title “Peacock Rock, Macro” refers to macrophotography, not image macros.
ɴοτε ₂: ”[…]” indicates where I snipped out the sections of their image description that cobalt123 quoted from other sources, since otherwise the attributions could have become overly confusing.
This brings back memories! I bought my first “peacock ore” specimen on a primary-school field trip to a science museum, where the gift shop had pebble-sized examples of a variety of visually-interesting minerals glued onto cardstock printed with the name of each specimen. (Do they still do that…?) The chunk in cobalt123’s photo is larger than any I’ve had, though I did once have a piece of a different variety of copper ore almost that large. I love the bokeh near the edges of this photo; the sequin-like effect really enhances the sparkle of the crisply-focused center.
On another note…
Somewhere along the reblog line between eccentricity and 13thmoon, Tumblr user <ohheeeeeeey> — whose username I deliberately did not linkify — set the “Clicking this photo links to” field to go to their own Tumblr, apparently thinking their desire for pageviews trumped people further down the line being able to trace the source of the image. This is douchey. Do not do it. Leave credit information where you find it!
Instead of leaving it there, I replaced the link to ohhe…ey’s Tumblr with a direct link to the larger version of cobalt123’s photo. That’s usually what I expect to get when I click on an image in someone else’s Tumblr — that or the post permalink; it can be hard to predict, sometimes, where the nine zillion different Tumblr layouts will put the links to post-view, image-view, notes, like, reblog, etc.
The person who posted this, from-mydreams, included the name of the photgrapher and a link to the Flickr page where he had put his photo online.
The person whose Tumblr I found the image on hadn’t included the credit information. I don’t know whether that person deleted Lawrence Martinez’s name & URL themselves, or whether they came across the image via a different Tumblrer’s reblog who might themselves have come across it without the credit having been included, and so on, and so on. It’s been liked/rebloogged over 600 times, so chances are that even if I had traced the reblog thread back to whoever stripped the credit off in the first place, that Tumblrer wasn’t the only one who deleted the credit information that was there on whichever page they reblogged from.
Don’t do that. Don’t take the identity of the photographer (or writer or singer or painter or whatever) off things when you reblog them. It’s pointlessly obnoxious.
When we come across things we want to reblog, the information about who created those things isn’t always included, and that isn’t our fault; but whenever we have that information available to us and choose to hide it from whoever will be seeing it on our Tumblrs, that is our fault. (Whenever we post things without at least trying to locate the information we’d need to give credit to the creators of that content, that is also and even more so our fault, but that wasn’t the case here.) Tumblr is a great tool for sharing creativity… but when creators aren’t credited for their creative works, it can too easily become not just a tool for theft of creative works, and make creators not want to make their future work available online.
So it’s in everyone’s interest:
Credit the creators of whatever shiny things you want to share on your Tumblr.
Dankish (aka the photographer who actually took this):
Rila National Park, Bulgaria… And in case you’re wondering — Tim Burton is one of my favourite film directors :)
nightmare-desert only posted this photograph.
nightmare-desert has excellent taste in landscape-photography appreciation, but execrable habits in crediting (or rather not crediting) the people who made those photographs available for strangers on the internet to appreciate.
nightmare-desert does not deserve to be credited for this post.
It took me all of less than five minutes to find the real source for this image. (With many images all it takes is going to Google Image Search, clicking the camera icon in the search box to select “Search by image”, pasting in the URL of the image you found on Tumblr, and picking out which of the copies in “More Sizes” view is the original.) We need to do better, Tumblrers. We need to stop just reblogging things we come across that are missing attribution to their creators. The fact that someone else posted it with incorrect credit — or no credit at all — is no excuse to continue sending their post along like a chain letter.
Sometimes I can’t find sources for things I want to post or reblog; that’s going to happen sometimes. But we owe it to the people who make the things that delight us to give them credit. Plus, if you know where to find the source of an awesome post, you can often find even more awesome stuff by the same creator. It’s in everyone’s best interest to give credit for photos, artwork, writing, poetry, videos, music and every other kind of creative work that can be found on Tumblr, whenever it’s possible to do so.
Click here, or on the image above, for the full-size (1024x683) copy, which shows the detail much better — the inline version on Tumblr’s servers is only 500 pixels wide and may be stretched on your screen, causing pixelation and/or fuzziness.
And now, finally, it’s time for my feelings about the actual photo itself:
Mmm, moraine eccentrics embedded in the hilly ground underlying a pine forest. I can’t help but recognize this place as home… even though I’ve never been anywhere near Bulgaria, which is where the photo was taken. It’s amazing how much this view resembles similar landscapes in southern New England (USA), where I grew up.
Source: Flickr / dankish