Lion Cub

[Ken Watkins]

A somewhat cuter picture, this cub and his two siblings had come down to meet the rest of the pride for the first time, so they were very curious.

Taken dried up riverbed in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania, 5th July 2012. Light was not exactly conducive

EOS 1D MkIII

70-200mm MkII at 200mm

F5,6, ISO 400, 1/800

[Gregor Bergquist]

Really nice and cute, Ken. Good quality pic. I think comp works very good. I also like sand as FG & BG, as you know. I think it is cool that he is showing a bit of his claws. If there is a point in doing some selective lightning in his eyes/face is questionable, as is cloning some green branches in top left corner.

TFS, Gregor

[Ken Watkins]

Gregor,
Your suggestions are worthwhile, but as you know I really do not like to do too much manipulation, the leaves could go as they do not add much other than a different colour. But then where do you stop, there is dried grass cutting across the paw, tiny pieces of grass over the leg, etc. etc.
The main problem with this is the shade and the very bright sand both of which are not uniform in distribution, but that is nature for you. I know some like to wait for that perfect golden light but I am willing to try anything to capture a moment, sometimes it works sometimes it does not, in this case although far from perfect, I think the subject is worth it.:w3 Technical perfection is not my goal.

[Riaan Marais]

Hi Ken, I share your sentiments on manipulation - taking stuff away, etc. Try to make as much as you can with what you can see in the view finder. Nice, clean image.

Riaan

[Robert Amoruso]

Gregor,
Your suggestions are worthwhile, but as you know I really do not like to do too much manipulation, the leaves could go as they do not add much other than a different colour. But then where do you stop, there is dried grass cutting across the paw, tiny pieces of grass over the leg, etc. etc.
The main problem with this is the shade and the very bright sand both of which are not uniform in distribution, but that is nature for you. I know some like to wait for that perfect golden light but I am willing to try anything to capture a moment, sometimes it works sometimes it does not, in this case although far from perfect, I think the subject is worth it.:w3 Technical perfection is not my goal.

Based on the above, I take it your really only interested in sharing images and not trying it improve either technically or esthetically. Given that, why post in a critiquing forum and then slam anyone that makes suggestions. We all have better things to do if your just going to slam us for trying to make meaningful suggestions.

So my recommendation Ken is, we won't bother making suggestions on how to improve your images either technically or esthetically and you won't slam us by making comments regarding our suggestions to the other forum participants. Describing our comments as "fiddling" amongst other adjectives.

[Ken Watkins]

Robert,

Your comment is not a critique of my image and as such should not be on this thread, according to what I have been told in the past.

BTW my use of the word "fiddled" has been limited to descriptions of my own re-posts, sorry if it has offended you yet again.

Cheers

Ken

[Ofer Levy]

Sweet image Ken. Technically very good and aesthetically lovely with awesome vertical composition, great eye contact and nice framing with the green leaves on the top left.
Keep up your great work,
Cheers,
Ofer

[Ken Watkins]

Gregor, Riaan and Ofer,

Thanks for your kind comments and suggestions they are much appreciated:cheers:

[Morkel Erasmus]

The cubs are cute. I think you did the best you could in the shaded/dappled light.
Now here I wouldn't lighten the face, as there is enough detail in the blacks and midtones. Might brighten eyes a wee bit, but have to be careful of overdoing it. :tinysmile_shy_t:


Robert,

Your comment is not a critique of my image and as such should not be on this thread, according to what I have been told in the past.

Ken, as a moderator (and publisher of this forum), Robert has the prerogative to make comments based on the statements of others and the perceived decorum showed by forum members.

[Jay Gould]

Ken,

You say "technical perfection is not your goal"

You say "willing to try anything to capture a moment"

And, to me most importantly, you say "sometimes it works sometimes it does not, in this case although far from perfect, I think the subject is worth it."

To repeat "I think the subject is worth it"

So, what is the subject; what is the story?

Tell me I am wrong: the story/subject is the cub in the foreground. Right?

What you do in the field "in the moment" has in my opinion absolutely nothig to do with what you do at the computer after the sensor has captured the light.

Who/What decides what you present as the final image: YOU or the sensor?

You of course.

Why post in a critique forum if you do not want your images to be critiqued?

When I look at your image, and keep in mind I adhere 100% to the "Nature Interpreted" school of presentation, the first thing that catches my eye is not the cub; it is that **** sharp green leaves encroaching into the frame on the upper right side.

Remove the leave they detract from your story.

You state "as you know I really do not like to do too much manipulation, the leaves could go as they do not add much other than a different colour. But then where do you stop, there is dried grass cutting across the paw, tiny pieces of grass over the leg, etc. etc."

Joel Tjintjelaar - an International Award Winning Fine Art Photographer (http://www.bwvision.com/) wrote the following; this has become my favorite quotation because it describes exactly how I feel about the images I produce:


I don’t believe in SOOC shots. I believe in the artistic result and in the visualization of the artist of how he/she sees the world. A camera is just a piece of hardware with no mind, no soul, no artistry, just an object that records a situation, unbiased and emotionless. I’m not interested in the vision of a piece of hardware, I’m only interested in the vision of the artist with a mind and soul, who will alter the image to his reality. It’s the difference between photography and art.

Applying Joel's beliefs to your image you remove anything that detracts from your story without changing your story.

You are not entering this image in a BBC contest where you are prohibited from maximizing the final product.

You darken, you lighten, you do all that is necessary to maximize your story - this cute cub in its habitat.

My understanding is that you really like Chas' images; I spent four days alone with Chas. In my opinion he would probably lighten the cub and he would also slightly darken the outer portions of the image to focus the viewer's attention on the cub. I have seen him use the NIK filter to intentionally using a low opacity vignette the scene to focus the viewer. Why not?

At the top of the image in the left corner there is a dark leaf hanging down into the image. It is an eye sore; it distracts from the cub. Why is it there? Because it was on the sensor? So what? Is really only there because you didn't take notice of it at the moment of capture. Had you move the frame every so lightly in a different direction, had you moved ever so slightly, it would not be there. So, why not remove it IF it distracts from your story?

You have your opinions of your images; I dare say that you are posting in a critique forum to learn to make them better. I have my opinions - they are right for me they may not be right for you - I am sure they are not right for most as most think I am too outspoken. Their problem; not mine.

I can say that over time Robert and Morkel have helped me to become a better photographer, a better artist.

No one has to accept anything they suggest unless they feel it makes the image better. On the other hand, having posted in this forum, a person MUST expect that the moderators are going to critique the image.

Frankly, the last thing I ever want to hear, and I see it so often as some of the members strive to increase their post numbers, is to simply read time and time again, "great image" or words to that effect without any explanation why.

I much prefer to have my images torn to shreds by meaningful critiques; then I can pick and choose amongst them.

BTW, the cub is adorable when I am only looking at the cub.

Cheers Mate, you have a great eye; keep on sharing.

[Ken Watkins]

Jay,

There is quite a lot to take in here. But I will as always give careful consideration to what you say and perhaps agree with some parts and disgree with others.
I certainly do not participate here for "great shot" critiques, as I think I have said before I do so to share what I consider to be the wonders of nature, in particular the lesser featured subjects.
Some like my vision some do not, this does not really bother me greatly except when misinterpretation or total falsehood is included.
It seems to be the desire of some to only have images they like and in their preferred style, that is of course their choice, but ultimately I am pleased when people whose work I admire, like my images, who would not be?

At the end of the day the question should be am I happy with the image or can someone advise me how to improve it in a manner that I also find pleasing. This surely is the real meaning of this forum.

I will continue to share what I consider others might hopefully get pleasure from.

Cheers

Ken

PS Thanks once again for making a totally ucid and interesting contribution:cheers: