Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Focus
‹ PreviousWildlife GalleryNext ›

Focus

by Brad Hill

Gallery: WildlifePosted February 17, 20151,400 views12 comments
Focus

I shot this tight, intimate portrait of a foraging grizzly a few years ago while visiting the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary. My primary motivation in shooting it was to juxtapose the almost fearsome reputation of grizzlies with their much more gentle true nature. The keen observer will notice that the material hanging out of the bear's mouth is grass - not tripod parts and not the fingers of an overzealous photographer! The bears in the Khutzeymateen - including this bear - are completely wild, but because its been years since these bears have been harassed or mis-managed by humans, they tend to be quite tolerant of small groups of humans that know to stay in places that don't threaten the bears. And, at times, while the bears are going about their normal activities, their chosen route brings them quite close to the Zodiacs that contain guests to the sanctuary. Which is exactly what happened here. And when this does happen, the key to minimizing disturbance on the bears is for everyone in the Zodiac to move as slowly and gently as possible - which usually translates into NOT fiddling with cameras - so you don't change lenses or cameras and you just shoot with WHATEVER you have in your hands. In this case I had my favorite wildlife lens in my hands - my 400mm f2.8 VR. Ergo - tight portrait! :wink:

This shot sat in raw form until February 2015. Then, when looking through my collection for some shots for a specific project, I decided to process this one. As soon as I finished the colour master file, I knew I HAD to try a B&W conversion on this one. My taste in B&W photos is quite straight-forward - I like them tonally simple, yet with some true blacks, some true whites, and with a nice but discrete range of grays in between. In other words - simple but with contrast. Interestingly, this tends to mean that images I like in colour are the same ones I like in B&W. I can't recall a time when I decided to try a B&W conversion because the image "didn't work" in colour...

What about the full colour eye? Tacky? Cliche? Perhaps. THAT aspect of the shot is little more than an experiment on my part and I kind of like it. It clearly draws attention to the eye region almost instantly, and I THINK after that most viewers will explore the rich detail of the head region (possibly more slowly than if the eye was in B&W). For those who are on the fence - full B&W versions (with no retention of colour in the eye) and full colour versions are available for comparison below...

Subject: Male grizzly (Ursus arctos) NOT eating a tripod! :wink:
Location: Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary, northern BC Coast, Canada
Camera: Nikon D4
Lens: Nikkor 400mm f2.8G VR - hand-held from floating zodiac. VR on and in "Normal" mode.
Exposure: 1/400s @ f11; ISO 2000. -0.33 stop compensation compensation from matrix-metered exposure setting.
Crop: Very minor - cropped slightly from right side

A lot more info about this image - including including much higher resolution versions (2400 pixel) - of it as above (with colour eye), in full B&W, and in full colour can be found here on my website:

http://www.naturalart.ca/galleries/latest/.

Comments and critiques welcomed - probably best to view the larger version prior to doing so! Real curious as to which (if any) version of it you prefer (and why)?

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Like all wildlife images on my website and that I post on NPN, the subject is fully wild and completely unconstrained. Besides the potential impact of my presence, nothing has been done to intentionally alter or affect the ongoing behavior of the subject and, of course, there has been no use of any form of bait or other form of wildlife attractants (including vocalizations)

Comments

12 comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on February 17, 2015 at 1:59 PM
And here's a FULL B&W version (eye without colour)
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on February 17, 2015 at 2:01 PM
And, last but not least, the full colour version (note that there was no saturation enhancement of this during any phase of post-processing)
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by John Launstein on February 17, 2015 at 3:30 PM
Hi Brad! Well, you already know I'm a sucker for solid B&W wildlife images, so this is pretty much a shoe-in for me. I really like the comp and detail and texture in the face, and the grasses add tremendous interest. I'm a bit torn on the eye, and lean toward the straight B&W for a few reasons--the first of which is without the browns and range of colours in the colour version, the eye colour doesn't present as what I was expecting...the yellowish "whites" kind of throw me, even though they are clearly accurate (again, fits right in on the colour version). I will say your "thinking" on the effect of the eye in colour seems pretty spot on to me--in fact, I probably did what you thought viewers would do as a result! :wink:

The only two parts of the image I'm less enthused about is the somewhat abrupt transition to near/pure black in the LRC without any detail in the neck region for something of a fade to black feel, and I HATE myself for even mentioning this but the open mid-grey background in the ULC adds an element to the frame that I somehow wish wasn't there...I hate mentioning it because I really fear many of us wildlife photographers in 2015 have a tendency to want images so clean we get bothered by nature! :rolleyes: I guess in the B&W I wish it were perhaps darker, but in the colour the blue has a similar effect for me. I think it boils down to feeling that given the extremely tight comp (which is way cool) I would love to have ONLY bear in the frame. Scrolling to crop confirms this for my taste, but you totally don't want to lose the upper head and ears, so I'm pretty sure you've done the right thing here. Just contemplating aloud.

Anyway, straight B&W for me, with a touch of the neck fur brought back as showing in the colour version (the colour version is outstanding as well though).
Registered on April 5, 2011, 223 Posts, 1193 Comments
Comment posted by Clinton Bauder on February 17, 2015 at 7:11 PM
Hi Brad,

Sweet shot. I prefer both the straight B&W version and the straight color to the as presented version. To me the one with only the eye colored draws attention to the processing rather than the bear. A for B&W vs color I think both have merit.I think the color version emphasizes the grass (and thus the more docile nature of the bear) whereas the texture of the fur has a lot more impact in the B&W version.

I think John makes a good point about the neck fur in the B&W conversion though I might not have noticed it unless he had mentioned it.

Great shot. :toast:

Clinton
Registered on December 8, 2009, 31 Posts, 231 Comments
Comment posted by Alberto Patiño on February 17, 2015 at 11:29 PM
This is an exquisite image in all three versions - I think I would choose the B&W with the colored eyes, but all of them are awesome. And I am really happy to read the comment about their true nature !!
Registered on December 2, 2014, 278 Posts, 1736 Comments
Comment posted by Sandipan Dutta on February 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM
I like the impressive detail and texture. My favorite among the three is the pure black&while version for its originality.
Registered on March 9, 2009, 171 Posts, 493 Comments
Comment posted by Jagdeep Rajput on February 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM
Hi Brad!
Welcome to the world of B&W!
Since it is technically solid, I like both he frames, full color as well as full B&W.
But, I feel B&W is able to emphasise more on textures n patterns by simplifying it.
The B&W with colored eye, somehow never appealed me, as many photographers in India tried on tiger pictures.
Jagdeep Rajput
PS. Looking at the small thumbnail, I thought Bear had whiskers. :biggrin:
Registered on April 29, 2008, 686 Posts, 2857 Comments
Comment posted by Swathiraj G on February 19, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Great images...Very beautiful eye in the color image and the wet hair patterns are shown up well in the black and white too..
Registered on April 26, 2014, 71 Posts, 153 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on February 21, 2015 at 3:30 PM
Hey folks,

Thanks for the feedback on this - always appreciated. Overall - when I total up the feedback I got above and directly by email from my website - the version that came in "first" in preference was the B&W conversion with the full-colour eye (tho' not by much over the full B&W) version. The full colour version came in a distant third...

Some specific feedback:

1. John: On the dark lower right corner with no shadow detail: Photographer's preference! :wink: The B&W conversion and where I pushed the yellows pretty much did this on its own, but I did darken it slightly more in post. Why? Because I liked it that way! I like my B&W's simplified (compared to full colour images) and I like them with good contrast. And, it balanced the dark ear in the upper right corner...

On the strip in the upper left corner: As you suggest - only way to get rid of that would have been to crop tighter, and - at least in my opinion - that would have cut out far too much of the interesting and highly detailed hair on the upper forehead...(as well as the ears)...so I had to compromise and leave it in.

2. Clinton - you said: "To me the one with only the eye colored draws attention to the processing rather than the bear".

Interesting point. I guess my thought is that the moment I look at ANY B&W image I think they are so "derived" I'm instantly thinking of the processing (tho' normally AFTER just letting the image impact on me). It's not as tho' any day-time scene is ever B&W - when I look at Ansel Adams great B&W landscapes I'm impressed, but I do find myself thinking about how the scene would have looked in colour (and what filtering he did along the way to produce the final image).

All good food for thought, tho' - thanks again to everyone leaving their thoughts on this one...

Cheers...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Seaver on February 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Just saw this in the Staff Gallery, Brad. I really like the original post, the colored eye is very subtle but adds significantly to the impact. BTW, I had to spend some time looking before I noticed that the eye was in color, which speaks well to the subtlety and maybe to how an unsophisticated viewer will react. My second choice is the full color version, but there, the green grasses pull a lot of attention away from the bear's face and for me this image is all about the bear's face. The straight b&w version feels "flat" to me. Seeing all three versions is very thought provoking.
Registered on January 23, 2011, 1103 Posts, 17270 Comments
Comment posted by Jerry Austin on February 24, 2015 at 11:35 AM
I think everyone got a little lost in the discussion of which version was preferred and lost sight of just how great an image this truly is. Fabulous image. The detail is just amazing.
Registered on January 6, 2012, 651 Posts, 3448 Comments
Comment posted by Lon Sharp on March 13, 2015 at 11:20 PM
I think this translates beautifully as B&W or with the eye colored as posted. Great choice. In the color version the image works fine, too, but my eye lingers on the reflected greens on the underside of his neck. I would choose to desaturate those greens...
Registered on December 9, 2007, 258 Posts, 9892 Comments