Lynx (C) - 'wrong' on so many levels . . . + Replies + Repost

. . . but I like it!

Captive; digitally manipulated; not representative of 'real' nature; compositionally challenged; sloping horizon . . . . I'm sure the list of nits is endless.

So, do I care about the above? Yes, of course! But the image represents my personal experimentation into what nature photography can be - for me.

Your views - good, bad, & ugly - please.

Cheers,
Chris

1Ds3, 70 - 200, tripod, incontinence pants!!

As you say, Chris, it breaks a lot of 'rules', but I like it as well, despite not normally being a fan of black and white work. I am not sure, however, that the left hand half of the frame is adding very much to the overall picture and personally I would have cropped to show the right hand side only. But if you like it as it is, that is all that matters and rules be d****d.

David

Nothing bad or ugly about this one!
Love it and well done thinking outside the box!

greetings,

Jeroen Stel

it's a striking shot Chris and the composition is unusual but effective. The only thing I'm not quite sure about is the lynx's facial expression - it doesn't quite look like a roar or snarl and perhaps more like a yawn!? It's difficult to judge the animal's mood, but that may be just me.

Matt

The tabby looks almost domesticated, denfinately different.

Chris, you've explained the circumstances and I don't think my reaction would have been that much different if you'd said it was a wild example. It's still a great shot in a natural setting but with a really different twist. It reminds me a bit of one of those high street family portrait studio shots, but better

Its not wrong because you told the forum/public of the back ground to the shot,how,where,when etc that to me is not wrong,its when something is tame,fed,caught or captive and passed off as wild, this is wrong, where the public are not told,misleading them into thinking this event happened naturally within nature.After jumping wolf last year many have to label their stuff now something they did'nt have to do in the past and this can only be good for wildlife photography.
I like the B+W and the pose captured is nice

Well I think Craig has said it all and I do like it also

Rules are made to be broken, and this is why! I like it.

Maybe if it was jumping over a fence it would look more natural ;)

I like it as well Chris - love the

David

Hi All; thanks for your thoughts on my image and related topics.

David S: I can see where you are coming from in respect to the space on the left - I'll give your suggestion a try. Thanks.

Matt: I can also see you point in terms of the animal's expression - if I were going to be anthropomorphic I'd say the look was based on the share enjoyment of his dominance - he pinned 4 burly, photographers to the enclosure fence with fear, by simply snarling and showing his teeth.

Craig: I agree entirely about your comments dealing with the disclosure of captive subjects. As I wrote in a recent blog elsewhere, the nature photography community is a very small place - folks soon work out whose telling the truth and who isn't. For me though, its about more than just peer pressure - honesty, responsibility and integrity about how my images were made, are just as important as respecting our natural environment - it is my reputation that's on the line.

Cheers,
Chris

PS. Neil, I think you are confusing 'captive' with 'tame'. This 'domestic tabby', as you put it, unlike the wolf featured in the 'Fairytale wolf' shot, would have effortlessly ripped your face off and not thought twice about it. Yes, 'captive' is easier than 'wild' but it isn't necessarily a 'walk in the park'. Being knee-deep in snow, with nowhere to run (even if you could) means respect and care are required to protect yourself and the subject. This chap was no 'animal model'!

I don't know what possessed you to compose it this way...but I'm glad you did! It's a cracker Really good to see a quirky shot that works.
Top marks!


Simon

Can't ne wrong if it looks good and this does, nice one

The shot works well, the expression on the animal is what really makes the shot for me,
Lee

Hi Chris, I've been absent from here for some time and having managed to get a few minutes in work to have a quick view I come across this shot. Yes it breaks many rules and I have gone on record in the past as stating my preference for certain ways of doing things but it is the picture in front of you that has to appeal and this one really grabbed my attention. It is an image that seems to get better every time I look at it. The B/W treatment works superbly with the subject (and I'm no big fan of B/W for wildlife) and the quirky composition adds drama, no doubt because of the strong diagonal line created. Overall a belter that I would love to have taken.
Robert

Thanks Robert - where have you been? Always a pleasure to read your considered, honest opinions (even the unfavourable ones) - the forum is better off with your comments.

Cheers,
Chris

Works for me, and not just because I like 'different'. Different can sometimes be crap. This is not.

Its technically excellent, compositionally inspired, and the comp. gives a real sense of space and freedom, with the strong diagonal created by the two tree bases and the cat adding a real feeling of depth, but the in-the-corner cat gives an altogether more 'enclosed' or 'claustrophobic' feel that adds a real dissonance. All this is helped by the mona lisa expression thats neither snarl nor purr. There's a certain anthropomorphic quality to it as well that I cant quite pin down - probably a good thing - that adds another layer of interest as well.

A very memorable image.

John, thank you. Your analysis is always revealing and informative, making me realise that some of the processes that go on subconsciously while making images, can be used consciously next time simply because you've pointed them out. It is in there somewhere, you seem to have the knack of teasing it to the surface. Valued input, thanks again.

Without dragging this thread out too much further, I thought it might be interesting to post the original camera image for comparison. Why?

1. For me, part of the 'art' of photography lies in getting it right in-camera. I feel very frustrated when I view images that look very well composed but are revealed to be just a fraction of the actual image taken. Yes, digital cropping is fine but it goes too far at times. 72 dpi on a forum is ok but surely we should aim to maximise the potential of the full-frame? The b&w image presented here is virtually as shot - it was composed in-camera. Despite the fact I was working with a captive subject, I still made choices about lens, composition, etc.

2. Recently, this forum has seen some bi-polar views on the merits (or otherwise) of computers in nature photography. Personally, I'm very pro computers as part of the creative imaging process - it is just a tool, like the camera. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone digital manipulation for the purpose of lying, but for images such as the one here I just see the manipulation as an extension of the creative process. The image captured by the camera is just a starting point - the b&w version of my shot is much more satisfying on a personal level.

Cheers,
Chris