Wolf IV

I didn't notice it at first but the very 'excellence' of depth of field detracts from the result that the wolf looks like a cut-out insertion as Ken T suggested and alerted me and the sharpness of the foreground detracts attention from the wolf for all the attention grabbing of the eyes.

Is it just my perception, or do the elves seem to relatively consistently pick not quite the best images of stellar photographers as the POW? They certainly seem to be mischievous elves.

Martin, they don't seem mischievous to me. They're doing exactly what the forum says they're going to do: pick a picture that they think will stimulate discussion. It makes perfect sense that they wouldn't pick the best work of a photographer, since the POTW has nothing to do with "the best" or even necessarily being good. It's about discussing photos; critiques; observations; opinions; suggestions. The elves may well figure that we'd learn more and be more stimulated by a photo with a lot of flaws than a photo that's exceptionally well done.

Stealth, cunning, raw power, survive above all else. You captured it here.

Caught in the act with a flash. The creature looks exactly as I would look if someone snapped me rooting around in his or her yard. I sense this is a rather young wolf.

I suppose this is a good photograph but it does not excite me. The novelty wears off quickly.

Having had close encounters with wild wolves near Voyageurs National Park, but never having my camera ready for that single instant before they disappear, I can say that this photo, while interesting, does not give me that chill that runs up and down the spine when one realizes that they are naked in the sights of a predator. Why not? I haven't quite figured that out but I think that it is right in line with the previous criticisms that it it is way too controlled and has a posed contrived feel to it. Look at Jim Brandenburg's gallery of wild wolf shots, damn, these bring me there! The hairs on your arm will stand up, especially in the ones in which the wolf is eyeballing you.
Unless a wolf is caught off guard (very, very, very rare) and you do actually have a very close encounter with a wild wolf it is hunting you. This one seems to be in a defensive position behind the trees rather than an offensive ready-to-pounce posture. At the very least it is very a young and dumb wolf -or- it is in a pen, this blatantly comes through in the photo.
That being said I still like it and Miguel should be very proud of this photo.

This is of course on first glance, a striking picture, but I have to say, though maybe this isn't really the case, that the rocks in front of the wolf  have such a sharp, lined edge, and the tree trunk on the left has such a fakey blurred edge on its right side (the blurring seems inconsistent with the sharpness of the wolf's eyes) that it makes me think that this is a Photoshop setup, with the tree and rocks having been collaged on top of the wolf.  These misgivings weaken the image for me.

Guess I am one to grab a rock, hanging in the middle of the waterfall of adversities. Miguel, I clicked on your image to get a closer look because it pulled me in instantly, and I was truly amazed at what I saw. Although I am a photographer and can exercise my mental muscles at depth of field and post editing, I am an artist at heart. You struck a strong chord in my heart with your image. It does not matter to me if you took the image of a captive animal or a wild one. The wildness in the eyes of your wolf tells the story of this gorgeous animal captured in the moment. He could be snacking on his meager meal and is watching out for the next animal to come and tempt fate for a bite to stave off its hunger. This wolf knows about stolen meals.
If it is a composite, I love it! If it is not, I love it! I see and feel the wolf's tentativeness. It speaks volumes. There are those that are purists and will reak havoc in their critiques on great images. They are the techies that get so caught up in expressing their view points that they forget the artistic side going on here. It is truly a stunning image. I do not need to see the animal's surroundings to get the full story. It is nice to have somethings left to my imagination... which many purists lack imagination.
I, too, have shot wolves in captivity and the wild. Either way, the wolf soul is still "its soul" and you captured the soul of this wolf in your composition. I do not need to see more of the wolf to feel the mood you were intending.
Your post editing is right up my alley. I like more saturation... that is what pulled this artist into take a closer look. You satisfied my curiosity... and my taste in the color palette. Purist can't step out of their boxes... artists can.
You, Sir Miguel, are an artist beyond being just a photographer. Thank you for such a grand image, friend! May your passion always override the ordinary and mundane. Flap your wings from discussions that express only critisizm to puff up their egos on their professed photographic knowledge.
When Reinhold Messner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner and Peter Hablerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Habeler ascended and decended Mt. Everest (29,035 ft.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest in 1978 with no supplemental oxygen in two days and Reinhold Messner soloed in 1980 ... the climbing community scoffed at them for their tenacity. But they were confident in their abilities and did what none had done before them. They knew their calculated risks and went for it. It was worth it to them. May your artist and photographic endeavors always lean towards taking the risk like Reinhold and Peter.
Galen Rowell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Rowell was a mountain photographer who's reputation is undisputed. http://www.mountainlight.com/books.html He captured scenes that most photographers worth their salt wish to some day capture. His images are an inspiration. But he also took risks that others never will. That is how we learn and exceed our wildest imagination. That is what will divide us from the pack... for the pack will not take risks. We must decide if we are to be a lion or a sheep. I prefer to not follow the herd... how about you, Miguel?
I would certainly add your image to my collection. Thank you for touching my soul with your image, Miguel! "Feliz Navidad, próspero año y felicidad" to you and yours.

I find this composition doesn't work. The treetrunks, the stones, the level of the animal's head, all combine to confuse me about the location. Is the wolf in its lair? Has it been approached daringly; is it tight cropping; is it a collage? I would much have preferred a broader view of the woodland, with those eyes needing their wonderful features to capture my attention by the stealth they represent, from a more distant viewpoint, rather than being close in or tight-cropped. Depending on the situation when the shot was taken, this might have been possible or it might not. A wider woodscape of the sort I mention might have been available as a decent composition, it might not. But in its published form I'm afraid I find the picture offers very little satisfaction, apart from the eyes themselves. The way they are presented is frustratingly unsatisfactory for me.

It's interesting to read Julia's misunderstanding of many of the comments, couched in a very fake-sounding language of "art." Art is not simply an un-analytical and blind acceptance of what's put before you. While art is certainly about gut feeling, it is also more than that. Technique and craft are significant aspects of most good art. Tell Michelangelo he shouldn't concern himself with the details of how something is created and how that technique and craft intimately relate to the emotional message put forth and received. Yes, there are purists, and they can be narrow-minded. But I urge you to read some of the comments you so cavalierly dismiss in the name of "art." Most of them were not of the purist variety. They were of the visual variety, and many of them rather discerning. Let's not use "art" as a means of trying to silence the dislike or questioning of the merits of a photo.

Sorry, not Julia, Jadia.

I have never responded to this forum and mainly look at what kinds of things are being put up on the internet as photography. I have to say that a lot of postulating goes on about what art is and most of it is the same old same old art hip category, but also at times some of it is very interesting. Anyway from the point of another person who has had a lifelong interest in art history and its rationale from a historical perspective, and one who has supported myself in the arts and decorative arts in some manner or another (principally cinematography) for about 50+ years, I find art is really not a "thing", it is a state of mind, or if you like, a state of conciousness, whose qualities are determined by ones own personal depth. I would even say for me it is a Way that has never tarninshed.
Thats just what I have experienced and have no desire to convince anyone of it. What I do have to respond to is, what is perhaps more mechanical and thats what is inherently foundational to a medium. This is what I find I have to object to in this image. Again, to me, the only thing that Photography has that separates it from all the other arts, is its veracity, or truth...in the photographer and of course, the subject. If you lose that you have, in my view not much of an individual medium, other than its ability to couterfiet itself. Seems we all have an expectation of genuineness, when looking at a photographic image. To throw that away hits me like when I see some of the hyper-realistic paintings, that are often done of gas stations and city streets that come up now and then. However, they are not seen as the truth, because one can see that they are paintings, often with more resolution and dynamic range than in any photo. What makes them viewable is that one knows that they were done with paint and a brush, not as (in this case) a photo obviously manipulated separate elements, claiming by implication of without saying otherwise, authenticity, as shown on this forum as confusion. I would think one could better take paints and a brush and do it with the freedom that comes with the painting medium and in fact affords the practicioner total control of their personal aesthetic. One can do that far better with just a little effort towards learning how to draw and paint very exactly, in spite of the quick results culture that we now find ourselves living in. I cant help feeling a little angry when I find such faux images as believeable and then while looking see them fall aesthetically apart with the cheap thrill that it granted for a moment, or even longer. The apogee of this would be when one can no longer believe any photographic image, or are we already there? I have been watching this trend towards photographically playing to an audience, in such a sacharine way, that leaves me to wonder where it will end. Until we can expect nothing in the depiction of a medium that is unique in its foundation and it will have to align itself with those who paint, done by those who cannot.
I find it very sad that the inherent and sometimes powerful truth that no other art form can deliver in abundance, is completely and unrestorably ruinedl, not to mention the ethics and affection that I know an artist can enjoy, in the genuiness of only playing to oneself and not for applause.
Respectfully, but saddened over the direction of a medium that used to have such blindingly brilliant energy to it.
David Pal

Miguel - congrats on a very fine image and being selected as POW. The eyes are key for me - it is the strength in this image. While it is not a big thing, I would prefer to see a bit of the wolf's muzzle and teeth to better help me to identify that it is a wolf (I am not too familiar with that species). You have a fabulous portfolio of images so another congrats on that. Keep up the excellent work.

All here have very good points.
"Art by its very nature is not science, and science by its very nature is not art; both these spheres of the mind have something in reserve that is particular to them and can be explained in its own terms. ... Indeed, art and science would not exist as separate entities at all if the fundamental difference between them had not long since forced itself on the mind."

-- C. G. Jung, The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature


Whether art influences society or society influences art is a very old question that predates any written words. Jung describes the two separate forms that can be described by ones method of creating art. If a person creates something with the intent of influencing someone else it is of one form. When one is compelled by the unconscious mind to create something, often having no idea as to why, that is often described as "letting it out of ones system" it is of the other form.

In my feeble mind I like to simplify things so I simply call the first advertising and the latter true art. Unfortunately we are monkey-see-monkey-do learners so one should not be surprised that the majority of photographs posted on the web emulate what the majority of todays budding artists are exposed to, that is, of course, advertising.

When an artist like Brandenburg captures a wolf he captures something from deep inside our collective unconscious mind that causes us to have an instinctive reaction, i.e. the chill running up ones spine. I hope that I don't have to go into detail the reactions to the power of suggestions that are contained in the advertising artist productions.

Sorry, but I just can't take this picture seriously; I see a funny sheep willing two small tree stumps to move aside so that it can pass through! I agree with views above that there is too much going on in a small space and it doesn't look like a natural scene.

"If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Ahh what is art? I was told a long time ago that if you start trying to define it you probably have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
As I learned from a very wise man (who I wish would respond to this instead of me) photography as an art is somewhat about achieving your vision for a particular scene/subject. You envision an image, you record the image with a machine and then you attempt to refine that image to create the scene you envisioned.
If Miguel decided to create a composite (which unless I missed it he hasn't said that he has or hasn't) to realize what he envisioned when he set out to create "Wolf IV" (an achieved that end) than as far as I am concerned the photo was a success.
Now whether or not I or anyone else likes the image, thinks it was created well from a technical standpoint, captures truth or is truthful to the art is an entirely different story and we all have a right to our opinion. As far as Miguel's vision is concerned our opinion is irrelevant. He may ask for it, he may not like what he hears but our opinion didn't exist when he envisioned or created the photograph. His photo may fail to evoke in us what it did in him but that doesn't make it any less art.
I do agree with Fred G., there is nothing wrong with asking for art to be created technically well. Of course should they choose not to create their art in that way we may choose not to look at it or like it.
I do agree with some of Jadia said although I would add not all art is appreciated in its time...and not all art is appreciated at all and the artist should be prepared for that result when he shows it to the world. In some ways it really shouldn't matter for the artist.
I do not agree with Dan. To be clear I think he is speaking about Miguel's apparent composite and its lack of truthfulness for not being a genuine image but instead and image he created.
I may not know a ton about photography yet but I do know a little something about art and its history.
Art and photography are constantly evolving. Years ago when I took pictures casually with a hand me down Nikon SLR a family member of mine pointed out digital SLRs and said it was ruining the art. Film...it had to be Film and a darkroom.
A few years later when I asked him what he was using he responded that he bought a digital SLR and it helped him immeasurably in his photography. Of course he then complained about Photoshop, and digital alterations and how it was ruining the art of Photography and eroding skill (I somewhat followed that thinking for a while). I recently had a conversation with him and he now owns photoshop but told me HDR photography is ruining photography. My guess is a few months he will buy that software to realize his vision.
My point is there is always resistance to change and in this case it comes in the form of a change in photography.
As for veracity (truthfulness)...I suggest looking at the processing techniques of some great photographers and what they did in the dark room with their photographs (i.e. Steichen) before talking about genuine truth and Miguel's composite. We are using the machines we have available to us to realize our vision just like great photographers before us did and just like those that come after us will do.
I would still like Stephen to answer on the whole zoo's vs wild animals theme.

I meant to say I do not agree with David...not Dan.

Thank you David P. Your description of the dishonour done to essential photography by much of this sort of imagery, whilst a little protracted for my simple mind, is right on the button.

This photograph leaves me cold; a couple of pieces of nicely exposed wood and rocks placed onto what would appear to be an enormous hairy dog - with the best will in the world, I don't get it.

@ Joseph, I suggested this might be a good topic for discussion, but personally I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I admire those with the physical ability to get outstanding photographs of large mammals in the wild, but I've seen some great photographs of the same coming from a wildlife park or zoo. I thought that rather than debate something that is factual but currently unknown (whether Miguel's photo is a composite), perhaps the time and energy might be better spent discussing something that has a more subjective element. Joseph, you were heading in that direction and had some good things to say on the subject, but I don't think anyone ever followed up on that line of discussion. So some continue to point to evidence that Miguel's photo is a composite, others declare it doesn't matter (especially to them), but whether there are limits as to what can be revealed when photographing wild animals in captivity, whether those limits are significant, whether falsehoods about wildlife might be generated or perpetuated when photographing captive wildlife, the advantages of photographing captive wildlife, etc. etc., have not been of sufficient interest to those involved in this POW discussion.

The real photo here is the wolfs eyes. I find the rocks and trees on the forepart, whether they were added or not, unnecessary and distracting. I might sound conservative but I find even most of the HDR photos distubingly artificial because of their too much focus choices (about focusing this means to me, having no choice) and instability in spot range.

The tree and post take away from the photo. I do love the eyes of the wolf but would like to see more of the wolf's surroundings. For me the photo is to perfect. If the wolf was photographed under a controlled enviroment such as a wolf sanctuary instead of the wild then the artist should state that it was. Overall the photograph does not spark any emotion in me.

What makes wolfs so dangerous? They atack in troop, which has strong hierarchycal organization. They hunt together, but only one eats first. For the rest of them it' s a dogs life, quite depressing. The wolf on the picture is alone and is pretending that he is a sheep. In Slovene: Volk menja dlako, čuda nikdar. Translation: Wolf changes hair, but not the nature. When they are alone, they are humble.

And at last, but not at least. The first wolf has also sad fortune. When he grow old, he is replaced by younger. Hi Steppenwolf.

Just say, those stalking eyes were scary but the picture as a whole was just like a fairy tale. Easy to the eyes until one is starring the eyes. Thanks for sharing.