Untitled

I love the composition of this photo as well as the warm toning. It's is much more powerful than the B&W version you showed earlier. I think I like the fact that it is such a graphic, linear image. It looks like an ancient petroglyph on a rock surface as opposed to two living creatures. Keep up the good work!

What a symmetry except the tails!

I dunno .. i just hate digital ..

 

I knew from the instant i saw this that it was taken with a digital camera ..

 

Nice pic, sure ... however .. don't you feel it lacks a certain "something" ... ?

 

Why is it that music with "real" instruments has a longevity which electronic music has yet to match?

 

Just like film V digital ...

 

And I love "House" music ....

Yes, it has got a digital feel, rather than a lucious tonal film feel, but still it is a great natural moment that Terje was lucky to witness and had the vision and skill to take a very well conceived picture.

 

It is one thing to see lizards, but the topographic view, the 'uneven' symmetry of the lizards, and the considered use of the fabulous background is excellent.

 

PS they are definitely not chameleons!

These comments regarding digital are silly. How can anyone looking at a small digitized image on a computor monitor really know the origin without being told? Any digital characteristic can be produced from use of a film scanner, which is just another form of digital camera. Throw in the software and the objectivity is out the window. To look at internet images and say they lack something that film has is an oxymoron of sorts.

I agree about loosing the "feel of film" comments. This has wonderful composition and tonality. It stands as great capture on it's on merits w/o all the references to how much better it would be if it were a image caught with film. My hats off! Regards, Ronnie

Well...

I'm a bit surprised by being in POW and all!

Anyway I'd like to thank you all for yr comments,

and I found the digital vs film comments amusing ;)

I shoot with both, each representing pros and cons...

Blowing this one up on a wall is out of the question

since it's not shot with a medium format... Still it's

good for about A3.

Well, well...

This was taken in Kinnebattangan, Sabah, Borneo.

They where fighting I guess, and fell down from a three

whilst doing this. The jungleboys working there told me

they where cameleons. Knowing very little of this jungle fauna,

I had all reason to believe them and I still do.

 

Yours sincerely...

Terje

Terje - I'm coming very late to this discussion, as I don't visit often, but I was delighted to see this chosen as POW. It has such simple elegance, and I can see it used commercially - a book cover, advertising ...

 

Philip.

Ya' know SIMON...I am willing to bet that given a set of twelve 8x10 images...which include both digital & film - that you couldn't tell the freakin' difference...to suggest that you "just hate digital" - given the degree that the technology has improved in just the past two years, to say nothing for the photographic papers that have been developed over the past one year to specifically advance the qualities of digital images - is similar to suggesting that you do not like the sound of music - recorded on a cd as opposed to vinyl, when without seeing the actual technology that the music is being played on that you could tell the difference there as well...and unless your last name was BOSE, for example - I do not believe that you could. This suggestion that digital photography is something less than film photography, based strictly on the capture method has become an old and boring observsatiion, and one levied here by too many people that spend more time critiquing other peoples work than taking photographs - based in some aesthetic philosophy that would suggest "the old technology is better"...because it appears in the mind of the speaker to derive from an intellectual line in the sand that must be defended...when in fact the opposite is clear to anyone reading such hogwash. Especially when you consider that EVERY PHOTOGRAPH that is displayed on this web-site is "digital" due to the simple fact that it was transmitted to the site D I G I T A L L Y...and the results are displayed on your monitor digitally - even if one considers using a scanner to transmit a "real" photograph...the scanner creates the "real" photograph as a digital image.

 

 

To suggest that you "hate digital" must be very disappointing for you, as almost EVERY image that you see in almost EVERY periodical or newspaper today is a digital image...even the remarkable ones such as the one discussed here...which leads me to suggest this - It's about the image...NOT the manner used to capture the image - with the only caveat here that the image captured is not PS'd, other than cont/bright, saturation, & cropping, in other words, normal darkroom techniques.

 

My diatribe has come to an end.

 

p.s. Your penchant for house music is very telling...

 

Jay Sigal Carpinteria, CA mgbjay1@cox.net

I dont UNDERSTAND??? THIS WAS PHOTO OF THE WEEK 15-Nov-2003 ?? Why twice? Its awesome 7/7 But I dont understnd how it was twice

Terje,

Good shot. Having the prescence of mind to compose this on the fly is easier said than done. Kudos to you.

 

For those of you on about Chameleons. There are more than just the one kind of Chameleon commonly known in the west. So no - not all chameleons are the horned variety. I suspet that a great many of you have been thrown off by the cracked sandy 'desert' like floor they're on. But there are many more varieties than what you on the animal channel.

 

As for the digital v. film debate. - Give it a rest already. All of you whining about digital and holding film up as the holy grail.. get a grip.

 

What's more - you don't have any way of knowing during the course of any given day how many images are made with film or digital - and in this day and age the chances are it's digital edging out film in just about all media that you scan during the day.

 

A classic case of can't see the forest for the trees.

 

It's makes a rat's ass difference what an image was made with - it's the impact and the emotional response that a said image invokes that is important. It's the craftsmanship not the tools.

"I suspect that a great many of you have been thrown off by the cracked sandy 'desert' like floor they're on."

 

No, that's not an issue. Generally when people describe a reptile as a chameleon (in the true sense, not as a nickname), they are refering to 'Old World Chameleons'. Beyond any shadow of any doubt these 2 lizards are not old world chameleons.

 

Here are a few photos of old world chameleons. The eyes, body shape, tail and feet all rapidly show the difference.

 

http://www.chameleonjournals.com/gallery/photos.php

 

It's still a very nice photo, regardless of the species. ;)

 

Cheers, --Greg--

To Candice...

This is the first time Photo.net informed me that a picture of mine is POW...

To teri look at the dates of the first comments? Nov 2003

Very nice picture I must say... The composition, the few colors and the sharpness. Very graphical and cool!

 

But can anyone explain this... Look at the image at this swedish site http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/viewpic.htm?ID=210011&pf=22081 for me they seem to be EXACTLY the same...although the swedish image doesn't have the same good quality.

Greetings, all:

 

1. I believe that the 2003 comments were made prior to the the POW appointment. The comments commencing July, 2004 are under the heading "Picture of the Week Discussion".

 

2. Stephan Johansson - You bet these are EXACTLY the same two pictures! How wide-ranging your seaches are!!! I e-mailed (I THINK I did as I am limited to English & a bit of Spanish) and asked them to compare the two photos, giving the address of both.

 

Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out much about Ms Mari Paajanen except that I think she posted the picture on 6/26/04. Do you know her, Terje, or does she just recognize good photos when she sees them, no matter the source?

 

Sad.

 

Yours, Julia

I, of course, meant to say "Photograph of the Week Discussion. Oops!

I just wanted to say that I wasn't the person who found the image at fotosidan.se...

 

And because I was the one who posted this thread I found myself guilty to give you the answer to the mystery (given by Mari): It IS infact two different images, taken exactly at the same time. Both Mari and Terje were in Borneo when their guide found these two loving reptiles... The guide took them and placed them in front of the group so that everyone could take pictures...

 

So it was :)

That's right!

I really had to take a look when I read through this discussion again, and it's very funny ;)

She was there in the same time, and if you look at the pictures of one cameleon on a head and one on a camera it's both my head and camera ;)

 

Terje

one of the finest photo i ever saw. a masterpiece indeed, that reminds me much of m c escher's work! you have a wonderful portfolio.

 

regards.

Very good , keep up the good work