Bat(Winner Photo of The Day 13-7-2011)The Imaging Resource.

Creative edit(montage)

Please note the following:

• 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.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have 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? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

A little more light on the bat would be nice. But then, I've never seen a flying bat clearly this close in any light, they just whiz by... Any details about how this was made would be.... illuminating. Very interesting capture! Congrats on the POW WOW!

Yes I too would like to hear exactly how the image was taken..
The only thing I can find wrong with the photo is the lack of context - e.g. with no background it seems to me a bit sterile.

This is a unique and original shot with wonderful detaisl!...A great rendition for life of a bat.Actually,they are extremely blind and they find their foods and paths with the radars!Great chosen for POW,too.Best regards(Bobby).

Thanks for choosing an image of mine for the second time as POW and for the feedback.
This image is a creative edit.

Years ago I found the bat,which was dying,on the street in my village.I took it home and shot some pictures.It only lived for a few hours.When it was dead I took some more shots with the wings spread wide and backlighted it.In my gallery I have another version of the same bat.
The bat in this edited photo is a montage of a picture of the dead bat and the live one(the headpart).The moths are from a picture ,taken in The Netherlands.
Regards,Jim

really very good work..congrats

The banding in the otherwise sterile background (just below the bat legs) is a bit disturbing, as are the poor lighting and poor focus. Giving that this is a corpse with a faked background and a bat head shopped in, the end result is surprising unsuccessful.
Jim has some nice photos and a few that may be interesting to discuss but I cannot imagine that much can be said about this one beyond , better luck next time you bring a wounded animal home, wait for it to die, and then photograph it.

Wow Gordon... those are very keen observations! I had no idea it was a fake until you pointed out all the flaws...
an amazing illusion as I was completely convinced by the image... you successfully brought it down to earth...
Thank you for sharing your photographic forensic skills and observations

Gordon nailed it.

Jim has some wonderful animal portraits (I particularly like his eagle photographs), but this POW is lacking in several respects. Most notable is the sterile background, perhaps justified by imagining a bright light attracting the moths, but that's a shaky argument. Knowing that the photo was made through digital surgery (even if it's called a creative montage) of one dead and one live bat does not endear the photo to me personally.

Bat photography can be done in very creative ways. Merlin Tuttle is perhaps the best known bat photographer in the world. He sets up mini-habitats in his motel room and captures full color images of flying bats as if they were in natural habitats. As a biologist, I find the context of an animal to be as important as the photograph of the animal itself, and that usually extends far beyond being surrounded by moths. It also includes a sense of night, even with a bright light shining.

Finally, a note of caution. Bats are one of the biggest reservoirs of the rabies virus -- they can carry significant amounts of the virus and remain healthy. Picking up a sick bat to photograph it is a dangerous decision. Handling a sick bat is sufficient cause for a series of rabies shots. I would not encourage people to pick up sick bats for the purpose of making some easy photographs.

Even though I find this particular photograph deficient for several reasons, it has provided a link to many other photographs taken by Jim that I think are outstanding, and for that reason alone I'm glad for this POW. I imagine the elves were thinking a discussion about "creative montages" would elicit discussion, but all I have to contribute to that discussion is criticism, primarily because it was not done with any amount of creative expertise, it is lacking context, and it's not a good thing to do with this particular group of animals for very significant safety reasons.

I don't know that there is a whole lot to add to what has been said before me here regarding this particular photograph. As soon as I saw the thumbnail and then opened it, it was apparent that something wasn't right--not natural. I don't know all that was done or not done to get this image, but it does have an artificial feel to it-and a sense of awkwardness I didn't see in others by Jim. As Stephen suggests, I suppose in this genre natural habitat is important but I also suppose that showing details of the subject can supersede that depending on the intent of the image.

I guess it is on that "detail" level that I find some interest in this image. I find the backlighting and what appears to be the translucent of the bat's wings gives me something to ponder. I have to wonder just how these things can fly, the structure of the bones(?) seem so delicate that I just wonder at where the muscles are that can allow this thing to fly without snapping these frail looking struts. But beyond that, I think the others have described the flaws of this photo well.

I did spend some time going through many of images in the "Macro" folder and find Jim has a great sense of design and color. Although I don't generally find myself looking at these sorts of images often, I enjoyed it for the most part. Although some were otherwise nice, I was often reminded that "where" the focus is can be all important and that eyes are generally important. Although some of the details that were in focus were interesting, the lack of focus in the eyes disturbed my enjoyment at times.

The other thing that I noticed as I went through the work was just how it really doesn't matter what camera you use, just how you use it. Many note a very basic and inexpensive camera was employed to create the images. Certainly it is nice to have the extra MP if one wants to blow up an image or get that extra detail, but I feel the work shows that it isn't necessary to own the latest and greatest to make compelling imagery.

Wow! Moan,groan and bar humbug. I have never commented on potw before or indeed read much about it BUT, in this post alone there are several references to the fact that potw in not chosen because it is the most technicaly perfect or constructed photograph. If its dead, its dead. I have seen plenty of photographs of dead people. Is that worse because its a person or better because its more serious? Really, I'm interested.

Anyway, the photo; personally it doesnt flick my switches dead or alive but I still think its a good photo. It does make you look (yes it does,everyone posting on it has looked) and the out of focus points dont hurt at all in my opinion, if fact they make it look more real. I agree it could do with more contex which should have been possible given the situation but on the whole I think its a good photo even though personally I dont like it that much.

I say well done Jim and well done to photo of the week people for using it. It has definately provoked discussion.

I don't understand this thinking. We could post a black square, an awful snapshot of a dog, or a replica of Elvis on black velvet and we would all look. That doesn't mean the photo or square had anything to do with us looking or wanting to look. It just meant it was posted to the POW forum where people come to look at photos. Amount of clicks, amount of responses don't have anything to do with how good or compelling a photo is. It means it generated comments. That's all.

Hi folks,

Once again I have deleted a pile of stuff that doesn't have to do with the image at hand. The POTW thread is for discussion of that image, not to attack other users or the photographer, not to lavish "great shot" praise, and not to complain about Photo.net policy or how the POTW is chosen. If you have a problem with Photo.net policy, another user, or the POTW system, send me email via the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page and we will talk about it. But this is not the place for that sort of thing and people who repeatedly forget that fact will get booted from future POTW participation.

It's not that hard of a thing to remember. Just talk about the image.

I think the problem that I'm having with this photo is that it depicts the hunting behavior of a bat, as the artist imagines it. Depicting any kind of animal behavior has in it an element of science of description. In other words, this is how these animals do this behavior. I've noticed that animal behavior shots tend to be more popular than static animal shots. We like to see how they do stuff. This photo may be misleading regarding bat behavior, or maybe not. We don't know. Maybe bats don't even eat moths. Maybe they do, but they approach with their mouths closed, or with a flatter angle to their wings, or perhaps they always come up from under them. By choosing to depict bat behavior (with a dead bat), the photographer put himself into the role of a documenter of animal behavior, except that this is not animal behavior. It's just a photoshopped dead bat.

Erik, I like your point here about animal behavior and think it becomes more applicable when in context with what might be seen as other shots of "real" activity by animals/creatures as it happens. If the portfolio was full of fantasy images (or had a disclaimer about how it was created), then it might not be an issue but I do think the context of Jim's other work lends credibility to the action seen in this image--and maybe it is accurate, we don't know but staging could be an issue in cases like this.

Erik, that's a very good point. While Jim claims the head is from the same species as the body, some species are difficult to distinguish. I'm looking at this image with a degree of uncertainty whether the head really belongs with the body at the species level.

I just wanted to say I think the photo is very humorous I get a great smile from it , Really well done as goes being original and captivating as I see it . Improvements ? maybe more clarity , but this photo works fine for me , wonderful :))))

 

Jim:
Congratulations!
Before I read your explanation, my initial reaction was to be amazed at the capture. My only slight disappointment was the lack of detail on the bat's head and ears. When I read about your use of a dead animal, I was taken aback. In the final analysis, I commend you for your ingenuity, but I'm not enthralled about "pretending" that the animal was in flight.

Possible species mix-up between head and body aside, is this concept any more "pretend" than what's stuffed, posed, and displayed in probably every single natural history museum in the world?

Probably not. So what's the point?

I really do appreciate this image. Already the first second thinking "WOW" on itself gives a kick. Ok, the light partially being rather bright is a bit disturbing, but who cares..! Already seeing this scene by a viewer.., just do imagine THAT..! Yes, within two minutes, by reading, the situation got clear. Me, being naive, had been dreaming. Thanks for THAT, Jim..! Yes, I do appriciate your work, yes complete with it's flaws..! No, I don't like the word "Photo" officially being used while presenting the image in this specific way. In fact I feel mislead..! At once any moth doesn't taste good now, sorry but I'm just spitting.

Question: What were ManRay's creations?

Answer: Photos.

Question: What is the above?

Answer: Photo.

Deceiving oneself is a tragedy, by that even misleading different people is a disaster..! In fact a crime.