Untitled

You said :"The reference to 'professional work' makes me a bit nervous when talking about photography.

 

How much I agree with you !!!!

 

Will all the pictures of the week have only to be consider enough good for selling or not ? And without any other criteria of appreciation ?

 

My own opinion about this picture is that's a fresh and joyous capture. The angle from above gives to this cuttie things a bit of a martian look and makes the picture funny.

It's a vidid image and I like it.

Fisheye "wow effet" is short lasting, but I'm liking the composition and combined expressions. Yes, focus on the noze would have been better but to me, 'professional work' doesnt mean anything.. Professional only means it can be sold, but to whom ? There is a large variety(?) of places this could be published, and depending on that, minor focus flaw could not be an issue.

 

I like the picture, but.. short lasting pleasure for me. Maybe it would gain more depth within a series of fisheyed animal portraits.

 

CHeers

I like this shot. Like mentioned above I would rather have the nose sharp and the back of the second critter hind end suffering the DOF.

I absolutely agree with Vince that this image would be put aside in a pro-wildlife environment but it's a shame we make that comment. Marc's question of 'technical perfection but boring over small technical imperfections but original' is a good one. Personally I go with the latter, but sorry to say guys and gals, I don't make the decisions. The 'publishing' world, most of the time, chooses the former.

 

Many here would like to sell images. Vince probably sells more than most here on p.net. He has a thriving business and his marketing skills are just amazing. While some only do this as a hobby, others would like to do it for a living. Vinces POW comments would be very helpful to those whose goal is to sell. Knowing him a little, he isn't blind to the emotional content of images, in fact quite the opposite. But when it comes to the business aspect of photography he has learned to stiffle his emotions and think like the clients. A valuable skill if you really want to make photography your profession.

 

Congrats on the POW. This image made me smile. I love when images do that... Dave

Dave,

You said :"Vinces POW comments would be very helpful to those whose goal is to sell."

 

I definitely agree.

 

And you said :

"Knowing him a little, he isn't blind to the emotional content of images, in fact quite the opposite. But when it comes to the business aspect of photography he has learned to stiffle his emotions and think like the clients. A valuable skill if you really want to make photography your profession."

 

I can't subscribe to this idea. An artist who transforms his emotions in business is no more an artist for me. I have nothing against business. But we are no more speaking about that minor art which is photography but speaking about dollars.

Dollars (or Euros) have never been a proof of artistic quality.

I do not think we are here to give advices to become a good businessman photographer but to make impartial judgements about the artistic quality of the photograph, its originality, its execution.

Not for a conclusion : good for sale or not ! But good to be admiring or not !

It is not as easy as it seems at first... Note that the 2 national geographic pics were made with a tele lens. The photographers were far enough from the subjects to be noticed and used autofocus.

 

This photo was made with a D70 + 10.5mm lens. The shortest focus supported by this lens is at 14cm. Assuming an apperture of f22 (and steady hands!) the DOF is about 9-30cm. The subjects are near and moving and it is rather difficult for the photographer to force the model near him to put its nose at 10cm distance! :-) Way more difficult capture to be done "correctly" than the 2 classic pics.

We are here to become better photographers! At least that's why I am here. The "execution" is the issue. This is a good capture of a very good subject. My reference to National Geographic in this case has nothing to do with money at all. I think many (though not all) would agree that National Geographic sets the standard when it comes to wildlife photography. I also concur with Marc and Dave that this image is more original that the one posted from Natl. Geo. However, if photographers on this site wish to become better photographers than they are now, then attention to details like mentioned above are one of the keys to doing so. This one could have been improved by simply taking a few inches back. As fresh as the image is, it's still technically falls short. We might like it anyway, not really paying much attention to the nose being out of focus. However a place like National Geographic, where the standard is consistently high, would probably reject this image for those very same reasons. So then, the solution? Get the entire face in focus. A very wide angle lens like this will usually not have a DOF issue. In this case then, the photographer was just a bit too close. A great idea, but just not quite technically there.

 

This is not about choosing "business and dollars" over "art or emotions". It's about how to improve this photograph, and how to improve our craft as photographers. Imagine being able to have your wildlife image published by such a prestigious magazine. I think most would consider that an honor... and I guess a nice royalty would not hurt either...

 

 

 

The reference to National Geo., has nothing to do with money, it has more to do with where we might look to see a recognized "higher standard" for this type of photography. I can tell you that I have never had my wildlife images published by a magazine like this. Though I would not mind one bit. I am not the only person commenting on the nose being out of focus by the way. It is clearly an issue to quite a few others as well. To improve this photograph would mean a little better DOF in that area, that's really all this is about. Aloha.

Has anyone considered that an out of focus nose is not an obvious technical flaw?

 

To me the out of focus nose adds personality to the larger subject and makes me wonder what it's going to do next. The larger subject is the leader, most curious and *perhaps* more mischievous than the other. It also emphasizes the sharpness of the smaller subject's nose, giving a feeling that maybe even *greater* mischief comes in smaller packages. The interaction of noses makes this interesting because it captures our imagination and describes their behavior.

 

If the nose was sharp then we would place too much attention on the larger subject and the smaller would be left without making a significant impact on us. We would be amazed by how perfect the larger one is, and how insignificant the smaller one is. In this photo each subject is given an active presence and balanced purpose in the frame.

An important issue that may have been overlooked in the comparison between the POW and the National Geo shots is the degree of 'wildness' of the subjects. I think this is displayed in the perspective each photographer has chosen. The POW is looking down upon the animals in a 'pet like' relationship , whereas the National Geo shots are taken down at the meerkats' level. Whilst the POW captures their personality well, I find it a little too much of a puppy dog calender shot.

Pfff what a nice surprise! Feels like a great honour!

The reason I posted this picture was the different approach I thought it has. To make a photo with "a fish" isn't very original, but I think the characteristics of an fish-eye contributes to the humorous feel of this picture. I thought about the "not-in-focused-nose". On the one hand it irritates me but I also feel it gives the picture a kind of real depth. Perhaps if the nose was in focus it proberly would be a very flat pic and it be fake looking. I quite agree with the discussion of it not being a National-Geographic-picture (too much honour I think;) ). It's not in the same league.

 

Oh yes, a very important thing: BE CAREFUL WITH MEREKATS! The little guys are quick and have really sharp teeth :)

 

Thanks for giving your comment, much appreciated!

 

(please excuse my poor English)

I had thought this was a zoo photo til I read the "BE CAREFUL WITH MEREKATS!" comment from Hans. Perhaps this was taken in Botswana, which changes the 'nature' of the image, for me. OOF nose = okay, better than post sharpened look. -Greg-

I think this is a great photo, and yes....the nose is out of focus.

It's true, it's a shame that the nose is out of focus and I also think it is true that whilst the idea here is to critique, etc. I think that it is perhaps a touch patronising to talk about this photo as if Hans has not realised that the nose is out of focus and to assume that he does not know how he could have made the nose in focus, by moving back or asking the meerkat to move back slightly, or whatever.

 

One only needs to glance at Hans' portfolio to realise that this man knows exactly what he is about with a camera.

 

As to whether this is National Geographic standard - I would say that it is without a doubt good enough for NG. NG is indeed a fantastic magazine with photography that is generally superb, but I must say that the two NG pics that were linked to were, in my opinion, well below the NG average. Just because something appears in NG does not automatically make it wonderful photography. We could argue in circles for ever about how the front of an animal must be in focus but the back doesn't need to be - I certainly don't have the time to look through every great animal shot to prove or disprove it, but that comment annoyed me a little because it explicitly states that there are rules which must be followed.

 

ie

 

"You mustnt place a subject in the middle"

"You must use the rule of thirds"

"You must not...." etc etc.

 

Rules are great for beginners - they allow one to progress a little quicker up a learning curve than to discover it all on one's own - but at a certain level the time comes to make your own rules, or nothing ever progresses.

 

In effect - there are no rules. As photographers, we may have rules we like to follow for our own work, but it would be a very boring world if everyone took the same types of photos.

 

The nose is out of focus and it's a shame, but the photo still has amazing impact. The meerkats are in amazing positions. The Detail in their fur is astonishing, The exposure is bang on.

 

Funnily enough, no-one seems to have mentioned the fact that the ground is also not entirely in focus. To me that too is a shame, but it is STILL a great photo. I imagine Hans would have liked the nose AND the ground in focus. But that's the way it crumbles, cookie-wise. It's still a great photo and Hans liked it well enough to show us all - for which I say thank you hans. And well done for getting POW.

 

As to the comments on the coulour of the ground !!! I mean, was he supposed to ask the little critters to kindly move over to the green background ?!?

 

And that their noses have dirt on ? Its a MEERKAT ! [i think that shows worrying Howard Hughes anti-dirt tendencies ;o)]

 

Sometimes I worry about you guys.

 

Anyway - great shot Hans. Love your work.

rx

Well, the nose does bother me, mostly because when I look at the picture it's the very first thing I see and when the first thing I see is not sharp, it's distracting. I also second the comment that the ground is ugly and distracting.

 

All that said ... it's a #$%@ great photo! What planet do we live on that we seem to have forgotten to take context and execution into account? The guy was dangling his expensive macro lens an inch over quick and active merekats. It's a miracle anything is in focus. Yes, it would be better if the nose were in focus and if they were in a nice sunny field. But, the two NG pics we were linked to had nice sharp noses and nice green backgrounds and they wer both - to use a technical term - boring as hell. This photo has personality to spare and captures the magic (to use our illustrious last POW reciepients turn of phrase). I don't know how commercial it is but I always appreciate Vincent's comments because the commercial point of view and the artistic point of view are equally valid in my mind. We all do (or try to do or want to do) some of both. I could see this in NG or in a calender. So, give Hans credit for getting a good shot under difficult circumstances.

Not sure about that.. the paws seem sharp, and I believe the vignetting(?)/blurring around is digitally added (as this was taken with a d70..) That's not a criticism, on the contrary ! I find it very appropriate.. sharp earth would distract from the subject.

 

In fact, the oof noze gives depth and allows us to imagine the size of that noze.. the eyes being sharp. By the way, maybe it could be interesting to make the surrounding of the eyes less red ? after looking at the pic for a while, I'm disturbed by taht detail.

Robert, I can't agree more to what you say, except that the out focused ground doesn't bore me that much, as the nose don't either.

Thanks Dimitris for the interesting technical input on the lens.

Dave, you paraphrased Marc's 'tarte a la creme' question about 'technical perfection but boring over small technical imperfections but original'. Here I have a slight problem with what is called 'technical perfection' and 'originality', are we not back to 'aesthetic' and 'originality' category dead-end question? both criteria being totally subjective, we could discuss that for years, certain like to.

At the end, magazines serve the soup their clients want, expect and ultimately pay for, don't they? and we could easily generalise this to some other professional compartments of photography. Doesn't mean the soup is bad thou!

'technical perfection' is ensured IMO when the photographer achieved the exact result he/she wanted using properly the tools at disposition (camera/lens/lab/Ps...), that he/she has entire control of its DoF for instance. And here again, looking at Hans portfolio, I feel he does have.

I too have seen many examples where breaking the rules worked in favor for an image. However, the broken rule here, where the front part of the animals face is not sharp is not one that helps this image, at least in my opinion.

 

The National Geographic image links I pasted by the way, had less to do with being great images as they had to do with showing how close-ups showed sharp details throughout the face portion of the subjects. There were many spectacular images on their site. I just selected closeups of similar types of animals.

I love this picture! So Curious. I also love the color of Dirt. Where was this taken? I noticed you used the 10.5 lens, what camera?

Congrats!!!

 

Chris S

All those 1960's paintings of children with huge eyes -- magnifique! You are a genious!

Congrats Hans! I adore this image, I see them now at my feet as I write looking up at me...wanting breakfast! lol Anyway I can envision this from your superb angle...love them and gives me a happy start to my day!

I find it somewhat amusing that we seak for originality - at least as a group, yet his picture is derided for not looking exactly like a National Geographic picture.

 

I, personally, like this picture presicely because it shows the meerkat from a perspective which *hasn't* already been shown 100,000 times.

 

steve

I think the brownish ground makes the image much more intense, a bit like a line drawing. I must say I like this picture very much, to me it feels like a "remix" (for lack of better word) of Mattias Klum's photo in NGM (September 2002) page 72/73 - it really conveys the feeling of "wide-eyed curiosity on both sides of the camera." And, quoting said magazine again, "you can never have too many meerkats."

I think the nose being out of focus helps lead the viewer to the eyes of the closer animal, which are far more expressive than the nose. So, whether done intentionally or not, I think the nose is fine as is.

Hans

I love the way you connected with the merekats in a human way. The eyes are attentive and full of emotion like our own and the close proximity reminds me of my dogs nose when she licks my face. I imagine these little guys are not quite so freindly up close but no less curious. Most of us can't focus closer than 4 or 5 inches from our eyes anyway so the blurred nose for me establishes proximity and adds realism. I have always liked the way Frans Lanting connects in a human way with his subjects. Your merekat image does the same for me. Congratulations and all the best. Andy

A very unique photo from an often photographed animal. I am so used to seeing meerkats standing up on their feet. This one really caugt my eye! Well done!

The out-of-focus nose doesn't bother me, personally - sure we can agree it isn't ideal, but we've all been told to keep our focus on the eyes in a wildlife shot, and Hans has done that well here. Noses are always problematic in terms of focus when you shoot something head-on, but the distraction of a blurry nose is offset by incredibly sharp eyes, usually, which is the case here.

 

What makes this blurry nose a little more interfering for the majority is the overall composition and layout of the image. The tight square format forces us to stare at the nose (given its 1/3 location); all lines seem to lead to it. Thus, since so much of our attention is drawn to the nose, we are alarmed by the lack of clarity and it quickly becomes the first point of attack in terms of critique. Had the composition or perspective been a little different, the nose might not be such an issue and perhaps as a whole the image would be even more successful.

 

One thing I'd like to mention is the lighting, which seems artificial for some reason to me. I'm not questioning its authenticity (I hate it when people do that), but the general nature of the lighting (temperature, direction, shadow, and glare) suggests an indoor, or else controlled setting such as a zoo. Or maybe I'm just totally unfamiliar with the effects of a fish eye lens...

 

...Whatever the case may be, the photographer obviously went out of his way to get close to the animals, which is a huge plus in my opinion, and helps thwart the all too common debate over degree of difficulty with respect to setting. Being up close and personal, or just simply taking time out of your day to be there with the animals, is what's most important to me in wildlife photography. In this image I see care, understanding, and the rewarding effect of intimate observation.

 

Congrats on the POW. Regards,

As a contributor who posts Polaroids, I'm used to getting 1's and 2's as ratings presumably because the images are not ideal in some of the classic ways wejudge photos; i.e. focus and exposure. What some are missing here, IMO, is the role photography plays in revealing context, in communicating a time, a place, a situation. This picture puts us right at the 'nose' of these animals and communicates something about them that is not easily seen, felt, otherwise.

This is a great capture. Not only of the meerkats but of the human world around them (the photographer, the camera, the zoo) and their reaction to it. Just as I'd like there to be a separate Polaroid forum there should be a forum for the f/64 crowd, so they can apply their stringent aesthetic standards somewhere while the rest of us seek to portray the imperfect world as it is.

Let's have a photo zoo!