Untitled

Sorry Max, I did it again. The above was sent by Alan, not Albany.

Rob Landry (quote): "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".

 

That's exactly what appeals to me in this image and makes it 'original' IMO. There are different avenues one can take when portraying nature I think. For me they fall into roughly three categories. The first, landscape style, is where there is lots of room and enough DoF to show the context in which animals live and interact in their environment. The counterpart in my mind is focusing on the individual animal usually with a shallow DoF to isolate the feeling and show the aesthetics of a specific subject.

 

Take it a notch further and you may end up in the magical realm of photography, where some effects recorded on film may not match our preception of reality (I think it was mentioned before). This is such an image here I think - for me anyway. It's open to more complex interpretations IMO, which is not always the case with more 'classical' shots of natural subjects. It conveys a more methaphysical message to those who stop to think about it, whether it's there or not. I feel this is where photography becomes art - i.e. when it's not merely a 'pretty' image.

 

The sharpness is incredible, like most have remarked, but I have to nitpick and point out that I see the nose more in focus than the eyes. It's not by a big margin but I'd like the see the opposite.

 

Congratulations on POW Max. Best regards.

If anyone is still confussed copy the image to a graphics program and adjust the brightness. The "eye socket" is a fold, darkening of the mandrill's fir. The optical effect is because the mandrill to the right of the photograph has it's eye level exactly at the same height as it's companion and until the image is made light enough to separate the head of the two it does seem that it is only one animal.

 

The details, sharpness and closeness make a wonderful and interesting photograph.

Gerald

I don't see the benefit to the viewer in presenting these baboons in such a confusing ambiguous way. My first reaction was that the composition was awkward due to the placement of the two elements at the top right and left corners of the frame. My second reaction is to recognize them as ears, but they look unnatural and distorted since my eye still reads the subject as one animal. It takes a very close inspection to read the subject as two animals, yet once you figure it out, the baboon on the right seems to have gotten short shrift. Why is he there? You can't see his face. He isn't doing anything, and his role in the grooming is unclear.

 

The decision to frame and crop the image this way is not primarily to present any clever idea, but rather, I suspect, to eliminate any evidence of the zoo. I think a closeup image with two baboons grooming each other was the original intent of the photographer and evolved into this illusion due to aesthetic compromises.

Excellent picture with great details (though the image is bit too big for my screen).

Ears oriented in all directions, eye focusing on the viewer, as if the grooming was just a cover for spying upon us!

i really see nothing much to critic here, even the crop, leaving no empty space is reinforcing the the feeling that we can't escape their surveillance!. Congratulations Max.

The colors and textures are awsome. I see that some have claimed that this is perhaps more than one image combined. Well if it is you should get some sort of prize for such an effort (I dont think so though) I could not suggest any improvement other then the one spot on the left arm (right side of the image) that seems to stand out. It is tiny! So out of all these pixels... if just one is off well. I guess it would rate a 19999/20000. Great job!

Mona, there is no empty eye socket, nor is it an eye looking down. I think you are still confused about how the two heads merge: the ape to the right is, almost, showing us his back.

The picture is in my opinion well composed. I'm not sure about the nose of the second monkey. I expected to see it, but I can be wrong and it's not so obvious to notice. At a second look, I'm quite sure it's a manipulation. I say it because there are some patterns repeated in the hair of the animal. Anyway, a very good picture!

So, I am confused about the confusion of my being confused when I never thought I was

confused--it's kind of confusing!??!

 

In any case, if anything is confusing to me, it is that, with time, some of my earlier

comments have actually resolved themselves for me. I think I alluded to the mushy

transitions not being as distracting on my laptop, but they have actually pretty much

disappeared for me at this point. The eye socket-I will discuss that in a minute--is still a

bit distracting, but not near what it was Monday. I guess that is the beauty of perception,

it is a matter of time and space, and not always absolute. I have seen this happen before

with "content", but this is a first for me such visual things-it's great to know that learning

continues!

 

Just so I wont be confusing, I am going to attach a file marking out a few things I am going

to talk about. My hope is that it is too large to show up here, but will be available for any

who are interested.

 

As to the comment that there is no monkey looking down or an eye socket, please refer to

my attachment. What I see is that this is a profile of the monkey on the right, my empty

eye socket is circled in RED. This is, to me, an odd angle for animal or human and always

has a bit of a disconcerting feel to it. The BLUE mimmicks the shape I see as the eye lid or

part of the brow and along with the axis of the ear, marked in YELLOW, leads me to believe

the monkey is looking down. Of course, the profile view is also supported by the flat view

of the ear.

 

Since I am here, I also looked a few technical things that haven't really come up. The first,

is how the fur, especially on the left edge of the photo is so light compared to the rest of

the photo. Now that my other distractions have deserted me, this does draw my eye

somewhat out of the photo's core. Since I was posting my diagrams, I took the liberty of

burning this area in, as well as the fur on the right middle and behind the right ear--no

diagram of this there tho. Just something for consideration. I agree with a comment

earlier that the left ear is a bit bright, but would opt to find a way to mute it rather than

eliminate it.

 

I think it might have been mentioned before, but some of the natural hairs have caught

light in such a way as they seem to be dust spots. In other cases, like the hair over the

main monkey's eye that is just there, I find the "natural" element to be distracting. I have

circled several of these in GREEN. All of these are really at Max's discretion, but I don't

think they add to the photo being there and I don't think their elimination would reduce

the "natural" feel of the photo. I doubt that if they were removed anyone would ever

notice or care.

 

Alan, you keep fooling me, I read these answers as from Albany and then you pop out!

Anyway, any surprise that I might take issue with your comments? First, I think one of the

disconnects with photography and the eye, especially in new photographers, is that the

eye is very selective. Because of that so many new to photography get photos back and

ask "why did I take that" only to realize that the microscopic person in the center of the

frame is Aunt Martha. Here, Max has actually captured what our eye would be focussing

on if we were looking at the scene in person--the peripheral vision would be out of focus

and irrelevant. (By the way, the eye really has almost no depth perception or peripheral

focus at any moment in time, depth perception comes for our constant refocussing and

scanning of our environment) As I said in the first remark I made here, it is the sense of

disconnect from reality that drew me to look in the first place. I find it much more

interesting when a photograph transcends the subject and puts me in a new space. I don't

think photography is just about presenting a record of something or needs to show

context to be wonderful.

Mona - If you read the instructions for uploading images at the beginning of the POW discussion - You will see that you need to make

the image 511 pixels or less in width so the image shows.

 

I've done it for you - but thought you should know for future.

Mona, The eye buds are sort of like the taste buds. Sustaining visual comprehension takes

constant stimulation. The painter achieves this by looking, then looking away, then

looking, then looking away and so on. Our visual cues are constantly in motion. It is rather

like a mystery sleuth going from one clue to the next, collecting inform(ation). We create

demension by comparing visual cues. My reference to air as important is really a painters

perception. Artists train themselves to see the unseen. If I were painting these animals I

would be as concerned about the form I wasn't seeing as what was actually rendered. In

photograghy, it seems to me, our brains are informing a mechanical devise only capable of

reproducing what it is pointed at. I am probably wrong but isn't the fun in the darkroom or

with the computor program? I mean we don't really know what is on the negative until it is

developed. I've heard really outstanding photographers exclaim " come back tomorrow,

we'll see what we have". Mona if you can"t see it anymore, turn the photo upside down.

There is no physical space separating the animals. The camera may have recorded it, but it

most certainly was eliminated. But so what. Max was having fun, and in the end we can all

enjoy it for what it is.

The snout on a mandrile does pertrude. Max is a plastic surgeon too. It would of helped the

scene, I think, to have left it in.

I'm nobody. I'm no professional photographer and I don't study photography and I don't get to shoot that much really. But this picture is FABULOUS to me. I wasn't distracted by anything. I wasn't bothered by anything. I enjoyed figuring it out. The EYES. The EYES are what matter yet the rest is needed also. Just look at those eyes. They speak. They are AWARE! Who is really being watched???!!!!!

 

Fabulous fabulous photo!!! All of it Max!

Incredible, beautiful, texture, color, the eyes talk to us. Congratulations Max, well done!

I love this photo the texture is incredible. I'm not a nature photographer but it does make me want to visit the zoo! You can almost feel the fur on your screen. Good Job Max two thumbs up.

I am but a humble amateur who, when seeing this photo, stopped dead in my tracks and muttered, "Oh my God!" Here's what I saw...eyes ! I had no problem differentiating between the two animals, immediately my untrained eye saw the side view of one looking down, his silhoutte fading into the other animal,and my untrained eye knew whose ears belonged to who. But those eyes! His intense gaze, the wariness, and the intelligence, spoke volumes to me. This is a magnificent portrait and I am thrilled that you received POW, you earned it and deserve it!

A highly aestheticly pleasing and very beautiful conjunction between technical clarity and unique composition and a truly unique view of one of Man's cousins...

 

Some of the nitpicking here is just over the top...this is a wonderful photo. Now that I just got a Nikon D2X, you have given me a benchmark in clarity to shoot for...(no pun intended)

 

Gracias y espero ver más de sus fotos en el futuro

 

Allan

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=190531

Max: very nice. This image has been "anal-ized" to death, so you know that it is successful.

The thing I find fascinating is the depth and passionate feelings of this photo community. I

enjoy the discourse and while I might find issue with the more petty-critical opinions, we all

have our own biases. Had you been Shakespeare submitting a play for review to this crowd, I

would expect a number of them to insist that you, "get to the point". What they might not see

is that's exactly what you've done.