Godzilla - 12

This is another photo from my "Godzilla" folder that I am submitting

for critique. I am not sure if it should be cathegorized as "nature"

or rather "pets", "fine arts" or even "portrait"... The idea of

showing a small and common creature so that it looked rather

abstracted and Godzilla-like was an old whim of mine. However, I was

encouraged to submitting the photos in this folder by having seen here

in PN such successful shots as the Eye of the Iguana series by Peter

Chadwick (#1484836 and others) or The Eye by Kristian Hernstrom

(#1750842). Please have a look at the other pictures in the folder to

see what I was trying to achieve here. Your comments on both technique

and aesthetics will be appreciated.

Very good! I love the realm of the tones...you have yellow that fades to black and gray...and why not consider a pet shot? Turtles are cuties too :)

Beautiful colors, interesting crop. I like this one the best in the series.

This is interesting and unusual. Shows a lot of imagination. Nice composition. Good work.

Mamma mia, che faccia!

A wonderful photo. I really like the perspective. The top part of the shell looks like lights. Very nice!!

The first time I saw this done was decades ago and its been copied by just about every kid with a camera who gets to the Galapagos Islands.

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved?

So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

Let's make sure this forum is a wonderful learning resource for future photographers!

Thank you and enjoy!

Cool photo but I think the image is mirrored. Was there a reason for this?

 

D

Very good photo. I really like the lighting of the turtle.

although i do think the symmetry is too much, i don't quite believe it's been ps'ed. i don't think the cropping works here because the bright yellow across the top draws the eye up and out of the image. you almost have to be consciously looking at the rest of the image to get the full effect, and it's not "that sort of image". the cropping you have here is sort of a natural choice because there is a frame within the image (the shell). the other cropping i could see working is right above the head, which keeps the face as more of a focal point.

The image has been mirrored, I am sure of that. So rather than a strict photo-

representation of what was actually there, it moves a bit into the art world. And that, in my

mind, is just fine. It's not represented as photojournalism, so nothing is misleading. But

judging the photo on its own merits, I really like the use of DOF and the colors, as well as

the play between light and dark. Someone earlier mentioned that it's been done before,

and maybe so. I don't necessarily think it's a particularly creative or new photo, but I do

think it's an exceptionally well-done photo.

 

Regards--

j

From the photographers notes:

A little manipulation with Jasc PaintShop Pro 7 (cleaning, cropping, curves, saturation, sharpening and the like - plus, as you will surely have spotted mirror-reflection).

The frame is nice. Having said that, I think the picture needs cropping. The yellow of the shell along the top of the photo is just too much. Not only is it only a little out of focus, but much too bright.

 

Actually, this might be a photograph which would benefit with a "round" crop. Forget the shells entirely and just show the face of the beast in a circular photograph. That's the fun and interesting part of the subject anyway. Nice portrait. I'll look at it more over the week, but that is my view at this moment.

 

Willie the Cropper

I agree with Jim on this one.

 

I'm usually really not a fan of the mirror image thing. However, I'd love to have this up on the wall. It is abstract enough that it is eye-catching but it is still obviously a turtle portrait. Not an "exact documentation of reality" but still a really nice photo.

The University of Maryland needs to adopt this photo for their "Fear the Turtle" ad campaign. It's an awesome shot, and for once, we have a turtle worthy of fearing. Very cool photo. I love the angle, the impact, the crop, the surrealism.

It is good shot. the DOF and lighting contrast is interesting. I however thought the overall picture does not keep the image in mind for long time.

I am really delighted and surprised that this was chosen as "photo of the week", the more so since I have not been contributing much to this site during the last couple of years (due to some radical changes in my familiar and professional life). I would like to thank everybody for their comments.

Of course, this picture is just a little "divertissement" and nothing more. The mirror reflection, besides being explicitly stated in the technical notes, is made obvious, I believe, by the lighting, which would be physically impossible to achieve in a "real" shot. Actually, the impossible lighting is what I liked in this and similar photos for the surreal quality that it confers to the image. The original frame (now, alas, lost in digital form) was cut and mirrored to yield this "Godzilla-12" and its twin "Godzilla-13", still in the gallery and, in my opinion, a much less attractive picture. A crude reconstruction of the original shot is attached below.

As a sad note, I must add that the subject passed away a few months ago and cannot enjoy the popularity it has now earned...

THanks, MIchele,

 

As I said above, I think your use of the mirror is fine, and quite well done. THe final image

is, in my opinion, far more interesting then the original half that you show here. It shows

your eye for the final piece. The way you tweaked the colors/tones really helped out quite

a bit. It ends up as an abstract merged with a portrait. Well done.

 

Regards--

j

Congrats to Godzilla on the posthumously awarded POW. The PS mirroring does not bother me either. aesthetically, i think it is a very strong image of a turtle. Conceptually, I feel like there are stronger images in Michele's portfolio.(imho) - chuck

I find the fake frame to be distracting and not very flattering to the image.

it's always fun to play around with pictures. Looks like this is no exception. As for POW, I can't think of much to say about it, being a case of either "I like it" or "I don't like it" with maybe a few shades inbetween. I think it's cute, but that's about it. Maybe if it were 5 feet across I might be more impressed.

It is exactly what Michele says it is - a diversion. Nothing more. How can a mirror image manipulation somehow transform a photograph into art, as some of you claim?

 

I like a lot of Michele's work, and if you want to see an interesting symmetry photograph, he actually has one of the best on this site, IMHO:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1802049

 

For me, there's no comparision.

Very nice creation! I would have preferred that the eyes were more prominent, it distracts me a bit that they are almost not there but the nostrils are so dominant. I guess that would have meant mirroring the other side, or just mirroring the eye.

I may have been the first to mention the photograph as art idea. Please understand that no

disrespect to Michele was meant by that comment. I know that many people like to

discount photos by calling them "art", meaning that they've been created by other means

than photography, and therefore somehow are less meritorious.

 

I, however, do not hold that opinion. Sure, I enjoy seeing shots captured entirely (or

almost entirely) in-camera, but that is nothing more than one way to get an image.

Anyway, I just meant to say that there are "straight" photos--those with little to no

manipulation that capture a scene as it actually was.......and there are those that have been

manipulated more and therefore will be considered to many as "art", meaning that they've

been subjected to additional treatments other than just framing and selecting exposure

and aperture.

 

Regardless, I agree with your statements about the beautiful symmetrical setup of the

image, and I also really like the image you linked in your post.

 

As I said before---this is a fine image by Michele, regardless of how he got there. WIthout

question, this final image is better than the original "half" image from which it is made.

And isn't that what it's all about?

 

regards--

j