nick_s

The accolades are very well deserved. This is a simply beautiful image.

 

I have a quick question: is this photograph a cropped image taken from a sequence of photographs that might also have produced this image - http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207198? Or, are these two photographs of the same bird, at the same location, from the same blind, taken at different times altogether?

 

Regardless of the answer, the presentation is magnificent.

Actually, I will add this concession...

 

... I believe the composition would be better if the shark were placed at the absolute dead centre of the photograph. As it stands now, the shark is positioned ever so slightly towards the bottom. This leads to a question of the photographer: is this full frame? if not, would it be possible to see the complete image to see whether a dead centre composition adds or detracts (by introducing undesirable elements) from the image?

It was observed that the composition would be better if the shark were on a "diagonal". Ok, I'll grant that such an ocurrence would marginally improve the composition. But heck, why not go one step further and ask the shark to arrange itself in a reverse 'S' curve (c'mon shark, can't you cooperate and turn your head just a little to the left?). That would make the composition that much better yet again... right?

 

It would be worthwhile remembering that this isn't a studio portrait where you can ask a model to position him/herself 'just so'; or a painting where you can create any composition your heart desires. It's nature, and Felix has presented this slice of nature in a very well-considered, beautiful, and (I would say) dramatic fashion.

Follow ups:

 

1) Portfolios are fantastic; and

 

2) Please explain the set-up for this photo... in other words, how did you manage to obtain the aerial view looking straight down?

Love it.

 

The respectfully stated - though disparaging - comment above critiquing the composition as "static" and implying that the shark is too central in the frame screams of a textbook mindset being inappropriately applied. In my opinion, this is among the BEST compositions I have ever seen - precisley because it does bend the "rules" with respect to composition. A standard, and more boring, presentation would place the shark at the left third of the frame with the swirling fish occupying the right two thirds of the frame. Such a presentation is likely what I would have gone for if I were ever in a position to attempt such a shot. But the finished product would have been weaker as a result.

 

This photo has a compositionally dynamic balance (or "imbalance" dpending upon your frame of reference) to it, and I laud the photographer for the presentation.

I really like this. The dramatic colours balance the composition very nicely. However, I would prefer that the vignetting effect be eliminated.

I don't participate as much as I used to, but the elves choosing of a Dummett photograph compels me to say "Bravo" to a true master of this site.

 

A typically wonderful example of Tony's work... I know HCB is one of the photographer's favourites but I believe - in many instances - that Tony's own work matches Monsieur Cartier-Bresson's in quality, if not quantity.

 

All photonetters not intimately familiar with Tony's work should do themselves a favour and visit his exquisite portfolios (particlarly the folder from which this image was drawn).

After considering the issue more (and in reply to Marc):

 

I think the saturation/contrast works in this photo because it emphasizes the dichotomy between the look of contemplation on the face of the model vs. the more hectic surrounding she finds herself in. In other words, we have a model caught in a posed moment of self-isolation while all around her is busy... and the busy world is enhanced by the busy colours.

In most cases, the oversaturation found in this shot would be the antithesis of what I would typically find appealing but, for some reason I can't fully articulate, it works for me here. In fact, it works very well for me. The only caveat to this endorsement would be the purple pants... that element definitely clashes.

 

But the subject and mood is superlative. The clutter that so many disparage is, in fact, an essential element of the shot. Semi-posed or not, what I read into the photo is a young woman caught in a moment of inner reflection and who has, for a fleeting moment at least, managed to shut out the hustle and bustle (reflected by the so-called "clutter") of our overly busy modern world. I love it.

Those who know me know that I can sometimes be afflicted with the written equivalent of "verbal diarrhea" in my critiques. No need here. This is simply one of the best documentary style shots I have ever seen. Certainly in my top handful on PN (right up there with Tony Dummett's "Speaker's Corner" and David Julian's "Dreams" photographs... I hope I have accurately remembered the titles of those photos).

I hate you Peter! I work on Burrard Street in Vancouver and, just last week (literally), I noticed this reflection and said "hmmm, that would make an interesting photo". I had even thought about coming downtown on the weekend to shoot it, but my boys were with me, and they're a little tired of Dad's photo excursions. Oh well, I still intend to shoot it. My only critique, along with Carl's, is that perhaps the photo is a little bottom heavy. When I try my own version, I think I'll move in a little closer and try a slightly more vertical angle to still capture some of the tree but also try and compress the image vertically.

I like this one better than your recent POW. The timing is exceptional... lot's of dynamic motion implied in the eagle's stance. It reminds me of the pose one might find in a medieval coat of arms.

Sorry, I find this garish. However, the idea may have some merit, and additional experimentation and refinement of technique may produce a more pleasing result. Perhaps experimenting with the choice of background bulb colour as well as placement of the bulb might produce something more aesthetically pleasing. As it stands, there is little harmony amongst the refracted colours.

I've got to step in...

 

... the "perceived" difference in size between these two raptors is largely an OPTICAL ILLUSION. Note that I added a qualifier "largely" to that assertion. I qualified the assertion because, as with all animals, some difference in size is to be expected. However, the perceived size difference is immaterial, and entirely created from the edge-on view we have of the eagle on the left. The spread wings of the eagle on the right - not to mention expanded tail feathers and body width - give the impression of a much more substantial bird, but it's just not so. The easiest way to tell is to take your fingers to the screen (go on, do it) and measure the distance from the tip of the head to the tip of the tail of the bird on the right... now move your fingers over (maintaining that distance) and do exactly the same thing with the bird on the left... pretty close, isn't it? Certainly - I would think - within the normal variance for a species such as this.

 

Bottom line... take the photographer at his word. I dislike manipulations and being fooled as much as many in this forum, but it is unfair to lay such accusations in this instance.

My contributions to photo.net have been practically non-existant the past year or so...

 

... but Dino's comment is perhaps the most inspired I have ever read on this site, and thus has inspired me to write. Very well said Dino.

Mario... this place is Moraine Lake very near to Lake Louise in Banff National Park (and about 40km from the town of Banff). The site is heavily over-photographed, yet I too couldn't resist taking some shots of the place when I was there for the second time in two years about a month ago. However, Greg's rendition is far better than anything I've done, and most I've seen.

 

Greg... what time of day was this photo taken? Given the fairly long shadows, I would guess within an hour or two of sunrise. Also, where did you take this photo from? I know there is a hill at this end of the lake, but when I searched for a spot to take a photo, I had a difficult time finding any location where foreground trees didn't interfere. Perhaps that's why the photo seems to zoom in on the back half of the lake?

 

Finally, what shutter speed did you use? The lake doesn't appear to be giving a "mirror" relection, yet it appears very smooth... this would suggest a choppy lake that has been calmed through a fairly long exposure... yet this can't be because the clouds are sharp. Insights?

Perfect DOF. Most people would go with a color treatment of a cat but, in this instance, the B&W works.

 

Yes, the picture is intense... but, to answer your question, it is not too intense. Any photo that makes you stop for a second (or a third) look has something going for it - and it is precisely that intensity that caused me to look for longer than a fleeting moment.

 

Returning to the technical for a moment - the B&W treatment and shallow DOF combine to create a haunting halo effect out of the cat's white, out-of-focus, neck fur (as do the eyes of course).

 

Absolutely excellent.

I haven't been very active at PN lately, but this photo has my attention.

 

Very nice Kenneth and (dare I say?) original. I can't recall every seeing a lighthouse shot in this manner. I too think that the pool is not too dark. The dark edge at the lower left bottom of the pool lends itself nicely to the overall balance of the photo (i.e. balancing the dark band on the lower part of the background point and the dark patch to the right of the foregorund rock).

 

But, what really got my attention was the title... brilliant!

Well said G.

Alas, the saga grows sadder by the moment...

 

Upon revisiting Dan's PN portfolio, I pulled up an image of lightening over San Francisco where Dan clearly admits to manipulating the image. Specifically, he states:

 

"Canon EOS A2, Velvia, Canon EF 28.135 @28mm f3.5 Warming Polarizer. People often ask if I digitally manipulate images. What they really want to know is whether they're being lied to: Was the lightning really over the Golden Gate Bridge, or did I put it there? Well, in this case, I put it there. I got the lightning from a photo I took of a storm in Monument Valley. For the most part, when people ask me whether I digitally manipulate my photos, this is what they mean, which I rarely do. That doesn't mean it isn't fun. If digital manipulation offends you, you haven't tried it enough. For a complete discussion on this, go here."

 

This caption leads me to believe that Dan likes to bend the truth when it comes to his images. Even if he didn't, for me it would have been perfectly ok if the sort of disclosure cited above was provided alongside the POW image we now have before us. But it wasn't. Draw your own conclusions.

This image has challenged me in a rather unfortunate way...

 

As anyone can see, I long ago expressed my admiration for this image. However, I, and others, pointedly asked if any manipulation had ocurred, to which no response was forthcoming. Before I continue, let me clearly state that I fall into the "purist" camp of photographers. I prefer to enjoy "photographs" that have not been digitally altered (my definition of altered being very similar to the definition adopted by photo.net). However, though I choose not to render any myself, I also enjoy the artistic creations of some of the manipulators as well (although many such efforts are simply garish) - but I would expect any manipulation to be fully disclosed. Given the title of this image, and the pointed questions asked by the Photo.net community, I would certainly expect more complete disclosure than simply the default "Manipulated? Yes or Unknown" tab to be ticked... ESPECIALLY from a photographer as skilled as Dan who has likely benefitted financially from the exposure Photo.net has given to his work.

 

One might ask why I feel challenged by this turn of events? Why don't I just dump all over Dan and be done with it? Well, the answer lies in the fact that I have long counted Dan as one of my five favourite photographers at PN. He has produced images which have had a lasting and profound impact upon me, and I feel cheated and saddened that I might now have to re-evaluate these images as well as my reactions to them.

 

Dan, if you are aware of the hubbub brewing here, please quell the storm. Please tell us that the image is indeed genuine, that the perspective has given way to some rather odd illusions. I want to believe in the majesty of this photo, as well as the power of your other photos as well. But, as I have said, I am challenged to do so.

Due to demands at work, I've been watching from afar for the past several months.

 

But the elves' (and John's) question is literally screaming at me to add my "NO" to the cloning question. To me, it "is" cheating, although I readily admit the picture might be aesthetically improved by removing the background pelican.

 

But, why not be happy with what you have?... a wonderfully timed - and very lucky - capture taken with no small amount of skill (most notably the shooting angle). Flawless? No. Exceptional? Yes.

Way back in the early stages of this discourse, Leslie kindly offered a description of his technique in capturing this photo. If I may, I would like to ask a question...

 

Someone obliquely referred to it earlier, and I too wonder if there is any back-lighting here? I'm pretty sure there isn't because then the back blue/violet petals would appear more translucent, correct? However, I can't escape the fact that there appears to be an overall luminescence to this photo that I wouldn't have expected from overhead tungsten light. Was that the only light used? How far were you from the source?

 

Ignorant questions perhaps, and probably best suited for earlier in the week, but I'd appreciate your input Leslie. I have zero macro experience, but might like to give it a try sometime.

Flower macros aren't particularly my bag either, but this truly is amongst the best of the breed. And though there may not be some "profound" communication going on here, what is wrong with a photo being merely "pretty". I too tend to prefer photos that are loaded with meaning, but I also appreciate a photo that can let you sit back and go "ahhh". This one does that for me. Congratulations Leslie.

 

P.S. I'll third Marcelo's comment.

Jeremy:

 

Fair enough... I guess I misunderstood your "implication".

 

Still though, comparing a painting of this (or a similar) scene to a photograph of the same is not really fair. With painting, I think it's fair to say that there are a great many more treatments that could be used to illustrate the artistic vision. For example, the painter could use a "photo-realistic" approach, or an impressionist approach, or a surreal approach etc. Not all of these genres of painting work for all people. Personally, I've never been that keen on the "photo-realistic" approach (if you want to portray the scene "as is", then why not take a photograph?), but an impressionist approach may well produce a result that I like. But what I like vis-a-vis what another person prefers is not really the point. The point is that photography is a different medium than painting, and I'm not sure that a cliche photograph necessarily translates into a cliche painting (or vice versa).

 

I'm don't think I've made my point especially well, but at least we're in agreement about the technical quality of this photograph.