Equus burchellii

Taken in the wild - I would be interested in your comments. Regards, Nick.

Zebra stallions may hold a harem for as long as 15 years, but when times are hard they often loose single mares to younger males, which gradually build up their own harems.

Good effort but the composition is not great and the overhead sunlight is very harsh. The lighting is very difficult to deal with like this..well done, regards, Matt

Thanks Matt, but I like the harsh light, it reminds me of being there!

 

Regards, Nick.

Hello Nick, I like the lighting on this and I think you are quite correct to present the scene as you saw and remember it.

 

He's a noble beast and I like the way he stands out from the background.

 

Regards. Pete

 

Peter, whilst your entitled to your opinion and I respect that, the majority of the photographic world does not agree with you; and for good reason. In fact most photographers spend time attempting to reduce the effect it produces, expecially with naturally high contrast subjects like zebras. It simply does not work as well as low sun late in the day or early in the morning. My personal opinion is that this shot may have worked if resulting hard outline shadows were used in a way to complement the zebra in its surroundings; clearly they were not. The primary reason that this shot would not get accepted as a submission to a photo library is the hard lighting; i've been there, having produced images in africa in the midday sun. The idea of providing feedback on images is to learn from other peoples experiences through constructive criticism. My points describe what is generally accepted as good practice for wildlife or nature photography. That is the knowledge i am passing on.

 

See:Nature Photography Primer and: Using Light

 

for further details if can't convince you.

Golly Matt, I really didn't expect this to be taken so seriously!

 

I thank you for your kind advice and helpful observations, however I would personally not want to copy or emulate the perceived wisdom of wildlife photography, as I am not a wildlife photographer! I would rather try to produce something iconoclastic and personal rather than emulate what the masses consider to be "good". The notion of being told what is "good", or what "works" in photography is alien to my way of thinking. For me, doing it the expected way would be the photographic equivalent of a painter copying The Mona Lisa and calling it "Art"! (I suppose that this is why I don't worry at all about the ratings that my photographs get)

 

- I suppose it all comes down to the reasons we each take photographs, I for one don't do it comercially, and strive to be different from the rest!

 

I like very much your own photographs of Zebras, and agree that you are very different in your approach to this subject.

 

Kind regards, and thanks again, Nick.

 

Thanks Pete, I too am a fan of unusual light for a familiar subject - Nick.

Hello Nick, forgive me for turning this shot into a forum.

 

I agree with you on your philosophy of presenting personal work in the way it seems and the way it feels, as opposed to presenting it in a way that conforms to "received wisdome". I believe my opinion in agreeing with the presentation of this work, is every bit as valid as as an opinion to the contrary. I also believe that progress is made when we question what people take for granted.

 

Naturally, when we produce work for a client, we work to their criteria. That's the same in photography, writing, research science or any other work.

 

Regards. Pete

 

 

Thanks for the comments Nick. This is what I see as the primary purpose of a critique forum. I think the value in a critique is almost entirely in the comments; assuming they're helpful in some way. I hope to learn along the way...

 

I agree with yor sentiments regarding copying, for instance the mona lisa. Using your example, my previous comments equate to adopting the same tonal separation and composition aspects rather than the subjects face, dress and background. More succinctly, adopting the 'how' rather than the 'what'. I think there are aspects of photos or paintings that are pleasing to the eye, massive tonal separation is not one of them. Critiques must be based on some deterministic scale of bad to good, mine is based on what's generally pleasing to the eye; learned through experience.

 

If you don't mind me being honest I will. It is apparent that this shot was taken from a reasonably short distance away at a level of 1-2 meters from the ground during the middle of the day. If you wanted something different, did you not think about using a different approach angle and waiting for the animal to do something interesting? I think this is a mistake I often make. I now fully agree that the old sentiment of photos not working 6ft from the ground is very sound. That's precisely what everyone else does.

 

Thanks again for your response, it so much more interesting than patting each other on the back with 7/7 ratings. Regards, Matt

Thanks Pete, I also appreciate your comments. Regards, Matt