First Contact

Hi Brad, I really like this shot of the young black bear, though I’m not convinced it’s a kermodei : ). But I do think its a nice blend of both portrait and enviroscape that was well captured under difficult and challenging lighting conditions. When it comes to eye contact I’m probably a bit of a fence sitter, I agree that the lack of eye contact likely represents a more “natural” wildlife image, however as a human I find eye contact creates a bond between the photographer and their subject. So I guess it really comes down to what the photographer was initially trying to capture, and I’m good either way. How's that for being non-committal?

Cheers
Rick

Hey Rick,

Thanks for your feedback...and totally OK to be non-committal (I was!).

It's a kermodei - 100% certain. All black bears in this portion of the Great Bear Rainforest are of the kermodei sub-species, regardless of colour. The popular term "Kermode" for the white-phased form is a bit misleading - it implies that all Kermodes are white, but if one follows standard naming practice the term "Kermode" should apply to every member of the kermodei sub-species, not just white bears. Only about 10% of the kermodei sub-species are white bears.

So...you'll never hear me call a white-phased black bear a Kermode - I always refer to them as "Spirit Bears". And...just to confuse things even more...you can find Spirit Bears anywhere black bears are found - it's simply a coat colour and controlled by recessive genes. There have been some in SE BC (near Alberta border) in recent years - and they AREN'T of the Kermode sub-species, so they're NOT Kermodes! Head spinning yet??

That's when you get when you talk to a biologist!

Cheers...

Brad

PS: it's not a young bear - fully grown and one of the most dominant bears on the island it lives on...bit of a cantankerous dude too...he demands respect (and I'm not one to deprive him of that!).

Thanks Brad - I stand corrected.

beautiful work, nice eye contact, large version is outstanding

Hi Brad. My views on eye contact are in alignment with yours, including the need for eye contact in this particular photo. Your title also clearly suggests that your objective with the photo is to show that initial apprehensiveness the bear experiences in his first contact with a bipedal and lens. The eyes really illustrate that tension. I do have a slight preference over all for the wildlife subject to not look at the photographer, but there are many situations where it is more than acceptable. I don't think it's as easy as a one size fits all solution.

This photo has very pleasing colors and is technically excellent. I'm not sure about the vertical format, truth be told I just don't like verticals very much unless the situation screams for it. The oof water at the bottom emphasizes the low pov, but beyond that? Absolutely nothing wrong with the vertical, just my personal bias acting up. But, a horizontal with more room to the left of the bear showing the creek would be my first response.

Good detail in the face, excellent exposure too. Feels like a close encounter,Brad. Ron

Just overall great image. I want to thank you for discussing the details of each photo you post because I learn so much from them, and the responses of other members to them.

Wow, the large image is wonderful! Eye contact here works well, I think variety is the key, Its nice to have some with eye contact, take 'em as they come I'd say.

Really nice image Brad, and I'll echo Don, thanks for always sharing so much info. Interesting comp, and sharp bear, as always.

The stare IS the subject, in my opinion. I like the attitude and you managed to find reflectivity in both eyes! Over all this capture feels a little on the dark side, and that might be a property of viewing it on a monitor rather than as a print. I wonder if you selectively brightened the island of in focus rocks he is standing upon, whether that would assist in lifting him from the almost gloomy surroundings. I hadn't really thought it until reading Gary's comment, but I am left wondering how much the oof water lends to the overall image. I suspect it was the better choice than whatever was at the top of the frame. All that said, properly printed all this speculation might seem way off the mark. Great encounter with great emotional overtones.

I like the overall image design here, Brad, as per your usual attention to detail the bear is placed perfectly in relation to all background and foreground elements. I tend to prefer direct gazes down the lens, though I hear what you are saying and it's sure an interesting topic around photographic campfires .

Love your exposure control here, particularly the blacks and shadows throughout.

Hey all,

Thanks for the feedback - some interesting issues raised. Given Don's comment (thanks for that Don) I'll respond to a few of the points brought up (and give you a scary look inside my head while I was shooting this).

1. Gary...you say: "I'm not sure about the vertical format, truth be told I just don't like verticals very much unless the situation screams for it."

While I shoot a lot of verticals - which isn't necessarily good in an image-distribution world increasingly dominated by landscape-oriented display devices - I have no a priori preference for vertical vs. horizontal formats. When the subject is small in the frame I let the dominant lines and natural axes in the frame drive my choice of orientation. But once the subject is close enough to dominate the frame, its orientation to camera (coming straight at me vs. broadside) plays an increasingly strong role in determining whether I go vertical vs. horizontal. In this case, because the bear was coming straight at me it is "naturally" vertical. Combine that with the faint reflected lines of the bear's legs in the water and my view is that the dominant axis here was vertical - and to frame this shot horizontally would have been fighting against that axis. I was careful to include enough of the stream "wrapping around" the bear to leave that streamflow/eyeflow intact. For me there was no doubt I should shoot this in vertical format.

2. Lon...on the "dark" nature of this shot (and the amount of OOF water):

Given that you have about a 1.5 stop range in the brightness of your audience's viewing devices (minimum), it's always risky to post dark shots. On this shot my goal was to reproduce the scene as accurately as possible - it was a darned dark scene (ISO 6400). I liked the natural moodiness of the scene and I really dislike artificially brightened shots. Ironically - when I got this one just to the point I wanted it (brightness wise) on my calibrated working monitor, it appeared a tad dark on my laptop, and too bright on my iPad! But at the end of the day I wanted the scene dark...because it was...

On the amount of OOF water. You know I rarely tolerate OOF objects in the foregrounds of my images. Water - being close to featureless if relatively smooth - is one of the few OOF foreground elements I'll work with (because I don't find it overly distracting and "disharmonious"). I included this amount of OOF water to give the shot some depth - that is, to keep the subject further back in the frame to ensure the image wasn't flat (or two dimensional). And, I liked the subtle reflections of it's legs (which in my opinion add to the shot).

No worries if others would have done this differently - format-wise, exposure-wise, or anything else! If we all did the same thing soon all our images would look the same and it would be really, really boring. And, personal style simply wouldn't evolve (which is always a fear of mine in forums and galleries like this - there can be too much "group-think" and a slow homogenization of what is considered a "good" image).

Cheers...

Brad

Personally I like eye contact and don't mind shooting it when animal makes eye contact with me. This is a wonderful shot of a black bear fully aware of everything in it's beautiful surroundings. Great light in those eye's too!!!

Ken Archer