Lenticular image: detailed description

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

In my previous post I mentioned finding a lenticular enlargement at
a flea market last weekend.  The quality of this example of the
lenticular format far exceeds anything in my previous (limited)
experience with lenticulars, which is why I was first attracted to
it.  Stereoscopically, the image composition would certainly receive
at least one demerit from the average P3D subscriber (probably more
from Dr. T's sharp eyes!), but I am intrigued by the "how'd they do
that?" nature of the image itself.

The main subject of the image is a large bird, which I believe to
be an immature bald eagle (sorry, I'm not a birder, so I'm not
completely sure!)  It is a profile view, but the eagle's head is
turned about 45 degrees toward the camera so that one eye is looking
straight at the lens.  The setting is a mountaintop, with a large,
rocky mountain in the lower 1/3 of the left background and a slightly
lower mountainridge in the right background.  In the upper 1/6 of
the image the background is mostly blue sky speckled with white
clouds.  The bird is standing on a knarly limb (or very bent over
trunk!) of a tree with very little visible green growth; the tree is
perhaps a bristlecone pine (sorry, not a botanist, either, but it is
certainly a tree from an alpine/sub-alpine environment).  The bird's
wings are outstretched, but not completely as they would be in flight;
it is either just landing on the tree limb, or about to take off again.
The entire underside of the near wing is clearly visible, and the far
wing points toward the sky at about a 60 degree angle from horizontal.
The near wing gives the appearance of extending quite high above the
surface of the print.  The extreme tip of the near wing, a rock
formation in the right foreground and some of the tiny green growth of
the tree in the left foreground, are all just enough out of focus to be
mildly distracting.  The depth of field also does not quite extend to
infinity, but I do not find that objectionable in this image. The
photographer must have been a master at fill-flash calculations, as
the bird, including the underside of the near wing, is perfectly
exposed with nary a hint of a flash bright spot, while the distant
mountainside is just ever-so-slightly overexposed.  The picture has
a very large percentage of brownish-grey, with the blue sky and small
amount of green from the tree the only other non-white colors, so it
does not provide any insight into the color reproduction potential of
lenticulars (but see my next post.)

So, how'd they do that?  The eagle is almost eyeball-to-eyeball with
the camera.  How could such a close shot have been taken?  Is there
such a thing as lenticular telephotos?  That sounds like it would
be unimaginably expensive!  At first glance the remnants of my flattie
photo mind said there was depth compression from a large camera-to-
subject distance, but then I realized I was misinterpreting the
effect of limited depth resolution, presumably attributable to the
lenticular format; now I don't believe telephoto lenses were used.
Perhaps a remote or automatic triggering device could have been used to
fire the camera?  Or perhaps the bird is not alive?  But would someone
(other than a museum) really have a stuffed bald eagle?!  And if they
did, would they really lug it to the top of a mountain to compose this
shot?  Or is the background fake?  My (totally subjective) impression is
it is likely the background is real.  I don't know how to intelligently
judge whether the bird might be stuffed, but certain aspects of it seem
inconsistent with that notion.  The part of the tree on which the bird
stands slopes upward at about 45 degrees.  The near leg is straight, but
the far leg looks like it is bent at the knee.  The far foot is higher
than the near foot due to the slope of the tree; if the stuffed eagle
were standing on a flat table, it would be significantly leaning to
one side.  The talons appear to be clutching the tree in an entirely
natural manner; they are not extended in the classic attack position
that one would expect if the bird had been stuffed for a non-standing
postion.  If it is stuffed, it seems most likely it is actually mounted
to the tree it is on, which would make the job of getting the bird to
the mountaintop even more difficult!

Well, thanks for bearing with my attempt to describe this picture I
find so fascinating and puzzling.  Anyone have any ideas?

Paul Talbot


------------------------------