Lion Charge

This photo definitely relays the aggression and power of the subject -- very much "in your face" in a good way. Thank you for sharing your technique -- I suppose the monopod survived!

I'g going to see grizzly bears in September - I may get a cheap second hand digital camera and try this. Or maybe I should use my 30D and this is the best possible excuse to get a 7D :o)

I'll have to try the same technique when photographing the wife :)

I prefer to try it on the bears. Much safer and no long-term repercussions.

Though impressive in its physical and mental accomplishment from the point of view of the process of taking the photo, this doesn't convey to me the power or aggression of the subject much at all. I'm kind of with Louis Meluso about it looking and feeling more like a diarama. There's a benignness in the color palette and the handling of it and the moment, though obviously daring on the part of the photographer, just doesn't seem to inspire in me as viewer the kind of adrenalin I imagine might have been flowing at the time of the shooting. There's a quiet stillness to the moment, no movement or thrust is suggested. The photo is crisp, the sky is slightly storybook-like in color, and the closeup allows little room for tension to be shown. I think it would be very impressive in a magazine and it makes an impressive POW. But impressive is different from relaying emotions or stimulating them.

I've already expressed my very positive impression of Marsel's photo in two comments above. Considering the POW should stimulate discussions of some kind other than just "Wow, great photo," I'd like to offer another point of view, somewhat in the manner that Fred G. has just offered.

[As an aside, and in response to Fred G. and Louis Meluso, I don't think you're going to get a more dynamic single photograph of a wild lion than what you have here. The only improvement, I believe, would be a motion picture.]

My issue is that this was a camera that had been set up in a remote and static location while the photographer was sitting elsewhere and (presumably) operating the camera by remote control. It's much like what some hunters do when they set up a motion-triggered camera, walk away, and come back in a few days to see what, if anything, has tripped the shutter.

In this case, the lion was reacting to the sound of the camera. Marsel remotely fired the camera (or it was tripped by the proximity of the lion, but I suspect the former) from some distance away and in the safety of a vehicle. Marsel was indeed fortunate that 1) the lion heard the camera, 2) the lion reacted to the camera, 3) the camera just happened to be pointing in the right direction, and 4) Marsel fired the camera at the right moment.

All of this is not quite the same as a photographer viewing through the viewfinder, looking for that perfect moment, and tripping the shutter when the photographer sees the elements come together at that perfect moment.

There's no doubt in my mind that the resulting image is a tremendous image. My issue is that it had as much (or more) to do with good fortune as it did with skill behind the camera.

However, I'm not going to knock that, because several of my own photos had more to do with good fortune (i.e., luck) than my overwhelming skill as a photographer (for those who don't know me well, I'm being entire facetious here!).

So even though I've raised what I consider a shortcoming in the way that wildlife photographs are usually obtained, there really was no viable alternative. I've seen researchers in a thick plexiglass cage amid lions, but that's not much different than what Marsel was experiencing. Marsel came away with a very dramatic photo. A close-up of an angry male lion taken feet away is a very rare event. But it requires a set-up well outside the normal methods of obtaining photographs of wildlife, and good fortune played a very large role in obtaining this photo from a remote camera.

Some may think that's a factor in evaluating this photo, and I anticipate others will consider it entirely irrelevant. I just offer the idea up for discussion.

I wouldn’t expect or advice a photographer to put his head into a lion mouth, so even if the camera been remotely operated, wireless or other wise, this image remains very dynamic wild life capture and has all of the great elements like light, details colors and the atmosphere strongly connect with the viewers, to me thats what makes a good photograph, I am not in favor of those who have all sort of shortages in their work and still they never like any one else images but theirs.
We have a very powerful POW here and the shortages un readable to me and this image do fulfill my taste.

Hmmmmm! I think I made a comment a few weeks ago about the idea of meeting a photograph where it is and I think that certainly applies here. This is a certain kind of photograph, a very good example IMO of that kind of photograph, but it isn't that other kind of photograph--does it need to be?

This is a pretty straight-forward document and while I think it captures what I see as a very strong moment, I am not sure that it could, or should, create any emotions in us--unless we really have a great fear of big cats on our computer monitor screens. I think it is unique in what it does, but I agree that this sort of shot doesn't go beyond that--and that is ok with me. It isn't the type of photography that rings my bell or pricks my emotions as Fred suggests here. So, I guess I don't see a conflict in the positions Fred and Stephen have taken here, they just describe the same photo from different angles but with the same result. (I don't see the WOW factor, which is justified, or being impressed with the image as being the same sort of thing Fred has described, if I am understanding his meaning here)

This description "I used a radio controlled remote and shot from a handheld monopod, turned upside down, without getting out of the car." suggests that Marsel was holding the monopod and possibly draping it over the side of the car--from the sunroof or window? Certainly, there is a bit of danger here, as the lion could easily jump up, however, I am sure the camera was at least a mild irritant.

(To digress for a moment, I have wondered if it might not be these higher end lenses or cameras that cause issues with animals. I was at a zoo and watched many others photographing the Lion, who was just lying there. When I started shooting with my USM lens and dsmkIII, he got up and aggressively lunged towards me with a roar and then went back and laid down. On another occasion, well two, I photographed these dogs dressed up for the day of the dead. The first year, I did it with an XT and kit lens (just holding my camera at ground level, not looking through it) and got a lot of great shots,no problem. The next year I did it with the dsmkIII and usm lens and they acted scared and tried to hide--I got nothing usable. It could be something else and maybe someone might have some insight, but both of these circumstances made me wonder.)

As to not having a camera to the eye, I don't see any issue with that. I don't shoot with the camera out of my hand, but I have shot many of my shots from the hip or with the camera cradled in my arms. No, I am never totally sure what I will get, but I get a lot of great shots and rarely miss my target once I get used to the particular camera I am using at the time. I also don't see an issue with fully remote image making. Someone has to frame the scene with the camera and know where to set up the sensors that will trigger it to get the animal in the spot they desire it to be. I think a lot more skill goes into such things than we may want to give credit for, it is just a different type of photography. In most cases, and maybe all, there would be no other way to get those particular images.

Yes, luck always comes into play when photographing wildlife, but there's a difference between someone who takes one amazingly lucky wildlife shot to go along with a portfolio of mediocre images, and someone like Marsel who took this amazingly lucky wildlife shot to go along with his entire portfolio of equally amazing images. Congratulations. I stumbled upon your squiver site many years ago and have been a big fan ever since. From your "Gotcha" chameleon to your "Cape Gull" to my personal favorite "The Fog," all amazing images.

John A.
You are not the first person to notice a connection between USM lenses and an animals reaction. I believe this topic has come up every so often (though it may have been on another site) with the usual polarization of opinions.

I tried to make a connections between a member comment here and his profile images, in which I was tying to relate his understanding of advance photography like the one we have here as POW and also the profile technical capabilities, equipment wise, I found that member comment not based on either technical background or equipment wise, his capabilities are very limited to snap shooting of no quality at all.
This is what some times makes a major drop in the quality of a POW when people without the technical skill start putting assumption here, not unless they show us other wise through their images, saying have taken and I haves shot such images on internet is not the same as being on the wild, on the wild zones there is not talk but hard and dangerous moments.
I wold like to see the viewers of this image, think for them selves and not just copy others statements, and also give them selves enough time before they make their judgments about this image, To me it is by all means well worth being at the first page and I solute the photographer for his all images high quality.

I am not familiar with what methods photographers use, remote etc. but just as a viewer of this image, I have to say, most viewers would be awed, wether the photog was in back of the camera or several yards away in a vehicle...don`t burtst my bubble.. .smile.. this shot is jaw dropping. Beautiful.

7/7!!! No need to add more to my comment:)

Stunning shot. I'm sure you can sell this one. Grabbed me in a heartbeat. Well done and great execution. I wouldn't listen to your detractors, keep at it and best wishes for the New Year!

Thanks for the interesting, informative writeup along with this great shot. I also like the angle rather than the 9 foot high angle from the back of an SUV. Great work and yes luck has something to do with it, but putting yourself in position to use it is important.
G

wonderful

Sean, you make a good point about a set-up that relies on a fair amount of good fortune that is also backed by a portfolio of high quality wildlife photography. As I said, I doubt there was any other way to get this kind of photo, and Greg pointed out, it's the relatively low angle that really sets it apart from those taken from an open canopy on an SUV. But if we had no other frame of reference (i.e., no portfolio from the photographer), would the methods and significant element of good fortune make us feel any differently about the photo? If the photo had been taken remotely by Marsel sitting 100 yards away, would you feel it's still "the same photo?"

John A., I just want to make sure you understand that I agree with you, for the most part. My comment about emotion wasn't made because I was disappointed or because I expected something or wanted something different here. It was made in response to so many who talked about feeling the power, etc. of the animal, which I don't think this photo accomplishes, nor do I think it has to.
__________________________
As for shooting it remotely, that was the sane thing to do and it got the shot. I don't really care too much about those strategic matters myself.

Fred, I was pretty sure I understood your meaning. Sometimes when we say something is a good shot or a great shot or something is impressive, we are talking about it within its limitations and I sometimes think of pointing out what you were saying here. There are just different kinds of images and thus good or great don't always mean the same thing when said about different images. So, I just felt a need to take what you and Stephen said and put it into a framework that I hoped would make that a bit more clear.

Stephen, I am not sure it would matter how it was captured, at least to me. I am not saying that this is a key factor, but I do think one must consider how many folks would risk $4-6000 of equipment to get a shot like this. In fact, I knew a guy back in Oregon known for getting rare shots. He would set up several cameras, strobes and trip sensors in the forests and sometimes come back to find his equipment gone.

As I said, it takes a lot more skill than most people give it credit for and then I wonder how many viewing this image here would have risked their consumer camera, let alone a pro camera to get such a shot. It takes a lot of skill and dedication to the craft to do these sorts of things. It is just another type of photograph than what most of us here do.

Well Fred , I do not agree with you at all, looking at this big cat facing us in such anger expression do add a lot of power to this image and the Power of this image do also irritate my feelings of fare and scariness, It is just we have to be skilled photographer like Marsel to shoot such image and to feel its Power when we view it, other wise if we are not witting Marsel skill and capabilities and we can not come with images like his, then, this image and every other image posted here will have no great value to us.
This all depend on where we stand photographic quality wise, Shooting Images and Reading Images.

Een geweldige foto met een interessante techniek. Hoe lang was die monopod? En je hield dus het andere eind vast? Weet het niet maar dat klinkt toch nog wel wat angstig.
Het detail is prachtig, je kan iedere haar in zijn manen tellen. En dan met nog een mooie blauwe lucht ook.
Hoeveel fotos heb je moeten nemen voordat je deze kreeg? Sorry voor al de vragen and het is ok als je in het engels antwoord voor de andere lezers.
Fantastisch gedaan.

Hey Stephen, not sure if you were asking rhetorically or not but to me the photo is the photo regardless of how it was taken or who it was taken by, and it stands on its own with or without the back story. My feeling about it won't change based on the method or that it was Marsel that took it, but I do find the method interesting and I'll have to try it myself because I am also a wildlife shooter and always trying to get as low and close as I can. That being said, my point was only that really talented photographers like Marsel will always "get lucky" more often than less talented photographers because you tend to make and create your own luck based on ability. You can look at Marsel's portfolio and say, damn that guy has been very lucky in his career, having an elephant just show up at the top of Victoria Falls or having two pied crows just show up in an already nice landscape composition. But when it happens repeatedly, you realize that it's not luck at all, but a really good photographer having the ability to take advantage of the opportunities presented to him.

What makes me love this image is because I am fully aware how dangerous such capture could be for the photographer, I lived this twice, on July I was too close to be attacked by a alligator at Yala wild life zone if not for the zone guards lifting me away at the last moment from the lake and had to leave my Nikon d3x along with the nikon 300mm f2.8 vr lens and the 1.4 extender behind.
The other incident was just last Nov. when I was too close to a wild monkey and he attacked me all in a sudden, this is why such an image is powerful to me and it do have a great value, why should I say something like what Steven have said, what if it was not been taken this way? , well this is not related to the way this image been taken at all and I find such statement is just wasting space on the server, other wise it is miss guiding the viewers of the POW and diverting their attentions away from the real work done here.
I am not a wild life photographer neither I am Master but I passed these critical moments just because I like to serve my camera and give something valuable to my hobby, it is hard or some one who haven’t seen whats out side his door steps to have such value for such work, other wise will see the evidence in his portfolio here or some where else.

Rashed, your anger at some who don't think of this photo exactly the way you do suggests you're not too confident in your own opinions. If you were more confident of what you thought, you wouldn't need so much for other people to agree with you. You'd be able to stand on your own two feet and respect others who didn't share your exact view. You certainly wouldn't be forced to make snide remarks about others' experience or photographic expertise or about them wasting server space. What utter nonsense! Many people comment on my own portraits who don't shoot portraits. And you know what, I value them as much (sometimes more) as comments I get from other portrait photographers. I have never shot a lion and never seen one up close except through the bars of a zoo cage. But I don't make the typical neophyte mistake of thinking that a picture of a lion is the same thing as a lion. I understand that talking about a photograph doesn't require having taking a similar kind of photograph. I've never photographed a pepper, yet I feel quite capable of talking about Weston and his photographs. Rashed, bring it down a notch.

Ingenious use of technology to capture a moment that could not be captured otherwise. The result is stunning not only for its technical achievement but also for the strange encounter between nature and technology. The beast seems to recognize that something bizarre is going on - and this moment, captured in his expression, is also really interesting. I see this as photo as pushing the envelope in that quest by wildlife or any photography, really, to imagine and then execute unique moments. I can't think of any down-side to this and am rather in awe about the passion and single-minded focus needed to achieve this result. Congratulations!