Unlikely fishin' buddies

I can only agree with those before me that have congratulated the photographer with this very good shot of an unusual pair of buddies.
I would however, question the extreme short DOF that has been used. Surely the way it is shot shouts to us to concentrate on the two animals and not bother about the nature behind. We cannot escape. However, because the two main figures already are close up and no-one could imagine not to look at them, why not provide some context, showing a little more of the sea and sand banks behind them at least. It would help the viewer to understand the wildness of the scene better.

I agree with everyone about the uniqueness of this photo (which I'd love to have as a desktop image, btw O:-) ), and disagree with the last poster about the DOF. Increased DOF would only have made the banks in the background more distracting. The image would have gained from a uniform water backdrop, possibly with the bokeh of a mirror tele ... but as it is I can only applaud the author for how he made use of the elements at his disposal!

Hello !
I truly do love this wildlife picture !
both of these guys have the same exhausted expression after the run and seem they could be friends in such a short circumstances time !
A rare moment you give us to contemplate !
Thanks for sharing !
You have another picture :
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10872457
Which derserves also attention for the extreme beauty of the wolf portrait !
Marielou

Phineas Tarbolde , December 14, 2010; 08:38 A.M.

Nice shot. For once in a long time a photo that is --- just that -- a photo and not some "artistic expression" that "challenges" the notion of photography. Nicely composed, timed, exposed. Just plain honest...not an exercise in HDR or excessive blurring or oversaturation

Exactly right Phineas

Christopher, how close to these animals were you to get this shot? What lens did you use??
Thanks.

Regardless of the technical method adopted for composition, this picture is worth the meditation and the praise. To meet the enemies in one square meter and with this calm, it is a NICE and GREAT idea to the extent that it serve as a logo for the peaceful coexistence.

This is a relatively common occurrence in nature and in Alaska. Bears are great at catching fish, and wolves, coyotes, foxes, ravens, gulls, and other critters will hang around them to scrounge a scrap of food, knowing they can outmaneuver the bear and are therefore not in danger of becoming the side-dish to a salmon dinner. This more typically involves coyotes and foxes, because wolves are big enough and work in teams to get their own food, and they're not as dependent on the scraps of other animals. I'd appreciate the photo more if they were exhibiting some behavior that illustrated interesting natural history aspects of the bear-wolf relationship. This photo is the equivalent of a child sitting on the steps of the front porch looking at the camera. It's at the other end of the scale from Thomas Mangelsen's iconic photo of a salmon leaping Brooks Falls through the open jaws of a waiting grizzly bear. Technically, this photo is fine; it's the content that I find lacking. I am intrigued, however, by one aspect of the photo: what are both of these animals looking at? Someone with a wide angle lens trying to fill the frame, perhaps, and the wolf and bear are just contemplating the possibilities?

Hey folks,

Thanks for your kind replies.
@Jeremy Jackson: Thanks, that's a great critique and covers my feelings well.
@Richard Watts - that's the real color temperature at almost 11PM when you stand on a beach in Alaska and the sun has set behind the mountains - but thanks! Kindly note that the image you downloaded onto your computer is copyrighted material.
@Marielou Dhumez - Thanks you - kindly - just take note that the image you link to is a Coyote and not a Wolf as stated :)
@Alberta P - 500mm and 2X tele-converter - about 100 meters. Please do sign-up for my newsletter - your name will be entered to win one of a bunch of great prizes at 8PM tonight Eastern time - you can always unsubscribe if you don't like it later.
@Stephen Penland: You 'da man! The reality is that Coatal Brown Bears rarely, if ever, eat Wolves. It is true that Wolves can be found around fishing bears looking for left-overs - but this wolf had learned to chase and catch it's own salmon. As for what they are looking at, if you had spent any time around either species, you would then know that Wolves won't typically look straight at you and wolves in Katmai National Park in Alaska are quite dependent on Bears and their scraps for food. - no wide glass, no harassment - we waited a very long time so as not to disturb them before walking towards shore for our ride home. I was going to tap out a more lengthy reply, but I noticed that you posted to this thread at least three times and deleted the comments. I had a look at your wildlife images - 'nuf said ;) - sorry.

AWESOME!!!
An excellent eye level shot, Christopher. Never have I seen an image like this. Talk about perfect timing on both your part and those "buddies". Congrats on an amazing shot. Thanks for sharing :)
Tanni

@Christopher - ref the TOU for the website :
"You grant to other photo.net members permission to download a copy of images contained in your User Content, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach the modified images to their comments on your User Content."
I agree about the colour temperature of late evening - what I did was correct for colour and contrast and then gently bring back in the colour using colour/luminosity blending to keep the mood of the piece.

This is absolutely an amazing photograph! I simply love it! It's great to see such a friendly relationship among different species.

In contrary,it neither lacking a content ,nor lacking the artistic touches,and once more,in contrary.
A great document of behaviours ,and if the food chain is running vertical,this is a unique document where horizontal food chain is working too,I could see in it a poor and a weak man sitting on the doors of some one who is rich and famous,.
And while we used to call it charity in man's world,it is called an opportunistic behaviour in this fantastic Buddies world.
Thumbs up Chris,and of my friends too.

Christopher, I'm a wildlife biologist, but not a wildlife photographer (except for an occasional bird or deer). The wide glass was just a joke -- nearly everyone who is around bears, especially in Alaska, knows the protocol for being around bears. I had trouble posting previously, but Josh cleared the problem up for me. Congrats on the POW.

A lot of activity here while I was writing, I have deleted my quote of the "Terms of Use" Richard has posted with regards to Christopher's comment regarding copyright and downloads on this site.

(Richard may need to adjust his monitor, however!)

Like Fred, I found some of the comments regarding this being an "honest" photo a bit odd and---honestly--without much meaning. The beauty of an art like photography, or any art for that matter, is the richness of approach and use to fulfill each person's own interests and limiting our view is just that, limiting.

As to the image, I do think that both Jeremy and Stephen pretty much hit it on the head. To me this is what I personally think of as a utilitarian image. Many times nature photography becomes not much more than just description and that is how I see this image. That is not a criticism or meant to be a pejorative remark but just a matter of fact--these types of images are generally used for illustration rather than to convey personal points of view--which IMO doesn't exist here. Yes, a nice juxtaposition but not so surprising to those who know something about the locale as Christopher suggests.

In this case, I found the title to be interesting and maybe point more to what I mean by such an image being used for illustration purposes. There is no actual clue within the image of any fishing, no birds or scraps, just two animals at rest. Without the title, one might be left to wonder the circumstances that surround this image--with it, there is meaning otherwise absent. In some ways, the lack of interaction and the postures almost make it feel like a children's book illustration--like one of those "journey" type stories.

Anders suggested more context, but that would probably hint at some movement into a different genre, or at least a different sort of image. The framing here and the use of the short DOF adds to the descriptive nature of the image.

I've had a chance to look at Christopher's wildlife photos, and true to form for selecting a photo for the POW, the elves have passed over a number of photos that are really outstanding for capturing the dynamics of animal behavior and that are much better representations of the "decisive moment" that is so important to many photographers. I don't fault the elves at all; there's good reason, IMO, for selecting a photo that may not be the best in a photographer's portfolio -- it gives us more to talk about.

Among Chris's mammal shots, the photos of bears charging through the water after fish are really excellent -- the bears are captured at the precise moment of a great shot; a fraction of a second either way would result in a lesser photo. It's Christopher's bird shots that I find to be really outstanding, especially those that are coming straight toward the camera. What the current POW has going for it is the juxtaposition of two animals that normally compete with each other; I wouldn't call them "friends" as much as tolerating each other's presence, made possible by an abundant food supply. Christopher's bird pictures are much more dynamic and are good examples of what I personally like to see in wildlife photography: natural history in action in a beautiful way.

In response to John A's comment about photography used for illustration rather than to convey personal points of view.... I'm not sure that conveying personal points of view is ever going to be a significant element or a goal in wildlife photography, certainly not like conveying personal points of view in landscape, street, digital alterations, and other categories of photography.

Photos that capture dynamic action or interesting/important/beautiful aspects of natural history of an animal are so exceedingly difficult and so rarely achieved that I think the photo itself is the goal, not any meaning the photographer would like to illustrate via the photograph. It's a slice of our natural world. In some ways, it's like a portrait that effectively conveys the deep-down personality of a human subject.

I think we may be attaching different meanings or perhaps different values to the term "illustrate." I think wildlife photographs do illustrate aspects of the animal, and the really great wildlife photographs illustrate aspects that are rarely seen, difficult to capture, or that have some special aesthetic appeal to most viewers.

I personally place a high value on this kind of illustration; I don't see it as a step below that of revealing personal points of view.

John, I'm not sure if you do either, and I certainly don't want to assume too much. It's just that this seems to be implied in your post.

It may be that, just out of personal preference, some folks value photography that reveals the personal points of view of a photographer on certain subjects in artistic or unique ways, while others value photographs of aspects of our world shown just as they are but in rarely seen, rarely photographed, and/or beautiful and interesting ways.

First I chuckled at such an odd sight then I started to wonder about the "when, what, how, where and why" of such an unlikely (to me anyway) encounter.  Very nice capture that is amusing and thought-provoking as well as hundreds of other adjectives that could be applied to this photo. I will enjoy looking at your other natures shots now.

"Photos that capture dynamic action or interesting/important/beautiful aspects of natural history of an animal are so exceedingly difficult and so rarely achieved that I think the photo itself is the goal, not any meaning the photographer would like to illustrate via the photograph. It's a slice of our natural world. In some ways, it's like a portrait that effectively conveys the deep-down personality of a human subject."

A good portrait isn't often created without the photographer putting a lot of him or herself into the work, including new "meanings." Just because you think you are seeing deep into the subject's soul doesn't mean that you actually are. You may be being made to feel that you are by the photographer. Seeing deep into a subject's soul also doesn't necessarily mean that the photographer is being as objective as the methodology you're describing. One can capture a subject's soul with a whole lot of intentional molding of meaning.

I don't know that I think any sort of photography is a step above or below another, however I do believe that we all have different goals and interests and certain types of imagery will strike a chord with us or not--and that chord can change over time. We also have different temperaments and doing certain types of photography just wont work for us while others will move us to the core.

When I first started into photography one of the areas that interested me was wildlife photography. In fact, some of the people I worked with at the time were bird photographers of a very high caliber. I spent a bit of time and money exploring nature and wildlife photography but didn't find it gave me much satisfaction as to what I wanted from the medium. I think part of it is just that there is so much good wildlife photography out there. That and the fact that it is not as personal as other forms might be and that just didn't fit with my needs at that time--in some ways maybe it was just too much like my job, as it were(wasn't a full time photographer back then). That isn't any suggestion of better or worse, but a recognition that we all have different needs and interests.

But the point in my post, and you were a bit more pointed in yours, is that the genre is essentially illustrative or descriptive and thus maybe is less open ended(?). As such, I can certainly enjoy the phenomenon embodied in the image and for some it may have more power than for others because of their interests and affinity for such things. But if you don't have those interests, the image can lose its life fairly quickly-one you have digested the facts you recognize. I think we see this all the time with all different types of images here in the POW--some love them and others hate them. The only issue I have with any of it is that many times there is no attempt at trying to confront an image on its terms but rather I get the sense that there is reluctance to grow and understand-----like something other than "honest" photography...............he now steps down from the soapbox.........

Fred G., you make a very good point. I was thinking of the kinds of portraits made by Dorothea Lange, portraits of people and families in migrant camps, in tents and shacks, in the agricultural fields, all unstaged, some portraits that became icons of that period in the 1930s and that told a story heard by the larger American public and Congress. She effectively portrayed the deep-down personalities and attributes of the mostly minority laborers and their families, and she told a story with their portraits that contradicted the stereotypes of that time. Yes, she put a lot of effort into it, and she did it for a cause that she believed in, but she did it primarily by portraying what she saw at decisive moments. That's where I saw the parallels.

John, very well expressed, and I sensed you were sitting across the table from me, not up on any soapbox. For me, the most significant distinction you made regarding wildlife photography is that it's not as open-ended as many other types of photography, and I think that's very true. As such, while there may be a strong emotional component to wildlife photography, perhaps there's less of an intellectual component and less of a challenge to interpret and find meaning. Those characteristics are the basis for individual preferences; always have been and always will be.

Your desire to confront an image solely on its own terms is something I'd like to discuss, but I fear we'd sidetrack the discussion of the nature of wildlife photography, which is what Christopher's POW is all about. Let's look for a more appropriate opportunity.

You should have manned up and used a 28mm up close, street style! Sorry couldn't resist, actually I really enjoy the photo. I'm not an expert on the behavior of these animals in the wild, but you captured it very well, exposed and presented in a way to express the irony of the moment. Like it.

I am surprised that people think wildlife photography is so limited in available scope. I was recently looking at Chris Jordan's series "Midway: message from the gyre" - pure wildlife photography, an intensely personal view, and one in complete keeping with his broader body of work; when we first met John we were discussing porqupine photos and ways to transcend the subject whilst maintaining an honest portrait of the creature...again our focus was on introducing a personal perspective; and then there people like Caponigro etc who utilise motion blur and so forth to capture an essence of the creature. I haven't even touched on other communication aspects like what images you combine into a greater body of work, monochrome vs colour etc. The possibilities seem pretty much limitless to me - sure most people just go out and try to snare super-sharp snaps of critters doing their thing but the genre isn't in anyway limited to that.

Stephen, in its simplest form meeting an image on its own terms is just the practice of letting your own biases take a rest and trying to appreciate what an image has to offer, trying to understand how the genre, subject or treatment works to communicate without overlaying our biases in the process--even religious, political, social etc as well as our own photographic concerns. Sort of like not looking for a reason to be offended.

Richard, I think that some of the points you make are really at the crux of all photography--and maybe art in general. You can make from it what you want to make from it and the possibilities in the right hands are immeasurable. But at some point, the imbuing of personal point of view could push an image out of its genre--most specifically possibly would be photojournalism turning into editorial--I don't know where the line would be with wildlife or nature imagery off hand.

Which brings me to Chris Jordan, do you consider these to be wildlife images? Certainly these are images of birds, however, maybe they are more the classical definition of Still Life (sort of). Anyway, I don't know that many would classify them as wildlife images nor he a wildlife photographer. For those that haven't seen them, there is a youtube presentation of the work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbqJ6FLfaJc

I'd consider Chris Jordon to be a reporter, and his photojournalism photos depict an environmental issue that involves humans and birds. It's in an entirely different league and has an entirely different purpose, IMO, than the photos of Christopher Dodds, even though it's possible to bring the two together to mutually support each.