Untitled

There's no empty eye socket here folks. This downward glace is every more revealing of this exchange than any view of the eye would give. Max this is outstanding work. Congratulations...

...yes, it's two baboons, one looking downward. The confusion some of us have experienced is interesting. I won't be so bold as to say it needs changing. Like the rest of life, when we claim to understand it, we know we're wrong.

The dimensions are almost too large for presentation here, and I think it may be contributing to the sense of interference and "mushed transitions" between the animals. It's just the pattern of their fur. The lighting is same on each. One thing is for certain, yet more cases of paranoia manipulatus.

Yes, the confusion over where one ends and the other begins is a rather interesting question and philosophically complex. That we find this level of intimacy disturbing, I find even more interesting.

Well I tell you what - if this was photoshopped (which it, to me, so screamingly obviously isn't) then surely you all who think it is should be lying down prostrate in awe at how magnificently well the PSing was done !?

 

This is, to my eye, a wonderful shot. The ape looking straight at the camera (it seems) brings an incredible tension to the shot as there is a real threat in that look. Yet s/he is grooming, bhut aware of being watched and I sense ready to act...

Mona, I really enjoyed your discussion with my dad.

What about this picture does not seem real? Is it the difference in space around the animals,

because it does seem flat Or does it seem like it was worked in photoshop?

The animal on the right clearly deos not have a "empty eyesocket", it is mearly looking down

creating a wonderful opposite with the one looking at the camera.

 

Lovely picture. You really captured the natural moment.

This is indeed an extraordinary photo. I see nothing at all wrong with it. There is a kind of "painterly" quality about it, so that one wonders if it resulted from a small fragment of a larger file that would not stand on its own without being upsized using Genuine Fractals or some similar program. Either way, it's a great shot.

 

Congratulations, Max, on the photo and on having it named Photo of the Week.

 

--Lannie

Excellent composition and colour! I like how the other monkey blends into the picture.

Incredible colors, textures, details. As good as it gets, Max.

But this looks posed--oh wait, someone changed the image, this is a new POW--wow, a mandrill, no two! Really biting detail, perfect exposure great capture of behavior and the tight crop makes this an almost sacred moment. Very well done.

I can't see why people think this is faked, the arm of the righthand animal is very definitely being groomed - not sure how one would fake that. It's a very charming shot, one which undoubtedly will lead to anthropomorphism by many of us - me included.

 

I think this could have done with a little more postprocessing in places, but I'm no purist.

 

Peter Meade: you beat me to it with yout commment :)

Gracias a todos por su interes. La foto es absolutamente real. Solo he usado PS para ajustar niveles y hacer la compresion para la web. Saludos cordiales,

Thanks to all for its interest. This photo is absolutely real.

I have used PS only to fit levels and for its compression.

Best regards,

Well, Max, you certainly had enough free-standing data to make the full-sized photo without Genuine Fractals or other up-sizing programs.

 

Great work. Felicidades otra vez.

 

--Lannie

Couldn't be better taken, well done.

 

My eye is drawn to the two ears and that distracts until you realise that it is 2 animals.

 

To avoid that I would crop down to eliminate the ear in the top left. Makes the image

visually simpler and imho stronger.

there are some levels in this picture:realistic and conceptual are only two of them...I'll take it in my mind for a long time.

Hello Max

What is it like to be looking in to the eyes of such a powerful creature? What were your feelings?

Great thanks

Eric

Yesterday, I made a comment regarding a sense that maybe this photo was a photo

collage and made some observations of where I saw the problems. As I went back and

looked again, I saw that it was more likely real, however, I still felt that the things I

mentioned as troublesome remained issues for me.

 

There are many wonderful things about this photo, to be sure. The details of the fur in

the heads and how they merge; the detail in the face, hands and ear on the right; as well

as the concept of two becoming one, are all very nice. But I still find the transitions

between the two animal's fur, where depth of field comes into play, a bit mushy. It does

look better on my laptop than on my studio system, but it still distracts me a bit. I don't

know that it would be better if it was sharper in these areas or not, I can only react to what

I see.

 

As to the empty eye socket, this is really the thing I find the most distracting. Sure, it is an eye looking down,

but it still feels like a cut out to me, resulting in an odd shape, and pulls my eye there

strongly. Would more eye or less be better or worse, I would not be so presumptuous to

speculate, it is just that "this" is distracting to "me".

 

Albany, I hope this answers your question, it is just how I am perceiving things at this time

and place. Maybe I would see it differently if it were a print in a gallery, but, here, these

two things diminish my enjoyment of the photo.

Actually, we seem to be back once again to a familiar theme found in this discussions: namely, the artistic use of ambiguity. Psychologically, some folks have very low tolerances for ambiguity while others find its complexities of interest. Here I find the ambiguities add much to this image and its ability to sustain interest over time.

Nice detail, color, light and composition. Interesting mannerism (or mandrilism) study. -Greg-

Firstly this amazing expression, secondly the excellent technicalquality of this picture - great sharpness and colors -, thirdly the odd but interesting proeminence of the second monkey's ear at right, forthly the interesting presence of the second monkey almosted "merged" with the first monkey's fur, all this makes up, imo, for a slightly odd and moderately confusing composition. Great eyes mostly, great nose and great ears too, plus the hands, this picture could almost be a representation about the 5 senses. Great shot. Regards.

There's no "intolerance of ambiguity" in any of these responses. When we're confused were're often at our best.

 

When we claim to "tolerate ambiguity" we're often simply tuned out, and of course we're always wrong when we claim to be superior to our fellows. And there's a difference between Zen and dope.

 

Landrum's mention of fractals is interesting. It'd be fun to see this image mirrored and flopped four ways. My initial take was that it evoked Picasso's cubism: close observation of our perceptions of nature often evoke both cubism and fractals.

It seems that monkey can pose for photo. The expression on the face is something special. There is a hidden funny look on the face mixed with love. All I will say its an amazing expression on the face.

 

Great work Max...Regards

Almost perfect blending of the two apes makes for a surprising optical illusion. I can't believe how can so many people react saying that this is a manipulation. I think that it is more than obvious that it's not, but even if it was it would be a great shot anyway because it would look 100% real. Congrats for this great piece!

While this image is sharp and clear, I don't think the composition works and as mentioned in other posts it leads to a confusion about exactly what we are looking at. The mandrill facing us is nice, great expressive pose, nice sharpness (perhaps oversharpened a tad), but the mandrill on the right is distracting because all we see is an ear and what looks like an eye (only upon close examination). We do not see this mandrill's face or hands, in fact if it wasn't for the ear in the extreme upper right of the frame, all we would recognize is a blob of fur. I believe all of this could have been remedied by simply not cropping so tight or by cropping out the mandrill on the right and focusing solely on the main subject. Another thing that bothers me is the lack of definition between the two individuals; it seems as if their fur simply blends together and you are left wondering where one ends and the other begins. In the end, after looking at it for a while, the whole image reminds me of well done CGI rather than a photograph. Perhaps reducing the sharpness a notch and adding a little texture to the fur would help alleviate this "plastic" look.

Max, A few things come to mind when looking at your picture, It reminded me of the

rendering illustration class at Art Center college of design, where we learned to stylishly

interpret photographs as realistically as possible. To me I see illustration all over your

picture. Its been said that the best camera lens can only see !/8 the gradations from black

to white that the human eye can, Didgital has helped with clarity , but the eye is still way

superior to the lens in deapth of field. What I find missing in your piece is the presence of

air. What most feel is artificial might be our instincts informing our brains that nothing we

have ever seen with our eyes ever looked like this. Our eyes see air. That is where our

ability to perseive distance comes from. We see air wraping around things. Its what creates

atmosphere. I feel that I am in the clean room at JPL , where all atmosphere has been

replaced by a vacuum to eliminate contamination. As a stylistic interpretation your work

excells. As a window to the natural world it has transformed a natural scene into eye

candy. Having said that, I still can enjoy it for what it is.