Hippo

There's no relationship between the duck and the hippo, other than that they were close enough together to be in the same picture, so I don't know . . . This is what I term (to coin a term) a "false relationship" picture, although there is humor in it because they are of such different shapes and sizes. The duck being reasonably out of focus is a little unpleasant to me. Ya gotta love that hippo and the way it was photographed.

Wouldn't a line of baby ducks (in focus) work better than the out-of-focus duck? I understand that you have to take the picture that's there, but the fact that you can imagine something better seems to me to clarify that the picture that got taken has perhaps a minor defect.

<<<There's no relationship between the duck and the hippo, other than that they were close enough together to be in the same picture>>>

Martin, this is a significant insight and you've put it well. This is part of what Garry Winogrand was getting at when he suggested there is a difference between the photographed and the photograph. Photographers create relationships, especially through framing and perspective, that did not necessarily exist in the same way in the "real" world. To me, it's such a great and unique aspect of photographing and looking at photographs . . . what may come together in the frame, and how.

It's fun, when you have a camera in your hands, to record "false relationship" pictures, but I'm not sure that what you create is as meaningful as it is fun to record.

For me, it's often more meaningful, but I use photography as more than a recording device. That's just me. I know there are many different approaches to photography. I love being nature and seeing what's out there and learning about the world and the relationships in the world. When I have my camera with me, it's usually in hopes of creating something even if I am also memorializing it . . . not always. I think much art and photography is precisely about created relationships, often meaningful in a very different way from "real-life" meanings. There is an aspect to art and photography that is artificial and, therefore, has "meaning" in its own (aesthetic, not necessarily rational) way.

Then again, to be fair -- and to emphasize and appreciate your point -- sometimes a duck is just a duck!

It would help the duck to be in focus. It would help to create a stronger relationship with hippo. Would it be a "false" relationship? Maybe an accidental relationship of the opposites? They are connected because they are so different and it raises questions in viewers mind.

I'll add to my earlier comment about the out of focus duck & shallow dof. I don't think, as others, the pile of rocks help on the left either. The format is square which leaves us with very empty space at top. Nothing at all going on there. Additionally, it appears the shot was simply transferred from color to greyscale. For a B&W, it's very flat

After Matt used the word "Rubenesque," I looked up "hippopotamus" and found a painting of a hippo by Rubens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_083.jpg

(Be sure to view that on "large." Please also notice the horse biting the hippo, not to mention the croc thrown in there for good measure.)

I also learned that hippos can run up to 19 mph for short distances.

I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with photography, but I thought that I would share it anyway. I do know that I am learning more about hippos than I ever really wanted to know.

Augustine was the bishop of Hippo, but that was a city.

You read it here.

--Lannie

I like the photo, a view of an impressively massive animal. I too wondered about sub-Saharan mallards, deciding it was an animal shot as opposed to a wildlife shot, where the photographer also has a nice collection of eye catcing animals in a folder named animalia. The rocks on the left appear to have a stick like object projecting from them, though that may be an illusion of some kind. It points at a highlight in the water, which I would have smudged out, except for the contest. The reflectiveness of the hippos face, due mostly to water, is due to sun too and I wonder if, with all the mist or fog in the background, why the reflectiveness if it is foggy out. Yet that happens often enough. There is some shade in the immediate foreground, running in a fairly straight line, somewhat suggestive of a park setting.

The hippo angle is funny and bring a smile, the duck and stones are good as a scale, and the eye rest at the bigger element in the frame..the hippo of course...Not every photo needs to have a deep meaningful, even though my approach to photography is similar to Fred's. I enjoy the angle and the sense of humor.

The rocks are okay. The slightly out of focus duck is okay. The very sharp hypo is okay too. Overall, this is an okay photograph. I do not find it a terribly interesting photograph. The duck and the hypo are not an interesting juxtaposition because they evoke nothing. Nothing even the sound and the fury. This photograph reminds me of the funny photos that always appeared on the final page of Life Magazine. Those had bite. This photograph doesn't.

The rocks are okay. The slightly out of focus duck is okay. The very sharp hypo is okay too. Overall, this is an okay photograph. I do not find it a terribly interesting photograph. The duck and the hypo are not an interesting juxtaposition because they evoke nothing. Nothing even the sound and the fury. This photograph reminds me of the funny photos that always appeared on the final page of Life Magazine. Those had bite. This photograph doesn't.

"The duck and the hypo are not an interesting juxtaposition because they evoke nothing."

Now if one of them were chasing the other (preferably the duck chasing the hippo), that would be an interesting juxtaposition (but a completely different picture of course).

<<<Now if one of them were chasing the other . . .>>>

. . . that would have made it good for a comic book, cliché, and trite.

Now, I'm not in love with this photo. I think it's good, it put a smile on my face, and there are things I like about it. The one thing it seems most to be trying to be is quiet and relatively still. The hippo is centered in the frame and big in the frame. No chasing of any kind comes to mind. One thing it's got going for it is contemplativeness. Light, flesh, and big on the beach. Why turn it into a bad joke? Just leave it be.

The hippo is such an unusual creature, with a massive head and hugely rotund body, which is why it spends to much time in the water in order for buoyancy to help support the weight of the animal. I think Mikel's head-on shot was a good way to illustrate these unusual characteristics of the animal, and that, to me, is the heart of his photograph. It evokes a striking and partly amusing view of this unique animal. I also like the fact that the background is obscured by (apparently) fog, leaving just the hippo to be the focus of our attention. Personally, I find the mallard to be incongruous, and it is distracting as well because it is OOF; the rocks are similarly distracting because they are just a fragment, not clearly defined, and probably detract more than they contribute. One might ask if the photograph would be too plain if the ducks and rocks had not been present. For me, I think the unusual characteristics of the hippo, the head-on view that Mikel obtained, and the isolation of the hippo from the background would have all been sufficient to carry the photo without the distractions of the mallard and the rocks. True, the mallard might have been an interesting addition if it had been in focus, because we could then more easily imagine some relationship between the two water-based animals, but that wasn't the case. I would have been happy with the hippo as the sole subject presented in the way Mikel chose.

I must say I've never seen a hippo from this perspective and I find it fascinating. Obviously it is not a design for efficient land use! The duck is odd and I don't know what to think about it... but I have.. so that is somewhat thought provoking. I would have been tempted to remove the rocks but respect the decision to not alter the image. I am a bit puzzled by the high sun shadow under the hippos eyes while I see none in the sand around the duck. On the other hand lots of things puzzle me. I like it.

Its an interesting and unique perspective of the Hippo. The monochrome editing is a clever choice given the sunlight casting a shadow under the eyes and the right side of the subject matter. Had it been in colour, these shadows,would have resulted in this image having far less aesthetic appeal for me. As it stands I think its great (well done on that Mikel). Like Martin I find no relationship between the Hippo and the duck. The duck is simply incidental to what is being "photographed". I'm glad Fred made reference to Garry Winogrand's distinction between the photograph and the photographed. For me this distinction places context for the composition. Thanks Fred. However, I also agree with Pnina that, if anything, the duck does help provide scale to the scene. I wouldn't remove it. The rocks on the other hand? yes I would but given Mikel's reasoning for keeping them they take little away from what is a wonderful and worthy PoW image. well done Mikel .

I wonder where the two sheep are. :-)

Perfect perspective! Great work!

La vida sigue y mis primeras palabras quería que fuesen de felicitación. Un abrazo.