Bat(Winner Photo of The Day 13-7-2011)The Imaging Resource.

"Photos" of the week would have been straight.

Loaf, no one misled themselves or others here. The photographer came out and stated clearly that this photo is a composite. I don't see what more one could ask.

Fred, I'm not speaking about the photos-grapher, even did praise him. If the menu is indicating fried potatoes, I don't expect fried frittes.

Olaf (sorry for misspelling your name above), to me, the world of photography is not like a dinner menu, where I do expect to get what I expect to get. In photography and all the other arts, I like to get the unexpected, and often do. Just as "painting" is everything from oils to acrylic, from Impressionism to Pollock hurling paint at a canvas, "photo" has room for a lot of approaches. IMO, the bottom line is authenticity. If a photographer tries to pretend or fool me into thinking that a composite is really a single shot, there's an ethical issue. Otherwise, for me, there is not.

There seems to be a confusion between what photography is and what is real. Certainly, there are genres and individuals who are committed to creating and presenting what is real, as seen by them. But photography has a long history--from its inception really--of being a medium that is open to manipulation. The history books include images made in the 1800's where skies were changed out and details added, eliminated or changed. It is really one of the beauties of photography, that a fantasy can be presented in such realistic terms. Of course, that is not the only beauty available to us.

The real issue I see with this image is that Jim posts a lot of work of animals and critters that we assume are in fact natural--the environment or the activity. Having posted this image without a disclaimer as to its veracity can then call into question the veracity of the other images as well. I just think it is a slippery slope to mix and not clarify the differences if one also wants their other work to have a "real" credibility to it. I appreciate Jim's candor here, but I did look for the disclaimer in the posting and didn't see it--is this, then, too late?

Not for me. I agree, a word that it was a composite would have been appropriate and appreciated. (Though it seems clear because of the craftsmanship that it was, indeed, a composite and no statement to that effect was really necessary in this case. But I agree that in cases where the craftsmanship could hide the composite nature of the shot, a word or two about that seems reasonable and I'd like to see it accompanying the photo). But doing it now or early in this thread seems to correct what may well have been an oversight or something not even considered. I don't think it's too late at all.

Let's look at this as we did last week's image...maybe that would help. The image "reads" as a live bat in flight, possibly hunting. Some early commenters were perhaps amazed with the image because they "read' it this way. What amazes is the technical skill of the photographer. Of course, the photographer "invites" us to read the image this way. Why else would there be an attempt to make it appear that the bat is in flight? Why not just pin it down to a light box and take an artistic picture of it if the point is not to influence our reading of the image as a live bat in flight?

So the issue is whether the way in which an image reads is authentic in relation to what it is actually an image of. We had this problem last week....is the image of the man in the alley staged or does it depict a real moment?

For some of us, the way the image reads must connect with the reality of what it depicts. Otherwise there is a lack of authenticity. I don't see a connection here so, for me, this image can only be interesting as a technical art project. That is, an attempt to do something artistic and technically challenging in photography. It can not strike me deeply emotionally. That is why I think authenticity matters so much for me.

I find John A's last comment interesting in this regard. I was thinking of it from exactly the opposite point of view. For me, what is interesting about photography is the ability to turn the real into a fantasy; not a fantasy into the real. The image this week depicts a reality. The reality is a dead bat. What we did was construct a fantasy based upon the reality depicted in the image. Our fantasy was that the bat is actually alive and in-flight. My wife and I say this about wedding photography all the time. The point is to take an ordinary person (1 of millions of brides) and use photography to elevate her, to make her special, to create an image that matches her fantasy of herself. This is the special skill of very good wedding photographers. They find that split second, that decisive moment that turns the bride from ordinary into special. The fact that a photograph is conceived of as depicting reality in some technical way (as opposed to drawing or painting) makes photography more capable of doing this. The idea is that the fantasy is perhaps more believable because a camera was used (maybe this is what you hand in mind John?). Best, JJ

I had originally planned to say that this image doesn't look real and/or that it doesn't appear to have been photographed in a natural environment. Then I read the photographer's explanation of how the image was created, which confirmed my thoughts.

I like a lot of the photographer's work, but this one's a huge flop in my opinion. It's a dead bat with a live bat's head, and insects from another photograph shot at a different time and in a different place edited in.

The bottom line for me is...it's phony, and phony doesn't work for me.

Geeeze, this is a creative edit from a very creative photographer who probably had fun creating it - dead bat or not. I can very much relate to Jim since like him I am a wildlife photographer who has spent thousands of hours in the wild getting a good natural wildlife image and may just wanted to explore a new vision. Photography is about expressing and this picture has impact - whatever genre you wanna squeeze it into. Jim with this image has been exploring his personal bounderies as an artistic person, which is much more I can say about many photographers who are the first in queue to be critical. I understand that this thread is supposed to be a lively discussion about an image, but I find lots of the posts self serving and esoterical.

Fred, I agree with you essentially. I was really trying to raise a more global consideration, just something that should be considered as one moves along.

Jeremy, I think your description of the wedding photograph is one of those other beauties of photography I suggested--as is presenting the "real", it is just a medium that has a lot of dimensions to it and each can be employed to serve one's vision.

I did make a response to a comment about this work before i knew that this was a POTW Now I have seen the work .It is a meld of components that could be put together by anyone...but only one photographer has put it together for everyone.. like or dislike..for me the strong point is in the vision of the final work.. the weak point from a natural point of view .. never seem a bat like that.. but I have enjoyed another POTW... Regards Jim ,Miken

It's an interesting montage. I, too, was wondering about how the main subject was taken. Thanks for the explanation Jim

One can have the best equipment, be excellent in lighting, photographing, post production and compositing; but, what's most important is that there is something interesting to look at. Jim's image certainly gives us that. The rather unorthodox method of achieving it shows a refreshing level of creativity.
Please note that I was able to express the opinion above in 47 words.
Regards, John

What's most important is that there is something interesting to look at. Jim's image fails to give us that. The unorthodox method of achieving it is fraught with difficulties. 29 words.

This falls into the realm of either nature photography or art photography. As nature photography is flops because it is faked--a flying dead bat. As art photography it is lacks in outstanding aesthetic interest. Thus it cannot be in the same league as the thousands of nature photographs of bats nor in any of the more daring surrealist experiments that use similar techniques.

I have to confess a certain revulsion for photographs of dead animals that have not be killed as game. I mean road kill and creatures like this that have died of unknown causes. I suppose others, with stronger stomaches, may not be bothered by this.

On the technical side, I find the colors bland and the main subject, the flying dead bat, uninteresting.

I suppose if this unfortunate bat had been stuffed by a taxidermist and put on display in a museum my feelings would have been neutral--as when observing stuffed birds, tigers, fish and whatever. This would be so because there is no pretense about a stuffed animal consciously posed as a living animal. I feel there is that pretense here--and one we would not have guessed if the artist himself had not spilled the beans.

We are never consistent in our feelings when we look upon death. What makes me not feel good is looking this thing in the face, presuming it is alive and then realizing it is dead. I feel it is a kind of desecration--even if this happens to be a lowly bat.

I hope this photograph does not inspire imitations. If viewers are so inspired, please be warned that dead and dying animals may pass on diseases to whomever handles them.

I want to add that my counterpoint to John Roswell was made in good humor and with appreciation for the larger body of work of Jim Hoffman. It's just a different point of view.

So taken, Stephen (3 words)

Jim posted a variation here:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/jimhoffman2/art/2356731-bat

I see this picture as a work in progress; an experiment - I would probably have experimented as well had I come across a dead bat - so knowing its background, I think it's an interesting rendition by keeping it simple without all that over-the-top tweaks and additions. It's not award winning, and I'm sure Jim had not thought it to be either.

I think Jim is making the best photographic use of a dead bat (although, again, I wouldn't recommend it for health reasons), and I can appreciate his experimentation. The two views are very different, but both are interesting because of the very thin, translucent skin stretched between the bat's fingers. It's something we don't often get to see, and that alone has appeal to many people. The anatomical shot is pretty straightforward. I suspect it's the natural history shot made of a composite that will always generate the greatest diversity of opinions on a site like this, and disclaimers or explanations as to how and why a photograph was made may satisfy most of those who are looking at the photo with raised eyebrows.

The hardest part with composite experiments is determining a composition and knowing when to stop.

Convincing realism is in this shot is very difficult to achieve. The apparent DoF and lack of motion blur point to nearly impossible natural lighting. The plain background also alludes to an unnatural setting. In this regard, it failed in realism but the choice of aesthetics may have inadvertently raised audience curiosity by straddling the border of real and fake.

Viewers often come with preconceived expectations - the bat is alive, or at least real (albeit taxidermy), and that the moths are real. From this, we either suspend our disbelief or we analyze and dissect until we are able to make sense of what we see.

Jim might not have intended it, but had he not disclosed his method, we would likely still be wondering and debating how he shot this.

Rob: I get what you're saying, but I strongly disagree. What would you feel about a dressed-up human corpse photoshopped into a dinner scene in whiuch it appears to be sitting around a table enjoying a fine meal and lively conversation?

First the Elves are getting a little ahead of themselves (?) 13-7-2011??
Fantastic shot, having not got a single photo of Bats despite having a back yard frequently visited by them, I take my hat off to Jim. The swarm of bugs add to the composition. The Mouth of the Bat being open really gives a 'threat' to the image..it's visceral Bat action...
Great detail in the Bat's flight gear, the over exposing backlight adds to the atmosphere of the image...bugs apparently fleeing the scene give it dynamism. The Bat's pose clearly show's it means business all round a great Natural History record.
I'd be keen to find out if any 'tricks' were used in the taking of this image?
Thanks for sharing this image Jim.
Regards
Finlay

When I read this I couldn't help but think of Joel Peter Witkin's work--although somewhat different--which is very interesting work. For me, it doesn't matter what is in the image or generally how it was achieved, but that whatever results is well done.

The thing about the other version of this bat posted in the red bubble link is that it is maybe more predictable but is something that feels more like how Jim does things. As I said before, this image is just sort of awkward in many respects and that doesn't fit with Jim's other work. But I also think, aside from the concerns I brought up previously, that it is good to experiment with new things as whether our attempt is successful or not, we learn a lot and gain new skills by stepping into new territory.

Here is my problem with this photograph. Unlike a stuffed bat, this bat is putrefying as we look at it. I do not have a strong stomach for this sort of thing. I admit this is my problem and has nothing to do with aesthetic theories or photographic techniques. The worst smell in the world is a rotting corpse, and that is what I think of when I look at this photograph. Lord, what's on the plate for next week?

Finlay, I think it all depends on the goals and the motivations of the photographer. Your example reminds me of the cash-strapped woman who tried to avoid the extra fees of shipping the body of her deceased husband by dressing him up in a wheelchair and going through normal boarding procedures (it didn't work). Even if we don't agree and wouldn't do such a thing ourselves, knowing her motivation may affect how we view and judge her actions.

I agree with John A. (and have said the same previously): experimentation is good, and new things will be learned from trying to extend comfortable boundaries. One of the things to be learned here is good communication when presenting an image that may appear to be one thing but is actually another; folks usually don't like to be "fooled," and there are things a photographer can do to lessen the negative impact. Complete disclosure up front and a statement of purpose can do much to bring viewers in line with the photographer.

Jim is obviously experimenting. He's tried two very different approaches to photographing this dead bat. One is a life-like composite, while the other is a traditional shot that uses lighting to bring out the interesting anatomical features of an animal that we seldom get to see. While both are outliers to Jim's normal subject matter, perhaps these experimental approaches are better than simply discarding the dead bat, never to be seen by anyone.