For Artie - Classic Brooks Shot

[Rachel Hollander]

I promised Artie that I would post my photo of the bear catching the jumping salmon despite the fact that the HAP are likely to issue a violation. Unfortunately there were not a lot of jumpers and the bear that was catching preferred facing away from the platform. Still here it is:

Canon 50D
100-400 @100mm
1/2500
f 5.6
ISO 320
Aperture Priority
Not 100% sure but think this was from the tripod. Cropped to remove extra space to the left.

C&C welcome and appreciated. Thanks,

Rachel

[Hilary Hann]

Well captured Rachel and what wonderful sighting

[Harshad Barve]

well seen and captured Rachel , I liked the wider perspective
TFS

[Steve Canuel]

Rachel,
I like the crystal like look of the water cascading over the falls. Lack of eye contact here doesn't bother me as the bear is doing something and is pointing in toward the center of the frame where you'd expect the fish to jump.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Hilary, Harshad and Steve for the kind comments. Glad you like it.

Rachel

[David Israel]

Hi Rachel, as you can see from my posts I'm a new guy.

I like the timing of this shot, that the bear's jaws are still wide open and that you can still see virtually the entire salmon. The picture allows our minds to move forward in time to the inevitable snap of the jaws, making it feel even more dynamic.

You did a terrific job on the exposure, given the dark upper water juxtaposed to the white froth at the bottom of the falls. Also, although reduced in size it still appears that you have yourself a nice sharp copy of the the 100-400, wide open.

The composition works for me... only wish that the bear had cooperated a bit more and made eye contact with the lens; though I suppose that I could say that I wish the fish had cooperated a bit more to allow the bear to make eye contact with the lens! :)

I am curious about the bear's right shoulder: is that a scar, tag, etc?

Wonderful image, Rachel. Capturing an image like this is definitely on my bucket list. Just don't know if I can pursuade my wife to get this close to something farther up the food chain than a defenseless photographer (the only thing that we shoot with is a camera).

I would also love to know where this was shot at.

Thanks,

Dave

[Alfred Forns]

Sweet image and love it as presented !!! Get a Big Congrats here Rachel !!!!

One thing I can not understand is why anyone would like to have the bear looking at the camera? Making eye contact with the lens would ruin the image... seems like he would be missing the fish, the animal is engaged in a behavior and would look unnatural any other way !!! Remember a similar comment in avian, had to do with a flicker battling for his life with a starling and someone suggested it was better if it had eye contact ... I guess that is why we have choices !!! Just my opinion !!!!

Hi David do appreciate you jumping in and giving your opinion, always good to do so, we like different points of view and looking forward to many more !!!

[Hilary Hann]

Al, couldn't agree more but I have seen time and time again here in Wildlife the comment made about eye contact. Perhaps having some eye visible is nice, but having eye contact probably says more about our human need to connect than it does about photographing wildlife in their natural environment.

[Harshad Barve]

One thing I can not understand is why anyone would like to have the bear looking at the camera? Making eye contact with the lens would ruin the image...




What a relief , excellent comment Alfred , gives me courage to post more behavior shots now

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Dave and Al for the kind comments. Just want to clarify that I was not hoping for eye contact just slightly better positioned head. Although this is almost full profile, the bear's head is just a few degrees tilted to the opposite side of the river.

Dave - welcome to BPN. You'll be able to learn a lot in a short amount of time if that's your goal. This was taken at Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park, Alaska. Tell your wife that most of the bear viewing there is from platforms, though you do have a short hike to get to the platform. The bears also freely wander through the lodge area but the rangers are great about preventing any issues.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Rachel Hollander]

Harshad and Hilary posted their responses while I was composing mine. Hopefully, my clarification about not wanting eye contact but just a slightly better head position puts everyone at ease. I am very happy with this image.

Thanks again,
Rachel

[Ken Watkins]

Ineresting comments on this image.

Firstly the wide open view adds greatly, many people would go for the head shot.

This is an "action" shot and to my mind the HA is largely irrelevant, although of course it would not be good if the bear were staring at the BG.

IMHO there should be no rules in action images, just good images showing behaviour at it's best, which this is.:D

That said I am wondering if this needs a little more "vibrance"

[Rachel Hollander]

Sorry, forgot to answer Dave about the bear's right front shoulder. It is definitely not a tag (didn't see any while at Brooks and don't think they tag or collar the bears there). I believe it is either a scar or bald patch where there may have been a recent wound.

Rachel

[David Israel]

Rachel, thank you for the update. Seems the bear had a spot that was bare! :) Thank you too for the location information. Such information is always of interest to me when considering future places that my wife and I could visit, and it is appreciated.

I read Alfred's comment with great interest and will answer his question in a private message, so as not to detract from this excellent post. I should point out for clarification that "eye contact" was not the best choice of words, as I meant to imply seeing one or both of the bear's eyes in the image and not necessarily having the bear looking directly into the lens. However, even under those circumstances Alfred's question is still valid. What I will say here is that I gave a great deal of thought to Alfred's question and the mental exercise led to something of an epiphany. It allowed me to look at your image from an entirely different perspective that would have been unlikely for me to have done before, given my own personal experience, taste and expectations. It was a revelatory moment that I will thank Alfred for, later.

As Alfred stated, the images "as is" is terrific! :)


Dave

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Rachel, all said above. Colour looks pretty spot on and natural. Great setting.

TFS
Steve

[John Ippolito]

Nicely framed classic Brooks image, and I agree that the bear is looking where the bear should be looking. One salmon, one bear, nice habitat. Well done.

[Rachel Hollander]

Ken, Dave, Steve and John - Thank you all for your comments. Ken - I purposely wanted the wider shot to show the falls and the behavior. IMHO the head shot without the context just isn't the same. Once again, thanks to all for the kind comments.

Rachel

[Tom Redd]

Great shot Rachel, I just got back from Alaska and Brooks Falls this morning - a wonderful trip. It rained almost the whole time I was in Katmai (just a day and a half), almost no sun. However, still wonderful. The shot is wonderful and well done, especially since you were a bit early for the real salmon run, it still hadn't hit when I was there on July 19,20th and so not a lot of salmon, yet. I also experienced the fish all seemed to jump to the bears' left and so the head was turned the same direction for almost all the chances I got for that classic shot, which were somewhat limited. Darn nature doesn't always cooperate like we would like, does it? I have enjoyed your shots from this trip.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Tom. I look forward to seeing some of your shots. Were they still saying that this was a particularly low salmon run? When I was there the news was reporting that it might be a 30 year low.

[Tom Redd]

Rachel, I did not hear it was a 30 year low, but everyone talked about it being light and very late, not usual by any stretch. I still loved it there and wished for more sun and more time there, one night was not enough but all they had available when I got the booking. Originally, months ago they had no openings, after retrying for months, we got in for the one night.

[Stu Bowie]

Hi Rachel, this is one sighting that I would still like to experience. Great timing, and I feel you have placed the bear very well in the frame. I really like all the rushing water.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Stuart

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks to Rachel for posting this. Rache, I gotta say that you get around!

Well, first I will critique the image and then, in the next pane, I will likely spoil everyone's party (without mentioning any names or quoting anyone) :) Exposure for the water looks fine. The color of the bear's fur looks a bit muddy as if it had been underexposed in the original and then lightened in Photoshop. A longer focal length would have been ideal here as the large rock in the upper right is not a plus. As presented, I would suggest a crop as in the repost leaving just the corner of the rock and taking some off the bottom.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes it would be stupid if the bear's head were square to the back of the camera here while the salmon was jumping past it to the left of its head. And yes, Rachel made the best possible image herewith the equipment she had and pushed the shutter button at just the right time. But the image simply is not a contest winner or even a good contest entry. Why? Because the bear's head cannot be seen clearly.It is turned away. Yes, the head angle is a poor one for this image. (Do note that eye contact has zero to do with it and has never had anything to do with a proper head angle. (See my recent comments in the Head Angle Philosophies thread in the ER here (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?63575-Head-Angle-Philosophies....&p=544523).)

For those who are aghast at my position I ask only that they look at Tom Manglesen's classic Brook's Falls image, "Catch of the Day (http://www.mangelsen.com/store/Collector_Edition_Prints___Out_of_Print___Catch_of _the_Day___1698?Args=)." Before you post stating that everyone above is right and I am wrong--oh, how I love when that happens--look at Mangelsen's image and ask yourself, "Which has a better head position?" Case closed.

Respectfully.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Artie for the comments. I like the repost. The color issue may be due to a s/h adjustment. I totally agree with you regarding the HA. I always said that I wish the HA was turned toward me a few degrees or at least parallel rather than a few degrees toward the other side of the river. While I am happy with the shot for all the reasons everyone notes, I am not thrilled with it. Still a keeper though and might even make my wall.

Again thanks to all for their comments and viewpoints.

Rachel

[Stephen Earle]

First of all, congrats on a fine image. The timing is excellent and the composition is fine as is in my view.

I agree however on the colour of the bear here as it does look a bit unnatural. It seems, on my monitor, that there is a slight halo around the bear (noticable underneath the tail). Could this be due to selecting the bear and then running a s/h adjustment?

As to the strength of the image I agree with Artie. A question I always ask myself is : "If I had to paint or draw this scene would I have done it with this way?".

In this instance, I'm sure you'll agree, if you had to draw it, you would have included a better head angle.

[Rachel Hollander]

Thanks Stephan. No selective s/h and I'm pretty sure that's not a halo (it's that way in the RAW file) but the bear's tail just happens to coincide with the start of the rushing water. Thanks again,

Rachel

[Stephen Earle]

Thanks for clearing that up Rachel.