Wolf IV

See larger, please.

 

Thanks.

Wow, this is awesome. Great capture. Glad I wasn't there!

Nice shot. You have captured a very tense moment. I especially like that I can see the bluish hue around the animals right eye. Great colors and mood. The one critique I have is that the tree post on the right appears flat and somewhat obtrudes the view of the wolf. Not really much you could do about that in the moment though, I suppose.

one thing to say this one is worth framing and frame it big. all my admiration for the picture

 

regards Pierre

The wariness and stealth of a wild predator beautifully captured! Thanks

Wondeful, I wish I was there. My congratulation, beautifully captured.

Wow...That is breath taking...Fantastic.... This image pulls out a lot of frightful emotions for me and I am safe behind a computer screen. It is the eyes combined with the angle that makes me feel like a trapped mouse....~(Shivers)~ very well done

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.

I think this is a good example of a very appreciated kind of photography. It is representative of Miguel's overall approach and is consistent with much of his portfolio, which shows a lot of precision, clarity, attention to detail, sense of magnitude, often a sense of the iconic, the stilled moment. A lot of the work will impress.

Considering there is a lot of life in these photos, I don't find them very lifelike. It's like visiting a museum or a series of diaramas. There's little sense of anticipation, little of the more extemporaneous side of life. For me, too much perfection. Too much idealism. I like more breath.

There is an illustrated quality to this photo in particular, partially because of the close-up and tightness but also because of a flatness. There's a bit of Rousseau, the painter, in this photo, especially in terms of the color and lack of depth. It doesn't have the sense of context or action that many Rousseaus have. Rousseau's style was intentional and related to his subject matter almost ironically, in a sense a static view of action. The style here seems to to fall into a pristine sort of trap.

I'd characterize this and many of Miguel's nature photographs as wildlife portraits. They largely do not include much of the animal's habitat, but rather are photographs primarily devoted to the animal itself. In this way, I think they have much in common with traditional human portraits, intended to be a very good likeness of a person(s), but really representing not much more than that.

Having said that, I think this particular portrait and many of his other portraits are very well done. He usually catches a pose (e.g., the eyes of this wolf) that communicates at least a part of the life of the animal, just as a good human portrait might do. Seen in the light of a traditional portrait, I can better understand and appreciate Miguel's approach to nature photographs. For what Miguel's portrait does not do with respect to a photograph of an animal, I can better understand that as well.

For me, very much an amateur, this photo captures perfectly the conceptual wolf. Shy yet fierce, curious yet cautious, always wary in its contact with humanity. I can imagine Miguel approaching this animal, its head slouched, profile reduced, inspecting him as he approaches for signs of danger. A theme these days in both wildlife management and wildlife photography; Animals regarding humans warily.
Without even delving into any technical aspects of the photograph this image is something that I want to stare at and something that I would want to own because of what is says to me (and probably many other wildlife enthusiasts).
As such I agree with Stephen. This is a portrait and one that captures the spirit of the wolf excellently as far as I am concerned. From my vantage point wildlife photography can ignore some of the traditional ideas of photography and as a viewer I am more forgiving of any subtleties that may have been missed. These photos aren't posed, they themselves are wild and uncalculated and I always look at them that way.
Not sure if this is the kind of comment we are looking for in this discussion but nevertheless there it is.

Very captivating image. Composition is quite nice and image is sharp. The wolfs eyes draw the viewer in and are captured in a compelling moment. Any image that I can make up a story about always is more interesting to me as a viewer, and as such I sense that the animal is trying to make a decision about his (her?) next move. I like this a lot.

Olá Miguel!
You have captured the most important (for me) part of any animal species: the eyes! In this case, I presume it is a captured (or borned) wolf in a protected environment...anyway it shows us the beauty of his scary eyes...it is a wonderful black wolf (remembers me a very similar black dog I had), who deserves, for shure, protection and sympathy!
Besides the technical aspect of the photo (good depth of field, nice green part in such a dark picture), you took us far away from that: you got the most important and in a wonderful way: the eyes and the expression of the animal! Good work!
Regards
Joao Barros

Is this a composite? Something doesn't sit right regarding the DOF. I also would have expected to see some of the wolf on the other side of the tree. I still like it, though.

I'm not sure if the wolf was added in between the trees or not. Either way, it's an interesting shot with the wolf peering out. Other than that, it doesn't do too much for me. I just find too mant distracting elements in the photo as I try & focus the wolf

I'm caught somewhere between what Stephen said, and what Fred said. Yes, it is an excellent portrait of a wolf, and original in not trying to isolate the animal, but showing it as part of its environment - to me it conveys more the character of being a stealth predator. I like the tonality, and I think the perspective-flattening of a long lens here helps the composition. But as Stephen said "...but really representing not much more than that".
This is where it touches on what Fred said in the first post. It's a wolf. Not much more. It's not a lifely picture, the eyes speak directly to the viewer, but the rest of the image does not really seem to play a role. I like the environment showing, but it plays no role. To me, it looks as an image of a predator, except it does not look like one... it seems a shy animal, afraid to show itself instead. It's a still-life where 'action' seems to be more logical. As a result, the image intrigues, but just very briefly.

Looking through the Nature images in Miguel's portofolio here, I find many images much more captivating than this one.

I'm with John and Ken.....in doubting that this is a single image. Looking at Miguel's whole portfolio, he is obviously a very talented photographer over an amazing vast array of subject matters. Yes the depth of field and the edges between tree-bark, stone, and the wolf leave me suspicious. Even without that question though, I don't find the image appealing. Looking at the eyes of a reclusive, yet threatening wolf would be a good picture, but this foreground setting and its scale in relation to the animal just does not seem real.

Rather than bat opinions back and forth on matters that pertain to facts (it's either a composite or it's not), it sure would be nice to hear from the photographer so that we could move on to issues that pertain more to a good discussion. Any close-up photograph of any large predatory mammal (o.k., 99%) are going to be obtained in captive settings; one just doesn't walk up to a free-roamin wolf (or tiger, or orangutan) in the wild and ask to take its picture. So assume this is in a zoo, or rehabilitation facility, or breeding facility, or some similar organization. They will have to construct artificial structures for the captive wolves. My guess is that's what we're looking at, but Miguel could tell us for sure. From there, we might talk about whether captive animals make for good photography, or something similar where our opinions really matter.

Stephen, I think it's about what the photo looks like. I didn't guess how the photo was made but observed how it looked. Those who are wondering if it's a composite do so because it looks a certain way. That takes, IMO, astute visual skills. People are seeing something that looks constructed, looks a little flat, what have you. Let's say it turns out to be not a composite and taken in the wild. That won't make much difference to me. I will still see it as very constructed-looking and flat when photographed a certain way, whether intentionally or by accident/mistake. I've taken enough pictures to know that a very natural-looking scene and one that I don't do much processing with, can look quite artificial, quite constructed, and quite flat. I may or may not want that. But there are many of my photos, and there were more when I was a beginner, that a lot of viewers might guess were constructed or in some way artificial. Answering a critique that suggested that, for me, by saying "well, it's not" doesn't really get the point. When people said such stuff me, I had the opportunity to learn from it, learn that I could very naturally produce a very artificial and constructed-looking photo. Now, when I do that, I do it by choice. In that respect, this is a very good, solid, and enlightening discussion. If and when the photographer answers us, it won't change how the photo looks, though it may bring up his intentionality and awareness of how it looks. It has already brought up most of our own awarenesses, and we seem quite aware of what we're seeing, regardless of how it was made.

Fred, that's a good point. Whether a composite or an artificial structure, the look of the surroundings is a valid point. The discussion seems to be centering on whether it is a composite because of how it looks, not on how it looks. It's a subtle distinction. Whether it's a composite is factual; how it looks is subjective and more worthy of discussion, IMO (it could be a topic in my last question above: whether captive animals make for good animal photography). But in support of your argument, I do appreciate the astute visual skills. Personally, however, I wish they could be directed at a different question.

Stephen, thanks for the response. Continuing along those same lines. A photographer can't always control where a discussion about his photos will go. But he can learn from it and begin to have an effect on it in the future. I think particularly with regard to nature photography, people will wonder about composites and how much is done to alter a scene or a photo. I appreciate ambiguity in a lot of different kinds of photos, mostly emotional ambiguity. I like photos that ask and don't necessarily answer questions. Those tend to be a different genre of photo. When it comes to the kind of questions coming up here, the photographer might want to make what's going on more clear in the photo itself. Ambiguity, here, seems to be working against the photo. If it's not a composite or not a constructed scene, he might want to shoot it and process it so it appears more real. It if is a composite or constructed scene (shot on a fake set or something like that), he might consider actually making that very obvious. Then it would be clear to people, and I think it would be accepted. He could even get some interesting ironies juxtaposing the "real" animal with a "fake" environment. I think the photo is bringing up these questions because what we're seeing is questionable enough that we naturally have questions. I wouldn't find fault with the viewers here. The photographer committing to more of a distinctive vision, either realistic or artificial, might really go a long way toward establishing a less skeptical kind of reaction. I do it with human subjects and poses all the time. If you're trying to get someone to look natural and yet you're posing them, sometimes you get your viewers feeling like the person in the photo is faking something. They'll say things like, it looks too posed. Often, I will exaggerate the poses enough so it's clear that I don't want them to look natural but am actually making a statement about pose, and viewers seem to go with that because it doesn't seem to be trying to pull something over on them. They approach it as a staged piece to begin with and don't mind that it doesn't seem natural, because it's not trying to.

Stephen, I think that captive wildlife can make for good photography as much as truly wild animals do. For me, as a maker and viewer of pictures, I ask that the photographer capture something indicative of the animal itself (i.e. its natural beauty, its behavior etc etc) and this can be done in both a zoo setting or a wild setting. Granted the behavior and the surroundings of a wolf in a zoo is going to be quite different (and more controlled) from the behavior of a wolf in the wild but that doesn't mean we can't make interesting photos just the same. I enter into evidence the work of Marina Cano who has taken some excellent photographs of animals residing in zoos in Spain long before she ever made it to a place to take pictures of African wildlife. By her account her work required planning, patience and obviously (by my account) a tremendous amount of skill in dealing with subjects that can be indifferent if not done right uncooperative regardless of their location. In other words all things considered I value a picture of a wolf at a zoo as much as I value a picture of a wolf in the wild although as a photographer I may concede that one required a bit more luck.

From my first look at this yesterday, it didn't have a unitary look to it to me. It just seems off in some way and I didn't consider it being a composite or not, it just wasn't working. Things didn't feel right nor did this image reflect what I see as Miguel's style. Maybe something he was trying that was new or different for him.

They eyes are certainly captivating but I don't think the image is. With so many wonderfully done images in the genre, this one just doesn't hold up to that or many of Miguel's other images. As such, I am not sure it matters if it is a composite or not, except to Miguel as it might give him a clue as to where things went wrong.

I am not familiar with Miguel's work, which I will certainly look at later, but I want firstly to simply appreciate this photo, for what it is, and what it says to me. It speaks I think of a considerable attention to photography technique, whether or not that is a result of combining two images or whether it is a conscious creation upon exposure of extended image depth and exposure conditions (which of the two is ultimately unimportant to me). If it is the latter case, to have such good d.o.f. means I think that the photographer was very close to his subject with a relatively limited lens focal length, and his ability in that case to capture the moment under such conditions is admirable.

The photograph loses some force for me by having a bit too much going on in its confined space. Are we not being induced by the chosen composition to place more attention on the small rocks or vegetation of the wolf's surroundings in the foreground than on the eyes and fur of the wolf and what is a quite limited part of his body that we can perceive? The idea of the forest image and the juxtaposition of a wary animal and its milieu is very good, although, and with the important exception of the expression in the eyes of the subject, its execution strikes me as being too static and detailed, like something I might feel on seeing a display in a visit to a natural history museum, rather than something in nature itself. Perhaps a greater use of some out of focus in the surroundings, or the greater use of visual spaces of unknown or imagined surroundings, might have added more drama of the moment. I am not an animal photographer, but I fully respect those qualities needed for this type of photography in the field, and which Miguel obviously possesses. I just would like to see more uncertainty or more suggested dynamic. Instead, it appears to me to be somewhat akin to the form of imagery that the French call "nature morte" (still life).

A visit to Miguel's Spanish website is a treat. Original wedding photographs, fine landscapes, beautifully captured animal images. I especially like his images (wedding, animal) that introduce blur. Much to see, in additiion to the POW of this week.