Am I the only one who is really annoyed that most of the taxidermy suppliers don't carry the smallest eyes in 1mm increments? Are they really too expensive and bulky to keep as inventory? I know they have a pretty good shelf life.
I have some small birds to mount, and they need 5mm. eyes. The only supplier near me carries 4's, 6's, and then 8-12's. On a 4mm eye, 2mm is half of the diameter! To put it in perspective, let's say you wanted to mount an animal that needed 25mm eyes. You go to your favorite supplier's catalog and discover that they only carry 20mm or 30m! What!? Sucks, right?
But, suppose you are like me and you don't usually order supplies in tiny amounts - instead you try to wait and combine several items to save on shipping. I truly would LIKE to use my closest supplier, but since I have to go elsewhere anyway just to get the eyes I need, I will go ahead and order everything else that I need from the out-of-region company, too. It adds about a week to the amount of time it takes me to get the order, but the actual costs are almost identical so I just adjust my schedule and deal with it.
Not carrying a tiny item that sells for less than a dollar ends up costing my local supplier several hundred dollars in a missed sale - just on one order.
Now, if it's only me, then I can see where stocking a selection of small eyes might not be worth it, but has anybody else ever had this problem? I'm just looking for input before I decide whether it's worth asking my local company to consider adding more inventory.
Nancy M.
Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu
Some birds there eyes are pretty dark eh? you can hardly see the pupil
I would think a bigger eye would be necessry cause the eye lids are going over It anyway..whats the dif?
ask them to put this in stock, they usually will if they know there is a market and especially if they know they will lose ALL your order over a few dollars.
Eyes are the mirror to the soul (or something like that), and I have yet to find any company that consistantly has good eyes with a variety of pupil diameters and proper curvature - at least for small birds. When you are mounting very small birds you even need incremental eyes sizes. If you need a 2.5 mm eye, because the 2.0 is too small, and the three too big, it may seem like a small difference. As you point out though, if in this case you used a 2.0 mm the eye would be 20% too small. A deer eye which required a 25 mm eye would look plain silly with a 20 mm eye.
My suggestion would be to watch ebay and when one of those auctions occur with a box of old German eyes from the twenties or thirties come up, purchase the lot. I have seen the old eyes go reasonably high - a pile of say 60 old bird eyes may fetch $90.00, but when you divide them up, they only cost $1.50 apiece. Often eye lots go much cheaper though, and I have connected on a few. (Luckilly I already have a stash of old eyes from discarded antique birds, so I don't have to spend money to build up a reserve.
The key to a good eye is clarity, pupil diameter (as per the species being mounted), and proper curvature. Many older American eye companies had way too flat of a curvature for small birds. The visible eye in a small bird mount should most often resemble an almost perfect section of a sphere. Most companies don't do this. The bubble eyes come close, but I usually buy a dozen sets when I need them, and cut up the lot and sort them to actual diameter and curvature (occasionally discarding poor ones).
The supply companies probably don't stock the variety of small eyes because there isn't really much call for them. I can't fault them for business plans. Good luck convincing your company though.
They realize that normal people don't notice the difference of an eye behind the eyelid being 1 or 2mm larger than the "prescribed" one. I keep telling people how strange bird people are and no one believes me.
As for the deer, I routinely use 32mm for all my deer. Since I'm using the IQ or Joe Meder series with the white scleral band, the clay work usually covers most of the edges anyway, and the deer certainly don't complain. Neither do my customers. A 5mm eye is about the same diameter as 3/16. In a bird's eye, that seems amazingly small for anyone to ever notice one silly little millimeter.
It really DOES matter. Using a bigger eye just throws the entire expression off. Only right is right. That's why we are making fun of the lynx mount being auctioned on eBay (a few posts earlier.)
Good idea Stephen! Duh. As much time as I spend on eBay, you would think that it would have occurred to me at some point, but NO-O-O ... I almost never check out taxidermy or anything related to it. EBay is mainly just play time for me, where I collect porcelain birds and then sell pencilled turkey feathers to try to support the habit.
(New batch to be listed soon, BTW. eBay ID: greybird52)
Nancy M.
Yes, a single millimeter IS awfully small when you are talking about deer eyes, but when you are talking about about small eyes it can be 25% or 30% of the diameter. Would you be comfortable using 42mm eyes instead of 32mm?
OK, I know you're at least as old as I am (LOL) so I will make allowances. First magnify a good image of a tiny bird until it is the size of a deer - THEN you'll be able to see what I mean. (I have to do this all the time too, nowadays.)
Certifiably yours,
greybird
Two weekends ago an an estate sale I saw a whole box of porcelin/ceramic birds alongside a box of dogs with miscellaneous other things in it. I bought the dogs for $20 and got a grizzly and a nice beagle which I will keep, then sell the rest on Ebay. Lately I have been collecting old orn-a-craft chalkware mammal sculptures form the late 40's to 50's. I got a great moose a few weeks ago to go with about 8 other pieces. I've been running out of taxidermy books that are new to my collection - the odd issue of a periodical I need seems to be all I tend to pick up.
And George - bird people have a keen eye for detail. When you mount things for yourself, the details matter. Most mammal taxidermists only make supports for antlers - which is about all the customer ever looks at. If that lynx was an antlered animal with boone and crocket numbers, no one would even notice the eyes.
And now birds have "expressions". Nancy, find something with 4 legs and fur. THEY have expressions. Birds simply look dead. And the analogy of "antlers" is distorted as a goofy mount can be done and noticed quite well. If you you mount a grouse with a reflux expression, no one notices anything other than the feathers fall into place and whether it has a good fan or not. The bad thing about birds and overrated by many is the "off eye". Birds don't see forward very well and seldom are commercial mounts done "face on". The opposing eye on a bird is about as useless as the off side eye on a bass wall mount. It'll take more years than I have left to change my oppinion of bird specialists. They're like in-laws. I can appreciate what they bring to the table, but I dread having to have long dinners with them. LMAO
We too have the same problem as Nancy stated. What I see the main problem is the companies really aren't that worried about any eyes being to big or to small for a persons commercial work. Sorry but that's a fact. The reason for this is that there are just a few folks out there who really pay attention to what make a mount a great mount. Yes, your right about the client not caring what the eye size is but this goes to show you on how we care what the companies are producing out there.
You now have better deer manikins constanly being produced to make it as close as to anatomically correct but when it comes to eyes being manufactured, naw who cares. Who cares about that two inch seam on the back of a fish manikin that is stapled to the form and covered with who knows what.
It's us folks who are a bit more concerned with our quality of work that are concerned with eye size. We know for a matter of fact that when you have the right size in there the skin lays so much better, trying to build the sarotic capsule on a fish eye,etc.
In the end it's these companies that don't care about us or those who are trying to achieve the high quality or work. All they care about are those doing commercial work and don't care about eye size. Yep it looks good, all I need is some clay or more epoxy to make it look good and we're done! Right?
Now I think it's high time that we, all of us demand a better service and more selection of eye sizes.......... Most of the time a company is trying to make things cheaper and cheaper (age of plastics LOL) which is fine but let's not loose the sense of quality. We are always looking to buy products cheaper and cheaper so we can make ends, why? It's time we do raise prices and get what we all deserve, to make a decent living on what we love to do, not finding the cheapest products and try to make it look good for less and try to cut the next guy out by trying to be cheaper. If you really like to work or in reality pay them to do their work, fine do it but not me! I just watched another taxidermist go bankruptcy. He is three years behind and called it quits, why? He was way to cheap! Buying cheap products, doing cheap work, gets way too much work, in the end no money also!
Is this industry getting better or worse with some of the new products being introduced? Is what we call taxidermy becoming an artist or are we becoming more like the hackisdermist on E-Bay?
OK done venting LOL.............................
I feel the same way! I actually skinned out three fish the other day and would you guess what size the eyes were. Brown Trout 13mm
sm mouth bass 13 mm and a lg. mouth Bass with 15 mm. I thought that no one ever had this issue with the suppliers. We'll I do. And it is good to see that there are others whom feel that same way. On many occasions I have odd size eyes. So, here is the ? On fish when you have a measurement of a brn trout eye that is 13mm does one order and use the 12 mm or the 14mm pair? Thanks
All bird don't just set there. Have you never been surprized in a thick laurel patch by a turkey who made the mistake of being ten feet away from you with a shotgun. The look in the eyes is one you will never forget - fear, apprehension, and "now what?" The position of the body isn't the only thing that shows expression. True artists attempt to paint a complete picture with the animal as a moldable sculpture complete with feathers. We may not know how to get it perfect but we strive to do it.
Current deer manikans seem to have more muscular development than Arnold when he was on steroids. At the same time, they set the eye at a "relaxed" position. When Arnold was relaxed watching TV in a sofa, he didn't flex his muscles like in competition - so why do deer head taxidermists do it?
When I walk into a taxidermy competition room, even though I am looking at taxidermy as an art, my eyes still focus on the tops of the antler stands, but with birds, I look at the eyes and the head first. If attention isn't focused there, position of the feather tracks are probably wrong anyhow.
Frank and Ernie have valid points. Perhaps all mammal taxidermists on this forum are Commercial Taxidermists.
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who is frustrated with having to "make do" with eyes that I KNOW are wrong! I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for those few who deal with small reptiles - 'sure glad it ain't me! And I was thinking of the "fish guys" too in my original post, where I said only "the smallest eyes" and not "bird eyes".
I think perhaps the major suppliers (or some of them, at least) must share George's opinion that birds have no facial expressions and that the eye on the non-show side is unimportant, as it also is (apparently) on wall mounts of bass.
There is simply no need for me to add anything else. George has defined and exemplified the entire heart and soul of the problem better than I could ever hope to. ('Not sure whether or not it was intentional, but it was wonderfully effective!)
I'm going to bite my tongue, figuratively speaking, and do some thinking before I put any of my more negative speculations into print.
Nancy M.
In science, you explanation of "expression" is also defined as "anthropomorphism". Birds ain't expressing nuthin, never. Get over it.
Frank, you know I appreciate your point and I'm as sure as anything that you and these bird people are sincere in your concerns, but sadly, it shows the depths that our trade has gotten to.
Those of you who "see" these intrinsic qualities and insist on perfecting them to make your work better fail to realize that only others of your pursuasion will ever appreciate that finite detail.
I said "sadly" with much forethought. Ten years ago, I told people that competitions and judging was killing the deer mounting business at competitions. We've defined it to such a finite quality that no one can compete anymore except those individuals willing to sacrifice a month or more on a single mount. Those mounts tend to be exquisite, but they also are too "perfect". Those receiving less than blue ribbons then push the envelope.
I recall 20 years ago, the perfect deer was a northern tier whitetail in a winter coat and it had a closed mouth. Now, the beckon call of our competitions are Mississippi deer killed in late July with no hair and an open mouth.
You walk into any competition and you'll see HALF the deer there that once festooned a show. All but the very best have fallen out of competition because it's gotten so ridiculous that it's proven futile. Currently, most of the "big names" are going into life-size smaller game or other game heads.
You bird and fish people are headed for the same malady and you just can't recognize it. Very few people ever see anything as close as competition other than a "bird in hand" or a dead bird. They don't see any "expression" because there is none. When I see a pheasant at 35 yards, he's within shotgun range and I don't need to determine that this one is a mutant who has 9 mm eyes rather than the correct 10's. Across the room, your "perfect" rock dove, grouse, pheasant, or turkey will look just as good or bad as a 3rd place ribbon as the first place ribbon. To think otherwise is to lead yourself down the road of self-aggrandizement. You are a minority whether you like it or not and the supplier/manufacturers aren't going to manufacture something that only a few of you insist on having.
Not for the the arguement for having a wide array of small bird (mammal/fish) eyes to choose from. Being from a position where I mount 10 times as many "dicky" birds as game birds, the eyes are VERY important. I will agree that a 9 mm. pheasant eye and a 10 mm. eye aren't that different. However, a 3.5 mm winter wren and a 4.5 mm Carolina wren are worlds apart (granted I am using these numbers from memory - I am not going over to measure scleotic rings to get the right measurement). 3.5 to 4.5, or 3 to 4 mm, are a 33% difference. a 9 mm to 10 mm is only 11% difference. Try using a 33% diference pheasant eye - say a 12 mm eye where a 9 is required.
Anthropomorphism could conceivably be believed for my example. However, I did not mean to say the bird looked at me and realized I was a human and conveyed the feeling that it should be afraid. Instinct, what you may construe to be a bird brain, takes over. The eye widens to take in as much light as possible, and thus to allow reaction time to be sped up as a "fight or flight" reaction starts in the cerebral cortex begins. Birds have a "Rush" much as we would when a grouse flushes at our feet.
I personally think that more people should pay attention to bird eye position. The commercial eye rings that well known bird taxidermists market, along with cast beaks of standard size, does little to allow the commercial taxidermist to do other than a standard commercial mount. It does allow the un-experienced bird taxidermist to use the Henry Ford Production Line for Bird Taxidermy, and will produce a standard Model A duck, but what I want is an A+ duck. Fish people who carve their own bodies, like Frank (who needs to chime in here again), don't want to take the nearest sized Archie Phillips Fish body out of the catalogue, and produce a Model A bass. Perhaps I am acting a bit elitist in my approach, but then I strive to reach quality which is beyond my current reach. If I only had time...
Expression exists in all animals, be they hunting dogs, house cats, blue jays harassing a housecat, or rattlesnakes hunting for the next meal. Even you George have an expression on your face as you read this. Wish I could see it...
George. I don't know why, but that phrase came into my mind when I read your post.
The price-shoppers who can't tell a good mount from a bad one can have you as their champion. You are articulate, familiar with the industry, and (judging from your last post) desirous that taxidermy should remain a "trade" rather than be elevated to an art. You also seem to be opposed to taxidermy competitions ... so why enter one?
It's a good thing for me and the rest of the self-aggrandizing minority that there are pleny of clients out there who don't agree with you!
Sad, sad, sad. I am truly sorry for you George, but I accept that human beings have a lot of quirks and none of us are perfect.
Anyway, by the true definition of anthromorphism, deer don't have "expressions" either. Why waste your money on IQ or Eppley eyes when the cheapest ones look the same from across the room?
How many people do you suppose have seen a live deer within touching distance? Quite a few I suspect, but do you think it comes close to the number who have seen live birds in cages? Or fish in aquariums?
Could there be more to taxidermy than upholstering a deer form?
Nancy M.
Every time a bird person is challenged, it ends like this with animal taxidermist simply stretching hide over armateurs while bird people "pose" their mounts.
No, Nancy, I'm NOT against competitions. I love them. But the "competitiveness" has carried this industry to the same place that duck carving has gone. Be honest now, Have YOU EVER SEEN the striations in feathers that is a requirement of duck carvers. They fail to realize if a duck had feather tracts that defined, it wouldn't be able to fly.
To imply that I'm against taxidermy as an art form is ludicrous, but your ART and MY art are from perspective only. Just how many Cape Buffalo,elk, deer, pronghorn, wolves, grey foxes, squirrels, minks, weasels and mice have you ever mounted? Is there a reason that number is so small and your numbers of specialty items are larger? I deal with a commodity and as a commercial practitioner, I create the APPEARANCE of the animal they brought in. That's what artistry really is. What specialists insist on is called "REALISM" and that's about as removed from what I do as Dada is removed from portrait work.
I'm just telling you that what you SEE isn't what many if not most of us SEE and what you do is being held captive by the prices of people like me who get the same effect without the same fanaticism. Your bird won't look any different than mine if placed side by side on the other side of a room. You can't change that simple fact. Your only solace has to be self-satisfaction here.
And NO, I don't relish the days of deer skulls on 2x4's with wood wool, string, and plaster around them. But at some point, we all have to admit that we've left the world of realism and gone far beyond creativity. Those Arnold deer mannikins that Stephen talks about are a shining example, but I've noticed some bird mannikins with ribs showing. What's that about? Those muscles never show through my Northern tier deer and your fully plumed widgeon is not going to be sporting any rib cage tracks in its side. As strange as Stephen's analogy was, do you know there are more Model "A" Fords on the road today than there are Falcons, Mavericks, and Ranchero's? I'm glad some of the old ways have become extinct, though occasionally I still see some beginner thinking he's reinvented the wheel. Still, there's lots to be said about the work done by the great masters years ago without the benefit of foam and IQ eyes.
Stephen, for those little "Tweets", that you mount, try the method I used years ago. Go to a fabric store and find the ball pins they sell and pick one that's closest to the right size. Dip it in enamel paint and let it dry. Mount your bird and just imbed the shortened pin through the eye hole. No one will ever notice. LMAO
In my collection of potential objects to be used for bird eyes. Unfortunately the glass ones I have are black and won't work for a white-eyed vireo.
Seeing animals across the room would be an interesting way to judge a competition. Joe Kish (or someone similar) suggested a six foot distance where the Judge could not feel up the mount, or test stability, or use a flashlight up the nostrils. Perhaps the distance isn't far enough. We should get a Basketball court and place the Taxidermy mounts at the opposite side of the judges spot. That way the eye diameter, or how much the eyes cost, wouldn't factor into the score.
George, your almost constant use of the word "Bird Brain" taxidermists seem to elicit the occassional digression, and I for one am willing to contribute my part. Have a nice day.
In my collection of potential objects to be used for bird eyes. Unfortunately the glass ones I have are black and won't work for a white-eyed vireo.
Seeing animals across the room would be an interesting way to judge a competition. Joe Kish (or someone similar) suggested a six foot distance where the Judge could not feel up the mount, or test stability, or use a flashlight up the nostrils. Perhaps the distance isn't far enough. We should get a Basketball court and place the Taxidermy mounts at the opposite side of the judges spot. That way the eye diameter, or how much the eyes cost, wouldn't factor into the score.
George, your almost constant use of the word "Bird Brain" taxidermists seem to elicit the occassional digression, and I for one am willing to contribute my part. Have a nice day.
I've been trying to eliminate such bad habits, but you see, I have so many of them I keep forgetting which one takes priority. LOL Sorry.
Gets 42 postings in the archives.
Only shows 3 and none of them the current thread. In fact, "george bird brain" does not even register. Are you trying to insult me? It takes a name to do that. LOL
is, to me, an astonishing work of art. I wish I had the readily disposeable income to purchase a few or, better yet, to commision some. I dabbled in woodcarving too, until my tools got burned up, and I have total respect for those artists who are able to pull it off and somehow make wood come to life. I know they exagerate the texture and take some other liberties with the feather structures, but still, the end results are breathtaking. That is MY idea of art.
But, some people like paintings and others like bronzes. Some like realism and some like abstractions. God forbid - some even collect those sickening little Hummel figurines! (shudder) Still, I think this is positive and I would never knowingly belittle someone just because I don't happen to share their taste or their interests.
I agree about those duck forms with ribs. I think they are silly, and even Frank Newmyer himself admits that those details don't show, but it does probably cut down on illicit copies. I can't think of any other LOGICAL reason for it other than that, though. BTW, in the same room with Frank, I am so boringly normal that people don't even see me. If there are different degrees of bird-brain-itis then my case must not be fully developed yet. (And I'm not 100% sure that I want it to be, either.) I DO take the term "bird brain" as a complement, though, even if I don't fully qualify.
I've never even dreamed of mounting a cape buffalo. I've been in the same room while several were being mounted, and that was close enough for me. Oversized, hairless, bundles of problems - no thanks! The vast majority of animals make me sneeze, itch, and break out in hives so I avoid them. (Otherwise, I think I would enjoy mounting cats because they are so attractive when done well - and a lot of them would be better off mounted anyway.) That's the reason why the number of mammals I have mounted is so small.
All of this started because I was wishing that I didn't have to order supplies from halfway across the continent (Van Dykes) when Research is right next door (by comparison.) I would even be satisfied with flints if they had the right sizes in stock, and I'm not looking for anything special like half sizes, just the standard small eyes that they could get from Tohikon - some of whose stock they already carry.
Amazing how these posts can take off on a tangent ....
And, even more amazing, here is a rather lengthy topic with plenty of differing opinions being expressed in a totally civil manner!
Is the world about to end?
Nancy M.
Frank Newmyer and NORMAL should never EVER be used in the same sentence together. LOL
why I've chosen George as one of my most admired mentors! Semper Fi John
A juvenile fish as with many other species the young have noticebly larger eyes. Look at birds and mammals too.
I have used glass bead pins for eyes in humming birds canaries etc.
I would guess and have to agree that a eye to large in a mallard would do the same.
Why not use a dark brown eye for most species of birds, where you can.
My bet is you will get ahold of Jocham Lange, Grub on Forst (yes its correct) Germany, he will make you what you are asking for.
I dont know about the rest of you, but when I buy fish eyes and bird eyes its normally in numbers of more than three ot ten pairs.
Maybe I should open a supply business as I buy 30 pair of deer eyes, bird eyes in every size and color for my normally mounted species, even to the point last order of fish eyes was 30 pair, starting at 6 mm, all the way to 20 mm for the most common fish I mount.
If I should drop and break one, I have a replacement on hand or if an eye does not met the quality I can match it.
I have not bought eyes in 13 months, but have locals beginners calling asking if they could buy a pair, why sure they can, at 200% mark up, a little less if they are nice people.
How do I get the alert but relaxed look in my flying mallard?
Look at all the trouble you have caused just by asking that silly question. You've stirred up the Mighty George! You know, that old guy on the east coast that tells everyone to "check the archives". I was going to stay out of this one but he just won't let it go so....as a taxidermist that specializes in EVERYTHING including fish, birds, whitetails and large and small lifesize mammals I'm asking George to back up and think about what he is saying. I'm not going to reiiterate every bird-brained comment he has made here but suffice it to say George is bashing what separates high-quality taxidermy from his stuff simply because he can't accomplish what most of taxidermy is about today. He is coming across as a bitter old man that can't keep up with the times so he is content to sit at his computer and bash everyone else. He claims to use "IQ or Meder eyes" in his deer but can't understand why someone would want to elevate bird or fish taxidermy to the same level. George you are WAY out of line here so back off before you make even more of an ass out of yourself than you already have. EVERY living creature has an expression. That expression comes from the life in its eyes. To quote you, the ALMIGHTY GEORGE, "check your reference" and try taking some bird lessions. It might improve your outlook and maybe even give your statements here more credibility.
Shame on you George. I'm not even going to show Danny your post- it would set him off on a rampage and I would be the only one here to have to listen to it. Sometimes you just don't get it!
Your emotions take you beyond sensibilities. You ASSUME that if I used the right eye, my work would ever be on the same level as the Danny Owens or Nancy Mulligan's. Contrare mon ami. I'm not bitter, but your lambasting didn't bother to repudiate a single thing I said. Do I sense that your emotions got you into this? I'm hardly virgin meat, so you or anyone else is welcome to argue the "Almighty George, the bitter old man on the east coast" who's really a hack anyway. Right.
Bird EYES and those of most other species, in themselves NEVER, EVER for an expert like you, show any "expression". Look it up in your physiology manual. It's the eyebrows that express or the facial features. If I took a picture of the eye of a blue footed booby in flight, standing, or in a mating dance, the EYE would look exactly the same. As it has no eyebrow, only some feathered features might come close to expressing any difference in the situation.You believe what you want, but at least stick to verifiable facts. I'm neither bitter nor "old" by some standards.
You haven't heard what the rest of the taxidermists think and that in itself might tell you something. I understand several of you are at the pinnacle of your careers and have run out of challenges. The only thing left is pushing the envelope. God love you and He knows I appreciate you for it, but the INDUSTRY gossip continues to center around competitions being dominated by "the same old people". Several newcomers are working into that legion, but even they are surpassing the industry standard that commercial taxidermists have to live with every day. Our customers don't get that carried away when they see their work, and sadly, most wouldn't know a whole lot of difference in the work I do and the work YOU do. They're happy I just happen to do it cheaper.
Now you and Kim have tried to make this personal and if ANYONE is making a fool of themselves, be careful. People KNOW what I am and I'd never pretend to be anything else. Calling me names and applying adjectives in front of my names does nothing but make your remarks look tacky.
Now, Nancy, you being the Pigeon Girl of the West, I'm surprised that you didn't point out that given pigeon show standards call for eye expression in a live bird. Unless things have changed, the Birmingham and Pensom roller standards allowed 15 points for expression, and 5 points for eye color. I have to agree with George to a degree as to what makes the "expression", but the single biggest factor is skull shape.
Now where I am to a degree going to disagree with George, is on the lack of change in the eye proper. The eyes of his booby doesn't change, but the eyes of all the parrots I ever had have. They can voluntarily dilate and contract the pupils and raise and lower head and hackle feathers to create expression or body language.
However, trying to catch some of the bird "expressions" in taxidermy work would have to be the equivalent of a taxidermist trying to make two whitetail shoulder mounts and make them look like they are fighting. I took some pictures of fighting bucks last year at a fast shutter speed. The photos just looked like two deer standing there with their antlers touching.
Now if you want to see good expression in a bird mount, Nancy had a picture of an English Trumpeter hen on Kiwi's chat that shows a good, relaxed expression. Nancy, if it's still there, how about giving the address?
They do have them - in the sense that they use nonverbal cues to communicate general things like intention to fly, hostility, fear, interest in a potential mate, etc. etc.
Mammals have more mobile faces so they can use their ears, noses, lips, eyebrows, muzzle - you name it. If it moves and they can control it they probably use it.
Birds use everything they have, but they don't have as much to work with. A lot of species, particularly those with pale or bright colored irises, have conscious control over their pupils and can "flash" their eyes (by momentarily shrinking the pupil to a pinpoint) to communicate with each other. I don't know if any mammals can do this or not. Birds also have conscious control over their feathers and can raise and lower them at will. Mammals can puff up with anger or cold but I don't think it's voluntary. It takes a while for the hair to lay back down once they calm down.
Anyway, George, I will have to disagree with your statement that the EYES of a bird never show any expression. The pupil is part of the eye, it's size is under conscious control, and it is a documented fact that it is used as a visual signal and form of communication.
If I were to mount a macaw with all of its feathers absolutly tight to its body, the wings raised, and the body leaned forward and raised on the legs
ahem .... the body leaned forward and raised on the legs, what would it mean to somebody who is familiar with them?
Just this: if the pupils are not being flashed somebody or something is about to be challenged or possibly severely bitten.
However, if the pupils ARE being flashed the macaw is considering a potential new love interest or renewing an old one and may soon be regurgitating a nice, warm, specially selected gift for its chosen one!
(If the display was aimed at me, I would probably duck and cover in either case!)
Some waterfowl also flash their eyes, and as for boobies ... I honestly don't know, but their irises are pale and highly visible, so it wouldn't surprise me. Some corvids also flash their eyes and I'm sure that other types do also. Its really a fairly common bird behavior.
Glen, I saw your post appear when I hit the submit button by mistake. You're right, some pigeon breeds specify "expression" in their standards but it's a hard thing to quantify and nearly impossible to explain to someone who doesn't know pigeons. The judges look for skull structure as well as precisely shaped eyelids, perfect iris color, and (in some breeds) certain temperments. Birmingham rollers are to have "brio" (sp?) defined as a certain spunkyness and courage that makes them willing to attack the judges hand. That level of aggression is communicated mostly by their entire body posture rather than just their eyes. They will make eye contact with you though, which is kind of unusual for a pigeon. (Pigeons plot in secrecy ...)
I don't know if the trumpeter picture is still posted on Kiwi's chat or not. Probably, but I don't know what the address would be or if people could view it without joining.
Anyway, it's late and I'm headed for the roost. I'll see what tomorrow brings ...
Nancy M.
Would you believe there is a website dedicated to bird expressions? What people don't come up with! Check it out!
http://birdexpressions.homestead.com/BirdExpressions.html
Yep, Nancy, the standards have changed. I'd heard rumor to the effect, but didn't quite believe it. Years ago, a roller with "brio" and a deep keel would have been taken out of the genetic pool in a heart beat. It's really a shame to lose disposition like that. I'm sitting here remembering several guys that spent their adult lifetime preserving the traits of the original English birds. Exercise in futility, huh?
Do you know if the goose succeed in biting the camera or did the photographer manage to keep it just out of reach? I have a lot of turkey hens that would happily "pose" for a shot like that too, but it sure is tough on the equipment if they manage to reach their target. Funny how the males don't do it at all. They are too busy sailing around with their tails fanned and a much more (dare I say it?) serious EXPRESSION on their faces! No time for them to be curious. Every spare waking moment is spent in establishing their place in the flock and striving for dominance so they might someday get a chance to breed. All the hens have to do is stay alive.
I found the pigeon photo and copied down the address, but I have no idea if it will work for everybody. It did for me, but then I'm already a member and have the cookies to prove it. (funny mental image there ...) it':
http://www.msnusers.com/kiwischat/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=434
In all honesty, I would NEVER have been able to achieve that look without having the right size and color of eyes to start with. I'll have to give Tohikon the credit there since those were custom made to my specifications. They are 8mm 123's.
This takes me right back to the problem I discussed in my original post. What if I want to portray an accurate expression on a day-old quail chick or a hummingbird? They are small, but every bit as expressive.
George, some people like wall sized murals and others like miniatures. Both tastes in art are perfectly valid even though the two groups may never agree. Mural lovers look for "overall effect" and think miniatures are too small to bother with if you have to get really close to see what's there. On the other hand, miniature lovers see murals as crude, coarse, sloppy, and unable to stand up to close scrutiny. They find wonder and enjoyment in the details of smaller works.
It's two totally different mindsets, but I can assure you that potential taxidermy clients come from both groups. To each his own.
Nancy M.
And I'm not being smartassed to say that. I learned more in your two last paragraphs than I knew. That's what makes this place great. As I said before, only people dedicated to a single species would ever pay attention to those nuances. I think my remark about customers is still intact, but at least I can see where you and others are striving for that lifelike semblance that only YOU can appreciate it. Thanx again.
I bet there's a bunch of us that would have liked to have seen the expression in your eyes when you saw that page! Confess, did you spit your Pepsi all over your computer monitor? LMAO!
Nancy, the goose kept following me around one day while I was at one of the area lakes. It was just totally faascinated with the camera, and I was totally fascinated with the bird's "character". I was seriously asking myself, "How could a person ever pull off that kind of expression and character in a taxidermy piece?"
In some areas, I see taxidermy as not a whole lot different than photography. We are trying to preserve a "frozen" image in time that tells the story without a written caption. Granted, many people need the written caption to understand the picture, but many do not.
When I do my photography thing, I try to cover as much "information" as possible in a photo. If you take another look at that mallard head, you will see all the "basics" for reference are covered, but I will bet that the expression of the bird was one of the first things to draw your eye.
If that mallard was to be entered into a "live" competition, and all the other birds had equal physical attributes, with the exception of the "expression", then they would lose to the one with "expression".
I see taxidermy pieces in the same light as the live animals, the ones with expression stand out from the rest of the flock, even when all other attributes are the same.
Your reference to thinking photography was like taxidermy is absolutely right on. For decades I considered flat art as the only way to "create" a situation which we all know occurs, but can never capture on a camera. To be present to photograph the exact instant a lynx lashes out at a snowshoe rabbit is much more rare than winning three consecutive powerballs and only spending 3 dollars. But, the piece I saw a couple years ago at the PA convention, could have been placed in Canada and photographed with much better belief than the Jonas Mountain Lion-Mule Deer piece in 1926(?). (Unfortunately I didn't see the actual putting together of the mount which had occurred the very night before)
For some unknown reason to me, I ALWAYS considered a natural history diorama to be a three dimentional painting - not a three dimentional photograph, i.e. a holograph. I guess I considered the background painting, foreground work, and the actual taxidermy to be pure art, and then combined with the scientific accuracy of the combination, and a George Lucas like design which can to make you believe as you stand in front of it, you are really there. Recent additions of sound in some dioramas even adds to the piece. My heart breaks a little every time a Museum, in the near-sighted vision of many directors, decide to destroy a Diorama. I have deepfelt feeling for the artists that did their best work - sort of modern day Leonardo Da Vinci's - only to have the dioramas destroyed to make room for some lesser exhibit idea (technology, robotics, computer info-terminals, etc.). Granted, the Dioramas of yesteryear, in many cases, aren't near as flashy as the newer created ones. But the taxidermists had much less to work with for reference, and had materials of much lesser quality as current space age materials. But the eyes were damn good!