Posted by Elliott Neep on January 25, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Hi Everyone,
Haven't posted anything for a while. Here's a beautiful tiger photographed in Bandhavgarh National Park in December 2006. This tiger is a year old male and is very, very friendly. On more than one occasion he approached too close for 100-400 or 70-200 to focus!
It was a bumper year for Bandhavgarh tigers in 2006 but this is bucking a horrible trend. Last year alone, 3 national parks were almost entirely cleared of tigers. The situation is desperate and it upsets me greatly to think that in less than 3 years there will be no such thing as a wild bengal tiger.
1DSmkII & 300mm F2.8 with 1.4 TC, 1/60 at F4, -0.3 Compensation, 1 shakey wobbley, constantly eating and moving elephant, 1 hysterical, blubbing girlfriend.
Hi Elliot,
I like this, but feel that a pano type crop, taking out everything below the rhs pawand everything above the tip of the squiggly line above the lhs ear, would work very well. As is the oof slab of rock below his chin is taking all the attention.
What's causing the decline?
Loss of habitat? Poaching? Lack of food?
Love the image, especially because it isn't staring into the camera.
Love the tech details as well. I have similar experiences with my girlfriend when near elephants and lions - one lion almost attacked us recently because we where too close to his woman! I pooped myself as well for a few seconds! My girlfriend cried and shook for at least an hour.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Posted by Alan Bryant on January 25, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Great shot.I love the contact with the eyes .BUT................
Your shot is very under-saturated, its screaming for some colour IMO.
Heres a quick adjust i did in PS just to show you what i mean.At levels of........
Posted by Graham Bailey on January 25, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Its a shame to hear that these beautiful animals are under so much threat and its something we hear all too often. I like the relaxed pose you've captured here, he almost looks like he's sad thinking about his species decline. I agree with alan's point about the saturation but almost feel it helps the mood of the image.
Graham
Posted by Paul Williams on January 25, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I like both versions of this! I think John's suggestion of a pano version is a good one, I woudn't have thought about it unless it had been mentioned.
Posted by Graeme Lee on January 25, 2007 at 5:55 PM
It is very sad and there's a lot of other animals in the same situation.....
Love the shot and presentation and I think Alan's is good too. I sometimes feel saturation is over used for presentation when the colours don't actually resemble what the scene looked like when the image was shot, but hey, it's being presented for others to view. In that light, I'd like something between yours and Alan's. Great shot and experience no doubt.
Graeme
Posted by John Chapman on January 25, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Hi Elliot
nice portrait of a gorgeous animal.
John
Aberdeen.
Posted by Elliott Neep on January 26, 2007 at 5:24 AM
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your comments both +/-. I can't say I totally agree with the pano crop having already looked at that option. For me it was essential to keep the environment in frame. Also, regarding the saturation, most wild tigers simply aren't that colour and to make them glowing deep orange/red is a falsehood. The image was taken on an overcast day with gorgeous soft light. I feel I am obliged to represent what I see, not 'what it should look like'. This is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their's.
I love Graeme Bailiey's comment, this is exactly what I feel when I look at it.
Tigers have been in decline for years. Most NGOs state there is 3000-5000 tigers, but this is based on outdated and improbable data. If there are more than 1000 I would be stunned and happier. There simply isn't the space for them anymore. The national parks hold, on average, about 25-35 tigers.
Unfortunately the government department responsible for protecting tigers is also the department responsible for logging and deforesting. The two objectives simply cannot coexist. They make money from wood and lose heavily protecting tigers and catering for tourists. But when compared to poaching for skin and bones and poisoning for revenge, the shrinking treeline is probably of least concern right now. The Indian government have done there best to cover up and deny the issue. Task forces and project come and go, but the tiger's numbers are in a steady decline.
As with the rhino, there are suspicions that entire parks are being wiped out to drive up value of current skin and bone values. If I could suggest anything to anyone, it would be to visit the EIA website at www.eia-international.org and read there literature about all there subjects and/or donate to their fund. They are an incredibly tenacious group and are responsible for uncovering most of the skin and bone seizures and rackets in recent years. They need our support.
Posted by Pete Etheridge on January 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Hi Elliott,
I think you did a grand job and your original image without cropping is my favourite. Thanks for the info above - it's great to remember that our images can help in a small way...
Posted by Vincent Jones on January 26, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Elliot, this is an amazing shot yet very sad, those eyes are simply amazing & sums it all up
Discussion
10 repliesHaven't posted anything for a while. Here's a beautiful tiger photographed in Bandhavgarh National Park in December 2006. This tiger is a year old male and is very, very friendly. On more than one occasion he approached too close for 100-400 or 70-200 to focus!
It was a bumper year for Bandhavgarh tigers in 2006 but this is bucking a horrible trend. Last year alone, 3 national parks were almost entirely cleared of tigers. The situation is desperate and it upsets me greatly to think that in less than 3 years there will be no such thing as a wild bengal tiger.
1DSmkII & 300mm F2.8 with 1.4 TC, 1/60 at F4, -0.3 Compensation, 1 shakey wobbley, constantly eating and moving elephant, 1 hysterical, blubbing girlfriend.
I like this, but feel that a pano type crop, taking out everything below the rhs pawand everything above the tip of the squiggly line above the lhs ear, would work very well. As is the oof slab of rock below his chin is taking all the attention.
What's causing the decline?
Loss of habitat? Poaching? Lack of food?
Love the image, especially because it isn't staring into the camera.
Love the tech details as well. I have similar experiences with my girlfriend when near elephants and lions - one lion almost attacked us recently because we where too close to his woman! I pooped myself as well for a few seconds! My girlfriend cried and shook for at least an hour.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Your shot is very under-saturated, its screaming for some colour IMO.
Heres a quick adjust i did in PS just to show you what i mean.At levels of........
Saturation +27
Contrast +6
Clicky this link
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=ylmnl4&outx=600&noresize=1&original=1&nostamp=1
(hope you dont mind
Graham
Love the shot and presentation and I think Alan's is good too. I sometimes feel saturation is over used for presentation when the colours don't actually resemble what the scene looked like when the image was shot, but hey, it's being presented for others to view. In that light, I'd like something between yours and Alan's. Great shot and experience no doubt.
Graeme
nice portrait of a gorgeous animal.
John
Aberdeen.
Thanks for your comments both +/-. I can't say I totally agree with the pano crop having already looked at that option. For me it was essential to keep the environment in frame. Also, regarding the saturation, most wild tigers simply aren't that colour and to make them glowing deep orange/red is a falsehood. The image was taken on an overcast day with gorgeous soft light. I feel I am obliged to represent what I see, not 'what it should look like'. This is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their's.
I love Graeme Bailiey's comment, this is exactly what I feel when I look at it.
Tigers have been in decline for years. Most NGOs state there is 3000-5000 tigers, but this is based on outdated and improbable data. If there are more than 1000 I would be stunned and happier. There simply isn't the space for them anymore. The national parks hold, on average, about 25-35 tigers.
Unfortunately the government department responsible for protecting tigers is also the department responsible for logging and deforesting. The two objectives simply cannot coexist. They make money from wood and lose heavily protecting tigers and catering for tourists. But when compared to poaching for skin and bones and poisoning for revenge, the shrinking treeline is probably of least concern right now. The Indian government have done there best to cover up and deny the issue. Task forces and project come and go, but the tiger's numbers are in a steady decline.
As with the rhino, there are suspicions that entire parks are being wiped out to drive up value of current skin and bone values. If I could suggest anything to anyone, it would be to visit the EIA website at www.eia-international.org and read there literature about all there subjects and/or donate to their fund. They are an incredibly tenacious group and are responsible for uncovering most of the skin and bone seizures and rackets in recent years. They need our support.
I think you did a grand job and your original image without cropping is my favourite. Thanks for the info above - it's great to remember that our images can help in a small way...
They say an image can speak a thousands words