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

Disclosure may be advised regarding a composite, yes.

Disclosure of motivations of the photographer is not always advised or desired. If someone were photographing a dressed up corpse at a dinner party, for example, the irony revealed as the viewer realizes that something is "not right" may be significant to the effect of the photo. A lot about art and photography is trickery and fooling and being fooled and then, perhaps, realizing one is being fooled. These kinds of revelations are key to many ironic, sarcastic, comedic, and other types of photos. Photographers will often fool people into seeing a photo one way upon first look and hope that they stay with the photo long enough so that they then see the trickery involved as part of the process only to be taken to yet a deeper level of involvement.

I think a photo like the one above has the potential to be such a photo, though I don't think it was trying to be. There are many ways this could have been a more effective photo, but most of those ways rely on a more organic blending of elements, dead or alive, and several of the ways would involve both a clear concept and an artful execution. "Creativity," a word used above, is very much a matter of skillful execution and coherence in idea, emotion, subject matter, and craft.

AWESOME image! I thought it was a photo of a bat hunting moths by a light. I figured the bright background must have been a white wall or something. I wondered how this shot could have been made, because it had a very deep apparent depth of field. I also wondered how the light from the background could be so bright, and then I figured it might be some type of flash set-up. It never entered my imagination that this was not a flying bat, completely alive, and trying to catch real, live, flying insects. I think it's an amazing composite. I've never seen anything like it before. (Of course, that may just be because I don't look at bat or bird pictures that much.) Kudos to the artist.

It should be noted that the title was chosen by Jim himself. PN and the elves had nothing to do with that (as evidenced by the fact that it references a "photo of the day" which PN does not have). As for why the title is what it is, you would have to ask Jim. Imaging Resource does do a photo of the day, so perhaps they organize those photos a month in advance or so?

"These kinds of revelations are key to many ironic, sarcastic, comedic, and other types of photos."

Fred, I can agree with that, but if the photo is a natural history photo or landscape photo, many (but perhaps not all) of which are not intended to be ironic, sarcastic, comedic, etc., but rather some depiction of reality, then often what one ends up with are pissed viewers who feel they've been deceived. It all depends on the total circumstances.

Stephen and others, you may have missed this:

Photographer's Request for Critique

--Jim Hoffman

Bat

Creative edit(montage)

From the original request for critique, Jim has stated that it was a 'Creative edit(montage)'

John, I believe we were talking in more general terms. I was certainly aware of Jim's disclaimer from the outset.

As Josh has pointed out, the discussion here should be about the POW. The 'general terms' discussions belong elsewhere. (19 words)

Stephen, I didn't see it. I generally only look at the POW or when I do look at other work, don't look for how it was made. So, the disclaimer here is a bit "hidden" if one isn't used to where it is. I looked pretty intensely before commenting and didn't catch it--maybe it could/should be more prominent--like in the boxes in the image space.

John, I think the beauty of the POW is that it can lead to pertinent, and general, issues--sort of a spring board to more global as well as specific things (I don't count words!)

John is correct, in a literal sense, as far as what I said the POTW discussion should be about.

However, I think this is one of those gray areas where we want to be flexible. I do not think we gain anything by clamping down on general or "the concept of ____" discussions that come up when based around the image at hand in the POTW discussions. Broad based discussions, when narrowed by being tied to a single image, can make for some of the best discussions on PN.

For example, while you don't want a discussion about an HDR image to dwindle down into a shouting match about photoshop vs adjustments. The fact is that the idea of how "unreal" images make a viewer feel is a relevant topic in that case because it does have a direct bearing on the image at hand.

Use your best judgment and we'll probably be fine. I have a lot of faith in the PN community when it comes to that sort of discussion. I think it will be fine. And if we get off topic, I'll do my best to shove it back the other way.

Don't know anything about bats or whatever... but sure like the drama and subtle colours with glow in the wings witch gives it a magical touch. Very good artistic touch  

Back to the topic. The obvious occurs to me. This is pictorialism. But with a twist. Not a dreadful imitation of impressionism painting, but a dead bat in your face. I wonder if this image is meant to be a joke. Or is it the first wave of punk pictorialism?

I know it is hard to capture a perfect picture of a bat since they flutter their wings so fast. The left side shows excelent capturing and I'll take the right side as just what happens when struggling to capture the bat in flight. I'd imagine there might be a trick setting up multiple flashes low around an area then draw some bats in if a perfect picture of the whole bat is wanted. If you want to draw some bats in close when they are out and no bugs are around, extend your arms outward with all your fingers spread out and flutter your fingers by rotating your arm along its axis. The bats sonar will detect the finger movement and swoop in to se if it is a swarm of bugs flying around. I hope it helps if anyone is going after some bat pictures.
Nice picture of a tough subject.

I meant "impressionist" painting.... Blast, try to write clearly early in the morning. Anyway, I think this whole thing is a joke. But I am suddenly compelled to ask the artist, "How much to you know about bats?"

I flashed back to third grade. This awkward kid, a future musical genius, who wore a Mickey Mouse hat all the time, brought in a dead bat in a shoe box for show and tell. Our teacher, a bat of another order, was totally freaked. She lectured the kid with the Mickey Mouse hat about diseases attending dead things and then made him study bats and do a presentation on them the next day. He was a bright kid and we learned a lot about bats from him. He worked hard on that presentation. This was before Wikipedia. I not only learned stuff about bats but also a lesson about photography that would surface when as a novice I was shooting everything. That lesson was that you had to know your subject well in order to take good pictures of it. What I knew best were people and cats I discovered. So I stopped shooting flowers, having no botanical knowledge, for one thing. This experience in third grade pops into my head when I see trite flower and landscape pictures and lifeless portraits. What do you know about the subject you are shooting? I want to ask.

So I ask this photographer: What do you know about bats? What do you care about bats? What are bats to you? Are you like the kid who brought the dead bat in a shoe box to school?

What do you know about bats, artist?

Obviously not enough...

A fascinating image that requires more than a superficial viewing to see that it is a montage and that it's rather horrifying (not because of the bat or the insects but because of their combination).  If those were bats in the background, the image would be compelling in another, naturalist's-super-wide-angle way; same if the central figure were one of those insects.  And if the bat's face and body were in focus, those leathery, Hadean wings wouln't be so prominent or so suggestive.  And if the insect superimposed on the wing (right side) were faded out so that it appeared to be in the plane of the other insects. . . .  It and its orientation--which alerts one to the orientation of some of the others--convey the unnaturalism (and non-realism) of this image.  And then, the high-key background is just the opposite from what one expects of this creature of the night.  The posterization of the background is intentional, right?  --not the result of making a JPG of this?  Maybe the banding ought to be more obvious and jagged if it's intentional.  That's the only weakness I see in the image, not in itself but because there's so much going on that I don't want to think about the background except insofar as it's high-key, emotionally in contrast with the bat.  Effective montage, that's for sure, and it practically forced me to keep looking at it.

this bat is not in fly and may be also not a live. This can You see on the ears and the leggs.

Milan

Thanks for your feedback on my 'Bat' picture,Milan.

You're quite right.The bat in my picture is not alive and the picture is not real.I just wanted to be creative and give an impression how I thought a bat would look in flight.It's just a fantasy and PSwork.If I look at your pictures of bats in flight I can see that they look quite different as I imagined.But it was not my intention to make it look real,it just my fantasy.That's why I uploaded the picture in the 'creative edit' category.And I have explained together with the picture how it's was made.

I hope you understand and I want to give you my compliments for your bat-pictures.Great work!

 

Best wishes,

 

Jim

!!!!!