A girl falls from the side of a sheep during the County Fair in an event called "Mutton' Bustin" in Crete, Nebr.

Although there is nothing original about this photo (I've seen it at least 2 or 3 dozen times) it is executed extemly well. Congratulations

This is an outstanding shot to be sure. Along side the expression on the girls face, I love that you can see her untied shoe laces. Congrats!

Actually, this is a rare shot of the fairly reticent SuperGirl, in the act of flying down to rescue a sheep that was in danger. ;)

 

Great shot- I love the lighting, composition, etc.

Great photo, I especially like the light and the details (but re the comments expressing concern about the girl, give me a break - what about the poor animal who's being scared out of its wits with these stupid games?! I really wonder about people who enjoy this sort of thing...)

When I first saw the picture, I said "Wow", then said, "Looks like a D1 was used". How I knew that before I scrolled down, Lord knows (no clairvoyant, I). Doesn't matter - fantastic shot, well above the usual press fodder (even the sports sections are a snoozer...then again, it might be crankyness/jadedness creeping in along with age). Big congratulations!

And I'm hoping this PoW has attracted a lot of PJs who can answer. Twenty years ago, I think, a shot like this would have (and might still) inspired awe in amateurs and envy in colleagues; for the way the right moment occured, and was captured at, just the right place in the focus zone; or, for the photographer's amazing focus tracking skills (among other skills). But according to the comments above, the D1 did the focusing, set the exposure, and snapped the shutter at, thankfully, the right instant, using its continuous mode. Granted, the photographer pointed the camera and initiated the sequence - I don't mean to take anything way from him - but exactly how much thought and skill did that take? It seems like this is a question people, at least some people, would have; and I'm wondering whether this question lowers the value of the image, and, if not, why not?

Doug Thacker,

I like this photo. It appears a lot of people like this photo. It appeals to them.

 

I haven't seen anyone leave a comment on this picture saying they don't like it because it was taken with a digital camera which features advanced controls. In answer to your question, no, there can be no merit in denigrating this photo for that reason. (Or none of my photos that I post here would have any merit either.)

 

This photographer has succeeded in capturing a unique moment, which i congratulate him on. Of far greater importance than the equipment used, is the person behind the lens, is what I have been taught.

 

Peter Christoph

Michael Walter,

 

I think you need to take a chill-pill. I was just having fun with Clyde. I didn't mean for YOU to get upset.

 

Doug,

 

Does lack of skill and thought take away from this picture?

 

I definitely don't think so. Many good photographers have a gift of being able to visualize an image before he or she snaps the picture. Because of this gift, they don't have to put too many thought into the picture. Did Joshua show his skills as a photographer? Yes, he did. The image is back lit. He knew where to position himself. He knew to use a fast shutter speed to stop action. And he knew how to crop the image perfectly. To me that's enough skills to prove to me Joshua is a great photographer. Skills is within the photographer...not the camera. Just look at his folders...he's not a one hit wonderer.

I'm sure that someone could probably disagree, but as one that has tried sports photography, this shot would be extremely difficult to top. I like the lighting, the action, the balance and the subject's expression. The crop is a little tight for my taste, but would probably appeal to the rank and file. Wish that I had taken it.

Terrific picture. Light wraps yellow shirt to ensure a soft landing. Girls grimace gathers focus away from sheep's eyes. I'm new and ask is the 'digi' reference to the camera or to the Photoshop touchup?

One of my favorite POWs! I agree the lighting is wonderful and I look forward to the day when pro digital cameras with 24x35 ccd's are accessible to the budget-conscious amateurs. You tweaked the light on Photo Shop nicely.

 

As for the fragile folk who pity the sheep, I suggest you try to forget the savage brutality a mountain lion would inflict on such a creature in a more natural setting, and the blood-soaked butcher who will make my next lamb chop dinner possible. Mmmm good!

i think you have a respectful question, and i do trust that you can ask this question without taking away any credit and glory due to this great shot. does auto focus and exposure make this image easier to capture? probably, would be my guess. it does make me look at all the national geographic shots of lions, cheetahs (fill in sprinting animal here) that were taken twenty, thirty years ago with due credit. (and wonder how many rolls they took to get the just right moment)

 

but i would say that even with the right equipment, it's still pretty darn challenging to grab a shot like this. i mostly shoot with my F100 which, i believe, has the same AF tracking as the D1, as well as the same fps. even with this great camera, i have taken plenty of fast action shots of children, race cars, my dog, that are frankly worthless.

 

it has been said before this that even with a great camera (such as the D1) there is still the photographer behind the camera, and there is the rub. it can account for some technical proficiency, but there is much more to a great shot isn't there? creativity in composition, timing, intent, spontaneity, execution, even sense of humor; you cannot fake these things. (check out joshua's great folder)

 

people with equipment less than "the latest and greatest" have nothing to fear.

 

andre

"it has been said before this that even with a great camera (such as the D1) there is still the photographer behind the camera, and there is the rub. it can account for some technical proficiency, but there is much more to a great shot isn't there? creativity in composition, timing, intent, spontaneity, execution, even sense of humor; you cannot fake these things. (check out joshua's great folder)"

 

I agree this is a great photo, but how would you feel if it was but 1 frame out of hundreds of thousands taken with a DV (Digital Video) Cam? Would it still be a great shot because of skill or just dumb luck?

 

I know the end result is the only part of great import, but it's still frustrating to put much time and effort into getting a lighning photo, for example, only to have some guy with a high end video cam and photoshop "steal my thunder".

 

Your thoughts?

 

D.M. Elick

 

Joshua - Great capture here. Timing is everything on a shot like this and you managed it well here. Like couldn't be better and you've shown a real slice of life of middle America here.

 

-- Doug Thacker

One one level I can see your concern about the way this was shot - but at the same time I have seen many many shots like this attempted with the same latest and greatest gear -- and after looking at so many shoddy results I think skill is still definitely involved here - it still ain't easy to get a shot like this down.

 

-- Trevor Hare

>>>... not the sick individuals relishing the cruelty.

 

--It takes a lot to break a sheeps neck - as anyone who has ever had tried to load them up for shows can attest. The trick in this event is not to 'Houlihan' the animal - it ain't sheep bulldoggin'! The goal is t to stay on it for seconds on the clock - this sheep show's no signs of taking a tumble. These animals are incredibley durable and would fare better here than the girl by far. If you ever spend any time around farm or ranch animals you'd find that they are not fragile creatures. As for your "sick individuals" schtick - get off your hobby horse.

 

>>>I never realised savagery like this went on as public sport at a county fair in the USA. It informed me.

 

---This is hardly savagery. I am not sure where you live or what you eat - but most westerners live so far removed from where and how the everyday items in their life are produced, made and slaughtered that they often have quaint ideas about the reality of them... so maybe it is a wake up call for you.

 

 

This picture is an awesome photo for many reasons, the greatest of which is the skill and talent of the experienced photographer, who was in the right place at the right time, and prepared.

 

You mentioned someone "stealing your thunder." One could argue to you to go out and buy a digital camera of your own- to prevent another photographer stealing your thunder. I don't think that would necessarily do it. He stole my thunder too, Doug. And I already have a digital camera.

Nicely captured at the peak of action. Congrats on POW. Good choice by the elves

Regarding A Photo's Worth Based On Level Of Technical Expertise Incorporated: The Proof Is In The Puddin'

 

I enjoy looking at certain historic photographs that show what the place I live was like in the mid 1800s. I can appreciate that in those days a photographer had to carry around trunks of glass plates and a photo lab and use extremely long exposures to capture images. But my appreciation of the photos of that era is based solely on the substance and quality of the images that I look at.

 

Times and the methods by which images are captured have changed, but the criteria I use to judge a photo is simply whether I like it or not. Period. Technical details do not matter. The photo is what matters whether it was obtained with sweat or with luck.

 

I might be interested in how the photographer came about capturing the image of this discussion, but a purely non-intellectual process tells me whether or not the image pleases me. And it does please me! Good job.

I've seen the folder from which this shot comes, and I'm blown away. Keep up the GREAT work, and never mind the fussy-wussies.

"Photography" is derived from the Greek words photos ("light") and graphein ("to draw") The word was first used by the scientist Sir John F.W. Herschel in 1839. Photography is a method of recording images by the action of light, or related radiation, on a sensitive material. On a summer day in 1827, it took eight hours for Joseph Nicéphore Niépce to obtain the first fixed image. About the same time a fellow Frenchman, Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre was experimenting to find a way to capture an image, but it would take another dozen years before he was able to reduce the exposure time to less than 30 minutes and keep the image from disappearing ushering in the age of photography.

 

(http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blphotography.htm)

 

I shoot with an EOS 300 and certainly, when comparing this with my previous SLR, I feel I'm becoming a digital photographer. Whilst this is not true, processes I use to capture an image are somewhat more "user friendly" than those mentioned above . Does this make any image I produce unworthy of praise by earlier standards? what if I had I been shooting with a Nikon D1 ?

A "good eye" is a gift behind all talented photographers. Equipment and knowledge of its use is something that can be obtained by anyone with time, learning and of course a few drachma. This POW I believe to be a perfect example of the artist having a good eye and on that basis, congratulations Joshua.

Having previously worked with graphics, I have a healthy knowledge of Photoshop and as a photographer, I refuse to use such applications with my hobby, as I like to make a distinction between graphic design and photography. Post photographic manipulation in the Darkroom is an art on its own.

I will finish by remembering seeing this image before on Photo.net and will stick to my guns - that if this image were mine all my friends would have seen it by now. Great eye!

 

 

Excuisit timing, great framing. The light, the dust and outstretched arm give it energy. I will view goats with more respect from now on!!

Just goes to show you that If you are prepared for magic moments you'll eventually hit pay dirt. I love the expression on the girls face. She was almost serene in her fierce determination. Priceless!

 

Ted

What a fine looking goat!

Superb framing, masses of detail, great colour, full of emotion...

Perfect!

Excellent shot which is the result of some luck...remember "luck" is the result of one's instincts, training, and skills which you applied beautifully. You have a truly wonderful shot which says it all. Congratulations!

Doug (Thacker),your question is completely valid, and I think you are far from the self-righteous sneering hecklers that populated the POW discussion until recently. I suggest that you look at the huge volumes of mediocrity that is churned out by those who think they can buy talent and creativity along with the latest technology. Anyone who is shooting PJ is lucky to get the best equipment, but they must have gotten to that level by "paying their dues". Just because you can achieve excellent results by the seat of your pants, there is no compelling reason to continue to do so when more efficient means are available, especially when it is a job.

Trevor, you can be excused for not understanding rural America; most Americans don't. This event is about as savage as all-human events such as piggy-back or three-legged races. "Country people" make little distiction between humans and animals. Rule number one in all interactions is The Golden Rule. Rule number two is Survival of the Fittest.

I want to add to this idea of photography going digital. The argument above is an interesting one. It depends on why one looks at a photograph or an image on a screen. Most people here are so focused on how something was done or what film, light, etc was used or how much photoshoping was done. People here on photo.net start to lose perspective about the average viewer who is just concerned with imagery. Now one can use a high quality digital video camera and film many minutes of footage at between 30-60 frames a second. Then go in to Premiere and look at each individual frame and export it in to Photoshop, fix it up if needed and present it as a photograph and most will not know it came from digital video. Is this a valid technique? Again it depends on what the point is in taking an image. Is it for showing to the world a single moment in time you think is worthy of investigating? Or is it about technique and ones ability to use just the right film, light and f-stop in just the right place? Or is it about the pretentiousness that you as a photographer can do something that a lay person cant and feel threatened at the idea that one only has to point a device and then find and edit the best looking image on a computer?

 

Funny thing is Im making the argument for use of digital and I personally hate it! Thats why I only do alternative processes. Give me a daguerreotype over a digital print any day!

 

I like this image as just what it is, an image. I dont really care how it happened. Does one need to put a lot of thought in to looking at it? No. Do I sit there contemplating the image because of some deeper meaning that the photographer is trying to tell me? No. It is a snapshot to me. Technically it involves more then what most people here consider a snapshot but in reality that is all it is. What I care about is the fact that the one who made it found it to be interesting enough to present this moment in time and document it to the world.