Wildlife art or a cheap trick?

I do check into Luminous Landscape every so often, as I think Reichman does have a very good eye for design in a lot of his people/street photography. And I was keen to see his Botswana images as a Botswana trip is something I have been planning for a while.

See link here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/okavango.shtml#sec

The first image in his gallery is of a leopard with a partial conversion to B&W. Now, I am all for new and unique takes to wildlife (there are too many cliched shots out there, something that is driven home far too often when I look at my own images as well), but to me, this is a classic example of using Photoshop to try to "make" an image.

What do others think? Do you agree with my assessment or am I being too close-minded and unable to accept this interpretation simply b/c it is too far from the norm?

Vandit

Vandit - I don't think there's likely to be a consensus on that question, nor should there be. Pretend you could find 100 images that had some "trick" like this performed on them. And then you asked people here to pick which ones were good, and which were just using PS to try to "make" an image. If you did, I bet you'd get a wide range of responses depending on particular people's likes and dislikes. And I think there's room for all of them.

I think this dispute is as old as photography. Should photography attempt to "perfectly replicate reality" (whatever that means) or should it be like a painting, the photographer's interpretation of reality? If you have five photographers in the room, you'll probably get five different answers. Six different answers if one of the photographers went to Harvard.

Vandit - After a little more thought, I'm wondering if there's another angle on this as well. Since the change is kind of subtle, there's a chance people may not realize it's been "messed with" in PS. If when printed and hung, it's presented as photo art and the changes made in PS noted, would it still bother you? Is the underlying problem that it's not a "straight" photo? I don't think my response (or Jim's) would change, but that may be a source of your dislike.

I see it less as an artistic/esthetic interpretation of the scene than as a way to simply bring out the leopard from its camouflage. The desaturation tool is used simply to focus the viewer's attention on the leopard despite a distracting background.

I agree with John's succinct assessment.

I disagree with the Johns. I think it is completely an artistic/aesthetic interpretation, it goes way beyond photography because it is an unatural deviation from the scene in an attempt to make it more aesthetic. Ive done this countless times with my photography, see my latest post in PA for example. It's art that happens to be photography, rather than photography that happens to be art. That being said, my opinion might change next year.

Thanks for the responses so far.

To clarify - I was not arguing about whether photographers should record reality vs non-literal interpretations. Jim (DeWitt), you are correct - that is a matter of personal preference.

David - I have no problems with using Photoshop to alter tones, do selective B&W, etc. either. I am not a big fan of adding or removing objects to the image (it becomes digital art at that point, not photography), but tonal corrections are fair game. But that is not my beef here... it is with the choice of image used.

I agree with John Wall - the desaturation was an attempt to bring out the leopard and rescue what otherwise would have been a very messy image. And that is a big reason why I think this image doesnt appeal to me. Were it a compelling behavior shot or unique in some other way, then ok, I can accept using PS to make the image stand out more. But the shot by itself is nothing unique. A leopard in a tree with bushes. Yeah, using Photoshop makes it stand out more but it is still a pretty uninteresting image... to me, atleast.

Given that Reichman chooses to start his gallery with this image, he obviously thinks very highly of this image, whereas I find it wholly unappealing. Were it a single shot in a series of images, I would just chalk it down to variations in personal preferences and leave it at that. But given the high regard Reichman obviously has for this image, I was wondering if I am missing something or if I am letting my prejudices affect my ability to appreciate the image.

Hence my question to whether *this* particular shot was effective as presented or not. Think of it as a poll - how many of you find it to be a compelling image in its own right?

V

Why don't you post your comments to him on LL instead? He may give you some insights as to why.

Mmeeh.. it would be a bit rude. And I think requiring someone to explain an image pretty much defeats the purpose of making an image that speaks for itself.

V.

And you don't think it was rude to start this topic to discuss his image? I believe he doesn't come to NPN to see if people are unappealed by his art. Maybe a discussion would be in order with the artist himself for you to let your feelings to be known. I also feel a discussion of an image is not the wrong thing, since many images seek subtle nuances that do not have a clear message. Unless it is of that sunrise, sunset, mountain and seascape image, which no story needs to be told.
Just my $.02

> I also feel a discussion of an image is not the wrong thing, since many images seek subtle
> nuances that do not have a clear message. Unless it is of that sunrise, sunset, mountain and
> seascape image, which no story needs to be told.

Perfectly put, Jim.

What's the point? You viewed the image, you were not impressed. That's your opnion. Your not "missing something" in the image that some of us might see, it just does not appeal to your taste. Are you looking for some insight as to why you don't like it? How should we know why you like or dislike an image? That's strictly up to you. As far as useing PS to try and "make" an image. Who decides how much post processing is too much, or just enough? The person processing the image, and each individual viewer of that image. And while the opnions will be varied, none of them will be wrong. Just like he is by no means wrong to start his gallery with this image. And just like you are not wrong to not particulary like the image.

Jim, no I dont think it is rude to start this topic to discuss his image. My specific question was - are others seeing something in that image that I am not? That is something that is best asked of other viewers, not the artist.

As for the point? Call it an attempt at self-assessment. If a lot of NPNers - most of whom are photographers whose work I admire a lot - find that something is indeed appealing in that image, that tells me that perhaps I need to review my own prejudics and opinions. I might still find that this image is unappealing, but atleast I've given my own preconceptions a sanity test. It is too easy to get set in one's ways about what is/isnt appealing, and I think every so often, an objective review of one's biases is worth the effort. Given the huge disparity in the appeal of this image, I think it is a good one to use for that review.

As such, I hope it is apparent why my asking him what he thinks of the image is irrelevant. And while it is one thing to critique an image when requested or in a forum where such behavior is the norm, I do think it is rude to send in unsolicited opinions to random strangers.

V.

But it is totally okay to give an unsolicited opinion on an image that was not requested by the photographer in a different forum?

I just do not get it.

Jim, to be honest, I dont think I can explain myself any more clearly than I did above (and without meaning any offense to you, nor do I care to). So if you dont get it, accept my apologies at my failure to be more clear and let's move on. If you'd care to answer my original question, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the image and why, if at all, it works for you.

And yes, I do think it is ok to discuss a wildlife image on a forum on nature photography - especially an image that is quite different from the norm and taken by a well-known photographer. If you disagree with that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My original question stands - how many people here find that leopard photo to be a compelling image? And if so, could you post a few lines on what it is that appeals to you?

Vandit

Photography vs. Graphic Illustration. To me they have always been and continue to be distinct and seperate artforms. Maybe we should be discussing a third we dare call "Photographic Illustration", a combination of the two. The question is by which of the three can "nature photography" be authentically represented. IMO we can represent nature
by any of the three, but only through photography can we succeed in doing it accurately.

Wildlife art or a cheap trick? I think it is neither. It's not what I would define as Wildlife art because ( art = truth = beauty ) is my personal definition. It's not a cheap trick because he and everyone else has their own defintion, and perhaps this is his. Also, I think by using the label "cheap trick" you are being a bit rude, even though that wasn't your intent. Perhaps you should e-mail him and point out this thread; it might be very interesting to hear his point of view , if he wants to share it. Tim

I also agree with John's succinct assessment. I looked at the photo and I liked it. It says a lot about Michael that he explained exactly what he did to the photo, many people don't do that.

Michael - interesting point and one that is close to my heart as I re-examine my approach to my wildlife images. A related concept was put forth by Galen Rowell - the more common an image type, the less appealing a literal treatment of the subject becomes. With wildlife, we are reaching that point, I think - how many more unique "straight" lion/bear/tiger portraits can be made? While such images may hold a lot of value for the photographer (and justifiably so), such images merely become "one of many" when viewed in the context of all the lion/bear/tiger shots out there.

The trend these days seems to be towards more creative/less literal images - as evinced by the BG/Shell Wildlife Award's winning images. But at some point, some images (not necessarily this one) become different just for the sake of being different.

It is too easy, IMHO, to simply say "appreciate the ones you like, ignore the ones you dont like" - it does not take into account the fact that what we like/dont like is driven by our preconceptions and what we are habituated to see. As a result, we tend to make snap judgements and are closed to change. On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a lousy photo is just a lousy photo (again, not specifically referring to this image).

Timothy - you are right, by using the label "cheap trick", I did come across as being rude and derogatory. That wasnt my intention; I was merely trying to set the parameters for the two extreme categories within which this image might fall.

However, I dont think it would be interesting to hear his point of view. IMO, a photographic image is a self-sufficient work and needs to stand on its own, without explanation or justification from the creator. If the image cannot convey the photographer's intents by itself, it has failed in its task. That is not to say that the photographer is not entitled to appreciate the image, or even that the image needs to be universally appreciated in order to be successful. But this is a completely different discussion altogether.

Of course, it could be that I am reading too much into a rather simple image (thanks to being confined indoors for a few weeks and spending too much time over-analyzing my work) and I simply need to get out. 10 more days of confinement and then I'm free :)

Vandit