single photos The girl and the elephant

Cheers

PDE

Beautiful work!

I don't really understand this shot. The picture seems to show either a) a stuffed elephant in a natural history museum diorama, with a girl on top (or photoshopped on top) b) a real elephant with a photoshopped backdrop and/or a photoshopped girl, or c) exactly what it shows with everything "real" with some interesting image processing to make it look like a) or b). I should like it, as it is unusual and atmospheric, but I am constantly challenged by failing to comprehend the reality behind it and so I am left scratching my head.

Assuming for the sake of discussion, Robin, that I am not scratching my head right now about the items you mentioned, I don't understand why the elephant is so detailed and the girl isn't. The image is cute, and that's about all.

It has a lovely atmosphere, like being in a kid's dream. Indeed the difference in level of detail, and the lighting that doesn't 'feel' completely consistent, make it obvious to me this is a composed image. I am fine with that; it doesn't seem to pretend otherwise, and given the total mood and atmosphere, it's logical; all OK with me. As an image, it is coherent, and the result of a consistent idea of what this image should be and become. I really cannot fault it, and in that sense I think the image actually succeeds quite well.

But there is no tension, nothing that itches, that makes me go back to see if I understood well, nothing jarring, edgy that gives the story in the image a bit of depth. It makes it an image I see, look for a bit, smile, and move on. It doesn't stick.
I fear Michael's conclusion is also where I end up. Cute, and that's about it.

Thanks for the response. I am not a professional and have a lot to learn. I appriciate that you don't really care or

understand the image. The elephant is real and it was my daugther that asked me to "make" this image. It was't meant to

be anything else than just cute.

Anette, reading back I do realise we may sound more than a bit harsh.... There is nothing wrong with a photo trying to be just cute, or just record something you found beautiful, or similar. Not every photo must have meaning, storytelling or significance.
The point is that the Photo of the Week is put here primarily to provoke discussion, and that does alter the tone of conversation. It is easier to discuss a provocative or ambiguous image. Doesn't mean that other images are bad or lesser, but when they are what they are, there is only so much that can be said.

I like this image. This is clearly a photo illustration so I accept the fact it is a composite. It does have a dream like feel to it. While technically the execution could be better, the idea is clear and thoughtful lighting and color plalette was employed. I think the detail on the elephant, especially the undercarriage, could be pulled back some and the blanched looking upper left quadrant could use a bit more tone. Perhaps planning to use different clothing for the child might tie the theme better and help it look less cobbled together from existing imagery. But the general thrust of the idea is good and a decent overall execution.

It is interesting reading others opinionsð I love taking pictures, but I must admit that I just love post processing my pictures as well. i find

it very difficult to put many pictures together. It takes a lot of time, the light and the color has to be similar. The sharpness and the

shadows have to be right. I hope that I one time willl Become betterð

Anette, I just took a quick glance at your portfolio. It is obvious that you have produced some fine images. The one selected as POTW isn't representative of your best work, in my opinion. And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with postprocessing images. It's a matter of degree according to your own vision.

I also find the photo to be 'cute' and with a dream-like quality, and think it is well done for the most part. But in looking at it closely, something just wasn't sitting quite right with me beyond the lighting, and after viewing the larger version (which I wish the 'elves' would provide a link to), at the risk of sounding like a perv, it's the processing of the girls rear-end. It just kind of disappears into the elephant, and looks much flatter to me than it would naturally. But the 'photo' does accomplish what it set out to do, and I'm sure the little girl would be very happy with a large print of it hanging on her bedroom wall.

Annette. Now you have explained it - I understand more. I agree it's a cute image. Where was the elephant taken - I assume in a zoo?

There's something off to me about beginning with a picture of an animal housed in a zoo and then pasting a child so as to appear to be sitting atop that animal out in a natural setting. It's kind of a double blow to the animal and makes me worry that we'd be, though subtly, teaching a child something not quite right about man's relationship to nature and the rest of the animal kingdom.

It was evident to me that this was how the photo was constructed from the beginning, before any explanations were given, and I doubt it was made with any malice and I understand it was done in fun but that doesn't change the fact that this is how the photo speaks to me and how it could be speaking to the child if even below the surface.

I am not one to shy away from collages and creative post processing so that's not my issue here. And I don't think photos have to be or appear "natural." But my preference would be for them not to suggest exploitation of nature, even lightheartedly and unwittingly, on two levels.

Anette - Please, please do not delete the image. Fred's comments are based on his interpretation of it. Not everyone has the same interpretation. I, for one, don't see the girl/elephant relationship necessarily as an exploitative one, but rather as one of friendship.

I also do not see any exploitation here. People have been riding animals for about as long as there have been animals, and it's highly doubtful the girl's weight would cause the elephant any hardship. Perhaps if she had a whip and hook in her hand, exploitation would be a consideration.

Not sure how you could tell by looking at this that the elephant was from a zoo, but I don't have an issue with zoos anyway.

http://www.scottcromwellphoto.com/photos/i-brnxZ9G/0/O/i-brnxZ9G.jpgAnette, you are a talented photographer, so it won't be long before you thrive on comments like Fred's.:) Some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and you may disagree with it too, which I am sure many do, but it's better than, "nice shot", and that's the point of this forum....to get a discussion going. I am afraid you might be stuck and not able to remove it once you are crowned. I hope you don't try. The first thing I thought when seeing it was that her left hip area just didn't look right. Overall, I think it is a fine image with the Photoshop mistakes corrected. I took the liberty with a few subtle changes....

Judging by some of the responses, I would like to clarify a couple of things.

Michael, I wasn't talking about the relationship of the girl and the elephant. I was talking about the relationship of the photographer and the elephant, and something I assumed was unintended in what I was seeing.

Bill, I don't think the weight of the girl would cause the elephant any hardship. That was not my concern.

Scott, I realize you, too, were perplexed by my comments (and I appreciate what you said about discussion) so let me try it this way . . .

I see an oddity, possibly an irony, in starting with a beautiful wild animal, seeing it housed in a zoo, then photographing it and "pretending" (through photographic collage) that the animal was, in fact, back out in nature, then placing a child sitting on it as if it were her pet or her friend.

I understand that others simply see it as cute and as embracing the friendship (though an imagined one) between a girl and an elephant. Taken that simply, I can certainly see why it would seem a very benign photo.

If anything, I'm glad Anette shared this photo because it gives us a chance to look at some of these issues, even if completely unintended.

Anette, to dismantle this image would be a shame. I found that about 20% of the critiques I get on my images I can really use, it has helped me to become a better photographer, we tend not to get an honest critique from friends and family, they like everything we do. Another aspect is that you my be technically spot on for an image but the reviewer may not like the subject. Separate the two and use what can really help you.

Some people like to tease out relationships that are completely unintended by the photographer and that is part of the point of these discussion threads. Fred's comments I think are meant to suggest that the image also gives him thoughts of man's subjugation of nature. I had never thought of that one, and I'm not sure it helps me appreciate the photo any more, but it is a valid observation. The same thought would come more obviously to me if you had a shot of Indian mahouts: but there it is.

I really admired the post processing of this finely constructed image beside its perfect DOF and wonderful colors.
Though some members have unwelcome the idea in this image about the relationship between the human to nature's animals,I certainly prefer and encourage this kind of (mind's constructed ) images and ideas over the real jungle images of slaying,shooting, and killing nature's treasure for merely their teeth or skin no matter how real and authentic they are .Such stories and images that shock the world two weeks ago of a dentist slaying a lion just for fun,moreover I myself have ride an elephant at Cairo's zoo in 1976,so I find this image is relevant to real life ,not to mention the thousands of people of India and Thailand are considering elephants are their own pets.

I admire Annette's work in her Portfolio. She tends to do a lot of compositions which are mainly made up of her own images, rather than Stock Photos. I appreciate this very much. Her compositions that involve children so often 'Celebrate' being a child and the imagination of Children. These compositions remind me to be mindful of protecting the 'child that remains in me'. I think I would miss out on a lot of the joys in life if I were ever to loose 'the child in me'. This composition like her many others - to me, represent illustrative work that would be excellent in A children's book, cards, Framed Photos or Canvas Art that would look great in a child's room. I did not even think for a moment that the elephant in the image could have been mistreated. When I saw that the images was taken at a zoo, it did not phase me as I was sure she would take her children to a Zoo where animals were treated well. There is a Zoo not far from me where they take in 'rescues'. The animals would surely perish if they were not being taken care of by the Zoo due to injuries they have suffered. When Annette mentioned that her daughter asked if she would do this composition for her, it did not surprise me at all. I actually surmised that perhaps her daughter had an affection for this Elephant. She seems truly devoted to her children, and I have to commend them on their 'patience'. Quite often in Digital Alterations, people use Stock Images. I wonder if folks question if an 'animal' in a Stock Photo was being mistreated where the image was taken. Saad has contributed some valuable points with reference to elephants. I hope your daughter was delighted with this composition Annette. Please keep on making Compositions that 'delight' the child in each of us. Too often we loose that 'gift'. The endless possibilities/recipes that exist in Digital Alterations that allow us to explore our Creative Juices abound. Best to you always in each of your endeavours and I shall enjoy seeing each one. On a closing note, it does bear attention that we are all human and have different tastes. If Digital Alterations and children's Illustrative work is not interesting to some, they have every right to their opinion, and it does not make them wrong when they critique such images. However, I think the conversation is more valuable when it is in the context of the type of image that was chosen. Perhaps a short dialogue on 'how and why' the composition was made could assist others when they attempt to critique such an image Annette and would help avoid opinions expressed that do not pertain to 'Illustrative Compositions". However, I think the way this Forum in set up, one would have to check out the image within your Portfolio to understand the kind of Artist you are. Keep up the good work! Sincere regards, Gail

Gail, I agree. And that's the spirit in which I addressed this photo. I said from the beginning that I am perfectly able to embrace composites and digitally altered photos. What I brought attention to was the irony in taking what is a caged animal (for whatever reason it's been caged) and "freeing" it by showing it as if it were in nature, recreating it as a natural pet. If you want to disagree with that interpretation of irony and with the photographic denial going on here that this animal was ever in a cage, I'd be interested in hearing it. But alleging that this disagreement is about the fact that this is about anyone's missing the context of this photo being an illustrative composition or something to do with children doesn't strike me as fair to my critique.

Now imagine I photograph a person who's homeless but who doesn't look particularly down and out (there are many homeless people in San Francisco who are actually working and look in pretty decent shape). And then imagine I remove the context of the street they've had to live on and place them in an idyllic situation instead, attending a fancy dinner party and thereby creating a sort of fairy tale for my child to hang on her wall. I see a profound falseness in that, not because it's a collage or an illustrative composition, but because of the denial of reality that I would be creating. I don't think children necessarily need to be confronted with the harsher sides of reality at a young age, whether it be about animals or humans, but I also don't necessarily think they should have fairy tales constructed from those realities. Fairy tales are good for kids. But I'm not sure they're as good when they're made from harsh realities to begin with.