Kung Fu Squirrel

Very good!

6 and even 7s for originality, no problem - though anthropomorphy of animal is not all that rare... But aesthetics close to 6 ?!?!?

Look at the way the feet hang out of the zooming. Look at the blurry eyes. Look at the terrible Photoshoping work... A zooming effect isn't all that easy, and here I see a zoomed background and a non-related pasted main subject on it.

Aesthetics: 2. Sorry, don't take it personally, as I do find the shot funny, but someone had to tell you something about the PS part and the picture's aesthetics.

Marc, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but the subject squirrel was not pasted on to a different background. There was some cloning on the bottom to eliminate some dried leaves. A radial blurr effect on a photo like this is very difficult. It may not be perfect (it probably would have been better to eliminate the radial blur effect across the bottom area), but rating it a terrible "2" seems way out of proportion, IMHO.

As far as the slightly soft focus of the eye is concerned, it is much less pronounced on the full resolution version, and comes from the motion of the critter's head (you can see that the chest and tail are in full focus). I might also add that this is not a studio portrait shot where we pose the squirrels and tell them to stand still because we are using a lower shutter speed.

Marc...I agree with most of what you say...from a technical side this picture is miles away from a 7 but having said that I will defend Kung Fu Squirrel to the end...simply because he brings badly needed smiles to our faces & lightness to our lives. So if we disagree with the rating Ol' Kung Fu received I believe we should be pointing our respective fingers at how the photo.net system is set up and not at a squirrel whose antics bring on smilesrespectfullyjim

Rating photos is inherently subjective. Few photos taken on the fly, including many truly great photojournalistism ones I've seen, are perfect from an aesthetic perspective. Many have poor backgrounds, bluriness, uneven exposures, etc.

But they can capture a special moment which brings joy, pain, sorrow etc. to our hearts, and make us stop and think . . . or laugh. And therein lies their real worth. Nitpicking the particulars of radial blur angles misses the point entirely.

This version eliminated the radial blur effects on the bottom and is at a slightly higher resolution.

"Nitpicking the particulars of radial blur angles misses the point entirely."

Not in my opinion. I don't miss the point, and the proof of it is that I like the shot. The pose is hilarious, no doubt - I'm not missing that, and that was the point, obviously.

But what ever one does with a camera, or with Photoshop, don't you think it is better done well than not so well...?

I mean, I'm not saying that aesthetics matter very much here, but don't they matter at all ? Maybe, to most people, they don't, provided the shot is greatly original, moving, or funny, or such... but to me, aesthetics always matter... and something done well is always better than the same thing not done so well...

In this case, I am not arguing at all about the capture on the fly itself - at all. The capture itseld was perhaps about as good as it good be... It's just the PS part I'm arguing about. Meaning that a motion blur should partly run on the moving subject itself. Or else it looks too fake and the fun we can have from the image is reduced... If you take 6 and 2 - my two ratings on this image - and if you average them, I find this picture is average, because it kept half of the fun I could get out of this fantastic subject. I like the shot, don't get me wrong, but I'm just hoping to bring you to consider that the PS part is not all that unimportant. Just try reworking on it. This picture already has its deserved success. My rating doesn't change anything to its fate. I waited a few days to rate the picture, because I thought it really did deserve to be seen. My rating is not an attack or an attempt to get you out of the front pages - just a constructive comment. Take it for what it was meant to be: a signal that this can still very much be improved, and therefore should be - imho.

Based on your attachment, which is sharper and a bit better near the feet, I revised slightly my rating. Best regards.

Marc, I believe part of the problem is monitor differences. Mine is of the budget variety and very high contrast, and not that discriminating with shades of black and dark colors. So, what appears to be adequately blended to me looks artifical or of poor quality to others. This may be the case here.

Also, the ground at the base was much darker than higher up. I should probably post the original shot without the radial blur, but it just doesn't have the same impact as this version. The fine hairs of the squirrel makes it a nightmare to use this effect without hours of retouching.

For those interested, this is the original version without any radial blur. Some brightening and contrast increase was performed.

The radial blur is very good with the title. Makes the squirrel look like he has just completed a kick. Makes it into an action shot!

Title matches perfectly with picture. I am happy when see - too rarely - an original shot of animals in that website.

Laughed out loud. Great catch!

IMO, the use of the radial blur is a crutch for a poorly composed photograph. If you want to give your subject some motion, you should allow some room for him to move in the frame instead of using a cheesy special effect. I know rules are meant to be broken but, in this case, "don't place your subject in the exact center of the frame" shouldn't have been, at least if you wanted to give the illusion of motion.

 

I also agree that the Photoshopping is rather crudely done. Yes, you're right that the fine hairs on the rodent's tail were probably a "nightmare", but if something's worth doing (and IMO it wasn't in this case), it's worth doing well. I also don't see what is so difficult about doing a radial blur in Photoshop. Hell, somebody else (i.e. the Adobe code writer) has already done all the work, all you needed to do was apply the filter.

 

The shot is cute, but not terribly "original". You just pointed the camera, it was the squirrel who struck the pose, and, I'm assuming now, did so without any direction or instruction from you. It also appears that, in pointing the camera, you failed to focus on the subject's eyes.

 

 

IMO, the use of the radial blur is a crutch for a poorly composed photograph. If you want to give your subject some motion, you should allow some room for him to move in the frame instead of using a cheesy special effect.

You're also obviously a film photographer, which I was for 20 years, and your bias shows -- as did mine until I switched of necessity to digital.You're entitled to your opinion. Most folks who have viewed this photo disagree with you, and like the blur effect.

I know rules are meant to be broken but, in this case, "don't place your subject in the exact center of the frame" shouldn't have been, at least if you wanted to give the illusion of motion.

The squirrel is not centered, just his tail.

I also don't see what is so difficult about doing a radial blur in Photoshop. Hell, somebody else (i.e. the Adobe code writer) has already done all the work, all you needed to do was apply the filter.

Try it some time on a photo like this and see how hard it is. I can send you the original.

The shot is cute, but not terribly "original". You just pointed the camera, it was the squirrel who struck the pose, and, I'm assuming now, did so without any direction or instruction from you. It also appears that, in pointing the camera, you failed to focus on the subject's eyes.

You've obviously never chased squirrels around the park trying to get an original shot rather than the usual boring catches. Show me another squirrel shot, anywhere, with a pose like this. I talked to this squirrel and fed him for five minutes while I got him to trust me enough to get this close. In addition, I spent about two hours total shooting squirrels that day to get a couple of keepers and this one.

He assumed this defensive position when he spotted a hawk, and I snapped just at the right time. His eye is slightly soft in focus because of the motion of his head, not because I failed to focus properly. Flash was not an option -- scares them off -- and the light was rather dim and did not permit a faster shutter speed.

Spectacular shot, with or without the radial blur! The time you spent watching and working with this squirrel most definately paid off!

Very amusing photo. I must say I find the blur effect rather disconcerting but I can appreciate what you intended with it.