Motown meets Antarctica

In regards to all the shots posted so far that have been Pshopped.. I think they lack the feel or mood of the original in terms of color...

 

The slight overall blue cast actually adds to the shot, and seem to make sense when viewed against the rest of the shot in his folder.

 

To my eye the shots that have been 'corrected' seem only to make the lighting flatter.

Concerning Lucas' question (near the top of the thread) as to what effect fill flash might have had, and whether it would have disturbed the birds: I think it would probably have served to separate the birds from the background more and probably would have revealed more detail in their plumage. However, the use of fill flash for nature photography and landscapes requires a very deft touch not to look unnatural, and it can disturb the animals.

 

Besides, while I said in a deleted comment that the lighting was too flat, in looking at the photograph more, I've reconsidered. The flat lighting is consistent with the location and the mood. Also, notwithstanding the opinion stated above to the contrary, according to my eye the versions with neutral White Balance suffer somewhat less from the "flat lighting" criticism. It would appear that this is essentially a question of taste.

 

Since the issue of the mood created by the neutral WB versions versus the original has been raised, let me say that while the blue color-cast of the original does serve to reinforce the feeling of cold, I think the neutral versions look cold enough, and they do look more natural.

Nice shot, certainly well titled.

 

The penguins are a little dark, IMO. I like the framing as is. The fact that you can see far in a not-to-blurred background, the snow/ice pacth and the fifth penguin situate the motowners very well. It says that in this vast and harsh land, some have fun. If anything, I'd like to see more blurred pens which I could easily imagine go about their daily thing while these four are having a blast maybe with a few watchers close by. Cropping is too much like a concert shot showing the band only. I want to see part of the crowd for some atmosphere.

Deciding whether or not to use your flash is more complex then just Should I or shouldnt I

What is the distance to the subject?

- If this was shot with the lens maxed out at 400mm then you would need an unusual flash to have any effect at all.

What are the reflective properties of ALL elements in the shot?

- In your attempt to fill in the shadows in the feather details you might get some harsh reflections off the wet rocks.

What about balancing the ambient light?

- Its dim outside but still daylight. Fill flash for the foreground would have exaggerated this by darkening the sky even more (relative exposure). Of course if you are close enough you can balance these out with a Grad ND filter from bottom up.

What about flash shadows?

- In this situation a flash would create a dark profile of the front two penguins on the white feathers of the back two (to a degree relative to the amount of flash used of course). Besides they are my #1 pet peeve.

What about scaring the animals?

- Imagine if every photographer until that point had Blitzed these penguins with a Guide # 68/223 (ISO 100 m/ft.) bolt-of-lighting flash. I doubt that Tom would have been able to get this cozy with them.

Even without a comparative shot, I prefer this without flash for all the reasons stated above.

First, I must say I really like the shot. I really enjoy animal shots, and only wish I had more time and opportunity for such. As far as the photo goes, I am attaching a carefully 'enhanced' version... no objects have been manipulated, only various color levels e.g. brightness, sharpness, etc and a few 'tricks' (all done by hand). I think it helps the penguins 'step out at you' more.

This image is certainly innocuous and soothing, I'll give it that - leaving aside the sloppy scan (note the black lines to right and top). But if we leave aside also the silliness of "Motown" and the exotic locale of Antarctica, what is left? Can the image walk, even wobble, on its own merits, bereft of verbal assistance? If this had been taken at, say, the local zoo, what then? I feel such questions can be instructive. The issues of brightness and contrast have been discussed since I first mentioned them - but I would like to know, Kyle, what lens it is that you are recommending in your illustration. And, for the second time, I feel the image might be improved by a slightly greater depth of field, allowing the lesser penguin a more active roll in the composition. As for cropping: I think it would be overkill, as the hint of an ice shelf in the background lends the image atmosphere.

the original photo tells me these:

1. antartica gets very little sun, and it's very cold (greyish blue feel).

2. the group of penguins are adorable.

3. the photographer has a good sense of humour and instinct in anticipating the shot.

 

I dont see how the extra colour corrections and cropping can do more.

I viewed this earler when it appeared in the "top 30". Aside from your timing, which was excellent, it is the tension evident in the penguins focusing on maintaining their balance that keeps my attention.

I, too, enjoy "Dejected Penguin". You do work that creates a sense of envy.

 

Conni

Tom, got a question for you... Is the VR lens worth the money? I'm looking at trading one of my lenses in on one.

Since both of my congrats messages are gone, I'll say it it again... This complete folder is very well done. I'd like this a tad lighter, but I agree with kyle, the flash would have ruined this.... The folder is a keeper. Congrats

.......it took me a few minutes to get what the significance of the title was.

 

We have the Penguins as the main subject and the enviroment as the second?? For me to truly feel that the primary subject is efficiently telling the story, I would like to see less backround and crop it to put the feathered singer's more to the left so they lead you into that area for a visual interlude as they sing aloud. I am not saying to get rid of the horizon, it could be in a zoo if it were missing. You do need to show that other subjsect is indeed Antartica for a sence of place.

 

I know that most folks here do this shutter clicking thing for a passion that does not pay, but seeing as I do it for a living, I have learned that unless it's a little different than what I have seen before, I just won't pound dozens of frames of expensive chrome through my rig on it. I simply can't afford to come home with 1,000 "Insurance" shots. I do it for a passion too....I just decided at age 15 that I wanted it to be my job. I am planning to go down to Antartica in 2012 to photograph a total solar ecplipse. Should be "Cool".

 

Congrats on making the new and improved POW, it is a fun image. A good "Nice" image to start the new democracy with. You are to be commended on your eye for the title.....maybe I'm a little slow. Your other images in your folder are nice. If you like a subject enough, keep plodding along and it WILL get better. I guess it's the dead center thing that makes it a bit of a yawner for me.

 

Sorry to be so critical Tom, I agree with Mr. Spinak's take on it as well.

 

And for goodness sakes folks!! In my humble tree hugging opinion, please don't fill flash animals, human's don't even enjoy it now do they.

 

Signed, a photographer with Great "Personality"

db:-)

This kind of photograph will always put a smile to people's faces, because penguins are an exotic species of birds and they are always cute. But there are several weak points in this photo. First and foremost is the technical quality of the image. The overall quality could be improved by a higher contrast to take out the gray/muddy look. The black line on top of the picture is saying to the viewer that the author is not concern with neatness and being thorough.

 

Regarding composition, the four penguins could be better positioned if they were placed more to the left and higher than where they are now. This makes the difference between a static or a dynamic image.The penguin on the background could be eliminated altogether. Remember a photograph should always have only one main story. The rest of the other elements either add to or compliment the main subject; in this case the group of penguins. The lone penguin at the background does not add or compliment the story. The white element on the top-right would be better more in focus or cropped out. If it is more focused, I would rather keep it, because it says that the picture was indeed taken in Antartica. Without it, the picture could have been taken at the local zoo.

 

By the way, a trick to use if you want an animal to look at the camera while you take the picture is to whistle or do a wolf call (see photo of dog above). What about the four penguins all looking down at the same time? Throw a stone where you want them to look at.

By the way, the image qualtiy, contrast thing?

 

Take my word on this.......One f stop will make a huge difference in the way a lens transmits the image in front of it. If you have a 300 f / 4.5 and a legendary 300 F/ 2.0 both set at f /8 you WILL see a major difference in image quality.

This will be particularly apparent with say this zoom compared to an 80-200 2.8S.

 

The faster the lens, the more subtle color and contrast details you will pickup. It's no different than looking through a faster telescope at a deep sky object like a nebulae.

 

For example: If you look through a 8 inch F/ 8 Newtonian reflector and then a 8 inch F/4, you will see a brighter image resulting in more features like the spiral arms in a galaxy.

 

I dislike how much my good ol' manual 400mm 2.8 weighs. It's worth it's weight in gold for it's superlative image qualtiy.

 

FYI

 

db

Tom--Congratulations on POW. I like this just the way it is and the title adds to it. I believe if the blue cast is what you see, the blue cast is what you should get even if it's not aesthetic. If not, well, you have some decisions to make.

 

My original take on this when it came through rotation is that you had penguins being amusing and gasp, a tad graceful. That's the story. What more tale can a penguin tell?

 

Perhaps if these flightless birds had skin cancer from the springtime ozone hole or had dropped dead we'd have an "Antarctica is dying" story. But not yet.

I disagree with Godi. The best way to get a dog to look into the lens is to say, "Walk?". This would obviously have been wasted on the above penguins because they're already walking. Or is that too anthropomorphic a term?

The anthropomorphosing of penguins has been around since the Australian photographer Frank Hurley first started photographing them (in their millions) on Elephant Island during the Mawson expedition to Antarctica in 1913. He went one further and had a whole species, Adelie penguins, named after his daughter. Adelie is still alive today and spends a lot of her time in Antarctica looking at penguins named after her. How's that for the "full circle"? Her identical twin sister, Antonia "Tony" Hurley, is also still with us. Imagine if Old Frank had named a species of penguin after her. We'd have had Tony penguins, which would have been neat, I reckon.

Unlike Mike, I don't have a problem with anthropomorphism in general. To me it helps in the recognition of animals (i.e. non-human species) as having feelings and emotions just like "we" do. This can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

The title of this photo is certainly reminiscent of a Motown cover and gives it an extra dimension of approachability to the subject for me. I might have called it "Blues Brothers Meets Antarctica", but this could be interpreted as mere sophistry (also, the lack of sunglasses diminishes my case, I'll admit that).

I gave up trying to treat my pets - dogs and cats - as animals a long time ago. They sleep on the bed with me, get excited at most of the same things I do (like walks, well... at least the dogs) and I am a better person for it. Slaughterhouse employees see animals as pure meat, and there is a lot of unnecessary cruelty in slaughterhouses because of it. Same goes for chicken farmers, who coop thousands of chickens in hot and/or cold pens for their entire miserable lives. In Hawaii, on the island of Kaua'i chickens are chickens. Gloriously so. They roam free, roosters posturing, hens looking after the little ones and the tourists (me included) observe them in amazement (mostly without outright harassment though) because of the novelty of seeing a chicken not in a cage, not a piece of meat product, but as a beautiful animal doing what it does best (i.e. being a chicken) in terms with which we are familiar and which are universal: motherhood, ego, protection, fractiousness, &etc. Chickens in battery farms just don't have these traits in such abundance. They're denuded of personality just so we can kill them without guilt or feelings of empathy. Same goes for cattle, pigs, dogs (in some countries) and - disastrously again - whales, who share a similar habitat to our friends above.

Disanthropomorphisists in many cases (and I make no comment on Mike's position as he and I have never discussed it) often suffer from a reverse species snobbery, in my opinion. Most would not agree overtly with the Judeo-Christian-Islam concept of the superiority of homo sapiens, yet they, by other means seek to differentiate between "us" and "the rest" by claiming a separateness between the two "halves" of animal creation by applying the concept of "anthropomorphism" (which they see as a pejorative term). Balderdash to that!

If one of the penguins fell of that rock, I'll admit, I'd be the first one to rush over to put it back on its perch, as a simple favour from one species to another. Is there anything wrong with that? Or if there is, how far could I go before I crossed the line into doing their species a damage?

I just prefer to see all God's (or whoever created them's) little creatures as one big amorphous lump of biomass, divided into cute and not so cute little lumps of emotion and sentience. If titling this pic "Motown Meets Antarctica" serves to foster empathy with penguins and the plights of their species (in danger as they are), then surely that's a good thing? Anthropomorphism brings us closer to penguins, chickens and dogs (and sometimes even cats, if there's a slice of ham in it for them) and I'm all for it. If more people saw animals in this way believe we'd all get on better on a planet where brotherly love is a diminishing resource.

As to the photograph itself, I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been already said above and I don't want my post deleted a second time. Let me say, "I agree with all of the above, except the bits I disagree with." I hope the censors can see fit to pass this comment.

That lonely penguin (sorry for the anthropomorphism) in the blurred background reminds me of someone... but it's slipped my mind just who.

I must say that I like almost all of the "improved" versions of your shot better than the one you presented, except the cropping.

Was this, by chance, scanned to a Kodak Photo CD? It seems to have the same overall look of the raw scans I receive via this method.

I bet your original looks more like Sean's version. By the way, I like the subject and the Motown comparison.

Penguins rock. Good job. Any problems with the VR in that cold environment?

 

The color cast could just be color management issues.

 

Keep em coming. I've got an affinity for wildlife this year for some reason. This would be a killer postcard.

I'm not a nature photographer, but I am a fan of Art Wolfe's work, and what strikes me is that the aestethics and composition of his animal shots is far from perfect, especially compared to for example landscape photography.

 

But then it struck me that Art Wolfe's subject matter is so extremely difficult to photograph that it is much harder to get it perfect.

 

I agree with other posters that in this example, there are things that can be improved (like the composition - going closer is a good option here), but lets not forget that Tom is photographing the living wild. There are things that are close to impossible to fix, like other penguins being visible in the distance. The amount of patience Tom would have to exercise to obtain the perfect image migth well be more than anyone can bear.

 

I think it is quite outstanding that Tom managed to photographed these four penguins in formation, and can only guess at the patience he had waiting for this shot.

 

 

First a quick note on the title. I tossed it off as an instant and admittedly superficial response to the photo - more because a title was asked of me than because the photo needed words to explain it. Maybe like any other one-liner it has had a short life and should not have outlived its usefulness, but my two defenses are in my view adequate. First, who knew this would get so much attention? Certainly not me. Second, I grew up in Detroit and many years later found myself shooting pictures of penguins in situ. Motown DID meet Antarctica and you can take from that whatever significance you like.

 

In general, after reading your many comments I'd like to apologize to all of you for whom technical excellence in both shooting and electronically correcting your photos is not just second nature but also the least you've come to expect of the online photographer's community in which you participate so eagerly. I'm a rank amateur and new to much of this - perhaps this isn't the best forum for people like me. I exploit this difference in skills by simply asking for your feedback, knowing as I do that so many of you are so skilled and able to be of help.

 

Just so it's clear, I'd owned my first film scanner for only a couple of days when I scanned these shots without manipulation and posted them online to share. I've been hassling with them ever since, noticing among other things a magenta shift and some problems (especially with a showy iceberg shot into a blinding wind) in getting the right level of detail and subtle cyan in the dark foreground.

 

I'm not yet very good at scanning, color correction or photoshop correction of my images. I do come here hoping to find comments, criticisms and articles to help me along that path as do countless thousands of others. Please accept my sincere apologies if by posting these images more or less raw, with the imperfections of my scanning setup in full evidence, has in any way suggested that I don't take these things seriously. In fact I do, but decided to post these shots - culled from well over 100 rolls - because the beauty and enigmatic humor of these subjects left me almost speechless and I wanted them to do the same for you.

 

I look forward to all your comments, your critiques and even your dismissal if that's appropriate in your view. By posting pictures here I've invited the critical eye of hardcore photo professionals and hobbyists and should expect nothing less. I liked all of these well enough to share with friends, print a few for my own use and even print a couple for friends who asked.

 

But don't worry. I know I'm an occasional photographer and have a lot to learn. If you'll accept these photos in the spirit intended, I'll accept any and all comments in the same spirit. Thanks to all of you who took the time to comment, fiddle with my photos and in your own way offer to help me become a better photographer. That's a lot to ask from perfect strangers and I am honestly grateful.

 

 

A school of self proclaimed art instructors seems to think that photographs cannot follow the same rules of composition as a painting. Subjects do not have to exist in a vacuum. They can be in an environment, i.e. background, foreground, whatever. This is a fine picture as is. As far as color is concerned, every monitor is different.

MAS

 

 

Congratulations on the super job capturing nature and all of its imperfection and appeal. Some of the comments I read seemed crazy to me. It sounds like a few people think you should have brought the 4 penguins home with you, had them stuffed and taken them to a studio so you could shoot them in the perfect (boring) setting. They obviously dont understand the subtleties of an interesting background and the importance of placing your subject in a place of significance.

 

The 5th penguin is not distracting from the focal point. The iceberg in the background is important to the sense of place and the grey color is real and gives a feeling of the cold place Antarctica is. The black feathers should stay black (not grey).

 

If someone wanted to use the 4 penguins in an advertisement, then making some of the changes people suggested might make some sense. If you want to capture the feeling of place and have an interesting photo to look at, then simply leave it the way it is (but maybe crop it a little cleaner).

 

I think I might like it better if I saw it larger. As it is their eyes are very small and, combined with the fact that they blend in with the dark feathers, hard to see. That lessens the feeling of contact I have with the subjects.

Tom, congratulations on this week's POW.

 

Here it is only Tuesday, and since I can't think of any composition, lighting or equipment issues that haven't yet been mentioned in regard to this photo, and I don't have any special knowledge of penguins to share, and would certainly wish to avoid humorous parodies of penguins which might be considered off-topic, I will tentatively suggest that other viewers to this page take a look at the rest of your Antarctic folder for what I would consider one of the more complete and well done presentations of place to be seen here on photo.net. It is a folder that includes many fine landscapes, abstracts, close-ups, fauna (and appropriately modest amounts of flora and humanity), humor and majesty, all concentrating on a single subject place. In many portfolios one gets rather tired of seeing so many flowers but no garden. Here we have an excellent (even archetypal) example of what it means to be a travel photographer - not just traveling halfway around the world to take pictures of penguins or sunlit mountains, but to bring the entire place, macro to micro, back to us in stunning images. One shortcoming of the POW discussions in the past is the assumption that we are talking about a single photograph rather than the work of a photographer. Since the scope of our discussions has recently been (no doubt justifiably) limited, I would suggest that we be encouraged to expand the weekly discussion elsewhere - to encompass the photographer rather than just the photograph of the week. And in this regard I would say that what we have to learn from Tom is indeed less about how to take a picture of a penguin (well covered so far in this thread, to be sure) and more about the art of travel photography, learning to expand our vision and capabilities to capture the entire world we find ourselves. In this I would say that you have done an excellent job.

 

Great photo(s)!

The hues in this photo are nice.

Good of you to explain scan problems you faced, and I admire your positive attitude versus critiques. I do not think that a try to improve on an existing image is such a bad thing... I even believe that this is possibly the best way to improve in photography. The matter isn't to bring the penguins to the studio or such, but certainly to find out for our selves what we feel would have been our choice there that day... Somebody mentionned the name of Art Wolfe somewhere, and I have no doubt, seing the quality of his images, and after exchanging with his company a few interesting e-mails that gave me an insight about what it takes for real world-class photography, that he would care about details like color balance, perfect cropping and such. I think, if he does, we should as well... That was it. If this is a learning forum, questioning politely the composition should be allowed, and even appreciated by all participants.

Well I think this would be a lot better in Black and white.

As it stands the photo is almost monochromatic, which may be impressive to some.

 

As I see it, the light has done nothing for your choice of film.(Maybe I'm being harsh here).

 

Is it fuji you use? Well that's a pretty warm emulsion, and if you want to mention the cold environment I would suggest a bluer film.

 

In BW, I could see this as a humourous bookcover,tighter and lighter.

 

You do need to get closer, or fire remotely from a hide.

 

I noticed you don't have a model release.

 

Again, All of you interested in wildbirds (and I count myself among you) always, always, get a model release.

 

I've worked with penguins before...and they're highly organised (I had to move house).

 

However you should get the biggest pat on the back for actually going to Antartica, most of us would have shot this at the zoo.

I suppose the real question should be, if you had shot this at the zoo, then, would it really make any difference to your picture?

 

Oh and Dan, I look forward to your pictures of Antartica, but why 2012?

Must we have to wait so long?