I like the idea of a Creative effect Gallery. Not sure what the guidelines should be, but personally I find the edited photo with the yellow eyes very interesting and I would think that creative effects edited and created would be what we are looking for in the first instance. Although the look of the blurred Pardalote is somewhat interesting, I am not such a fan of that type of image. Rather then consciously creating an art work, it is more that case of a photo gone wrong that happens to be interesting.
I guess if it is a creative gallery, then 'creative' is the operative word for me, in that I would expect it to be an image created more purposefully.

Attached is an example of a Tawny Frogmouth that I entered in a contest. Not a real fine work of art, but it was fun to work on the effect of keeping the bright yellow eyes of the bird while making the rest of the image Black and White. (also doing the black and white transition carefully to bring out the most detail of the feathers.)

Not for me thanks. If we were to have creative images I would expect that it should be an image where the bird is clearly visible. Georgina's meets that criterion.

Cheers
Ken

Great idea. I'd also strongly encourage consultation about the details of implementing this, assuming it goes ahead. Sorry if I'm jumping ahead a bit here...

For example, I'd assume it would only be for those images where the photographer intended to achieve primarily an artistic effect (either in camera or through post-processing). I don't think it should cover images where the photographer has made alterations or introduced effects (eg cloning etc) primarily to fix perceived deficiencies in an image.

And what should happen for competitions? That will require some thought. Should such images be excluded, have their own category or simply be left with other images? Should such images be eligible for the Premier Bird Images Gallery? etc etc.

I fail to see the relevance o a gallery for doctored images of birds whether distorted by the camera or by digital software. If you want artistic images of birds become a bird painter. At least your work would incorporate genuine talent and genuine emotion about your subject.

I support the idea and refer you to the book "Masterpieces of Bird Photography" (1980) by Peter Slater which included some excellent examples of creative bird photography by people such as Steve Parish and John Baghel.

Probably most of us have shots that are not standard gallery photos but which are still attractive for reasons of form, colour, movement etc so I think it's an excellent idea. If we only regard scientific record shots as worthwhile we're missing half our brains (can never remember which side it is, probably because I've lost so much of it).