Big Yawn

[Morkel Erasmus]

This lioness was waking up from her late afternoon nap in the Kalahari desert. She was lying on the slope of a dune next to the road, which afforded me this unique angle from my vehicle.

Taken in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. The sun had set behind this dune so the light was soft but fading fast.

I know some will bemoan the twigs sticking out of the sand in the background, but you know how I feel about cloning in my own "natural history" images. :)

Techs:
Canon 7D with 100-400mm L IS USM @ 350mm
f7.1 @ 1/640 SS @ ISO-640
Exposure bias +1

[Robert Amoruso]

Morkel,

I think the diagonal slope she is laying on and her diagonal position help to make this image compositionally pleasing.

[denise ippolito]

I love the open mouth and sharp details. I do feel the stick is mildly distracting. It is a pleasing composition as Robert has stated.

[Harshad Barve]

nice yawn & compo here
TFS

[DanWalters]

Nice angle and the yawn really emphasizes the teeth!

[Hilary Hann]

Like the POV and the diagonal composition. The flies are great, makes it feel real. BUT I don't like the big stick in the background whether its nature or not, it is distracting and unless it is going into a natural history style awards competition would be far better removed (IMHO). Painlessly. For me, if I was looking through a stock library (for instance) wanting a yawning lion for some ad campaign and I had one with stick and one without stick, I'd buy the one without the stick. So I don't see the point of leaving the stick in. I'm happy to have someone point out to me the advantages of leaving the stick in, but this is such an easy one to remove that I just don't see the point. :2

Respect your decision Morkel, as always, but I just don't see what it achieves in this case. (Not suggesting major cleaning up of bush backgrounds, of course.) Not trying to be argumentative either. :eek:

[Steve Canuel]

Agree with Robert's comments here and I also like the yawn. Would personally like to see a little more definition in the BG bushes as it looks a little too blurred when compared with the sharpness of the lioness. I see you have the same uncooperative flies that Harshad had :bg3:

[Rachel Hollander]

Morkel - Interesting POV and nice comp. I like the detail down to the taste buds on the tongue. I think the flies add to the image.

TFS,
Rachel

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks for the comments everyone...

Steve - it does not appear that way but the BG slope was a little bit further into the BG, which is why it is more OOF :)

Hilary - I understand your argument...when preparing images for stock usage I would actually consider cloning out distracting elements. It's got more to do with my "image as a photographer of the natural world", so I have just made a decision to refrain from doing that with images that depict the scene as I actually saw it, especially when posted on forums or my personal portfolio.

Like I said, I don't mind doing it in cases of artistic presentations (e.g. if I were to do a sepia conversion here and clone out the twig and burn the entire BG to make it high key).

[Steve Canuel]

Thanks for the reply and clarification Morkel.

[Hilary Hann]

Thanks Morkel, makes perfect sense.

[Ken Watkins]

Respect your decision Morkel, as always, but I just don't see what it achieves in this case. (Not suggesting major cleaning up of bush backgrounds, of course.) :eek:

Bit late on this but I must say I agree entirely with the above.

[Vivaldo Damilano]

I also have to agree with the above comments. I would think twice:w3 I love this shot, the slope adds very nicely to the comp and great show of teeth TFS:cheers::cheers:

[Todd Frost]

Lovely image Morkel. Love the comp and yawn of the lioness. Well exposed with good sharpness. I agree with the thought of removal of the sticks growing from lioness and also respect your decision for non removal, it's your image afterall.
Not sure I really understand your pov on this comment though "Like I said, I don't mind doing it in cases of artistic presentations (e.g. if I were to do a sepia conversion here and clone out the twig and burn the entire BG to make it high key)." Myself I don't see any difference in removal and leaving it in color or removal and doing a sepia tone, the sepia tone does not make it any more artistic than the color version IMHO. Unless you are a photojournalist it is all art (read artistic) and minor clean ups in b/w, toned, high key (bg burning) or color are one in the same. It takes this very well done image into a far superior image in my opinion. Well done.
TFS
Todd

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks for the compelling discussion, folks.

Todd - believe me I do get where you're coming from and indeed it is art...yet I believe wildlife and nature photography is also about the art of "being in the right spot at the right time" and for me it's about capturing moments in nature that I can share "as shot" with viewers, save for when editing with a specific view in mind.

For me, the vegetation on the dune here is part-and-parcel of the Kalahari scenery...much like in Ken Watkins' leopard portrait where I commented that the thicket behind the cat didn't really bother me as that's where we often find them...they are just not always (rarely, in fact) in front of a perfectly blank scene against which to depict them.

My comment wasn't per se about "sepia conversion" but let's use that as an example. For me, a normal sepia conversion would look something like this (very quick conversion done - so bear with me)...

[Morkel Erasmus]

now...if my fellow mods will forgive me posting another image in quick succession...I believe it forms part of the discussion here...

now by "artistic sepia conversion" I meant something like this, where I cleaned up the background nicely (also a quick job!) and did an "old-school" conversion on it using Nik Silver Efex, vignette and all. Here I allow myself the freedom to use photoshop as my "paintbrush" simply because I have a different vision in mind for the photo.

this is of course my viewpoint and I am not inclined to even try and influence others' perception of how to apply and practice their particular view of photography as an art-form...:bg3:

would love some more of your thoughts here?

[Todd Frost]

Thanks for elaborating on this Morkel. I totally get where you are coming from and I myself try not to remove much that was in the scene originally. It's a line that everyone of us must draw for ourselves based on what we are comfortable with. In my opinion on a scene like this you can do some housekeepng without losing the reality of what you saw if that makes sense. For instance I know of some photographers who would not have left the flies in this image and treated them like they were dust bunnies, would that have altered the scene really? Lion still lying in same position with same yawn, same bg ... just no flies. I'm not trying to change anyones mind here as I respect everyones right to do as they will with their images. Just some interesting thoughts. Your explanation of a different vision for the image sums it up perfectly for me and I thank you for putting it so well.
By the way your old school conversion would have some merit if you wanted to take the time to work it that way, not that the quick version is bad at all :bg3:. As I stated in my original post this is a very well done image and I for one would love to have it in my files as well as your old school conversion. Hope I made osme sense with what I am trying to say here.

Todd

[Hilary Hann]

Morkel, thanks for taking the time and effort to explain your thinking and for the reposts. Todd also makes good points here.
To take it a bit further. With Ken's image the background was bush with bits and pieces of sticks here and there and I felt was entirely in keeping with the location and the environment and therefore, would not have considered removal.
With this very nice image of a lion, you have sand and in the background you can see the desert type of scrub softly but not intrusively. So you have your environment and it doesn't detract from the lion. My issue is with the two black sticks poking out of the lion's back. They don't add to the composition and they don't give more feeling to the environment above and beyond the atmosphere given by the nice scrub in the background.
So where is the truth in photography and where is it necessary? If you have a good portrait of a wild animal and show beautifully the environment in which you find it, where is the need to have ugly sticks poking out of the animal? If getting the right location and composition is so important to get in camera, and if a bit of gardening is not considered part of showing the animal in its environment is it time that we decide to 'not press the shutter' when all the cards haven't fallen into place?
My concern is that the pendulum will swing too far the other way. When any sort of tidying up will be frowned upon and an image will lose credibility when it shouldn't in fact be penalised at all. All professional and semi-professional photographers are taking their images for a reason and the end product and where it will be sold or exhibited should determine (obviously) how it is produced. So there are extremes such as the WPOTY where you just know that you can't do any cloning or tidying up … would you enter an image such as this where there are niggling sticks? I doubt it. Would you put in a stock library … that's been discussed and you have said that it would have to be cleaned up for that purpose. For an artistic representation you would clean up the sticks, as you've shown in the final repost. So my question is this, for what purpose would the sticks need to stay in the image to satisfy which market?

Lastly, my purpose of using Morkel's image for this argument is that he is willing to talk about his thinking when many don't, he has successful art and competition images so must have addressed this issue many times and this lion is very easy to discuss and will make it easier for a novice wildlife photographer to understand, perhaps, some of the arguments surrounding this vexed issue.

If it is only surrounding the credibility of the photographer him/herself, then that is a different issue and there are probably many here who clean up images without disclosing that fact so we would never know and really I can't see that it matters one way or the other. When it does matter, raw files are required and that is as it should be.

I nearly always leave flies in, by the way! :S3:

Artistic expression is another ball game altogether and I feel has little to do with cloning or other such PP techniques but more about seeing something beyond what is in your face. Very much a personal thing, as I've found out. :w3

Morkel, I really love your final repost … fantastic!

[Morkel Erasmus]

thanks for the feedback and good discussion Todd and Hilary...

in the end we can all learn from each other, even if it's just that no 2 perspectives on "art" is ever the same :)

will devote some more time to make something of this last conversion :bg3:

[Hilary Hann]

will devote some more time to make something of this last conversion :bg3:

Look forward to seeing it, hope you post your efforts.:S3: