Cheetah

[Hilary Hann]

Seen on one of our last days in the Mara, shortly after this she moved into a shady spot with her sub adult cub.
7D; 100-400 @ 400; 400ISO 1/800; f8

[Grant Atkinson]

Hi Hilary, nice perspective you have obtained here, also like the BG. Cheetah techs look good, colour in the cats left eye is good. I like the strong shape created by the cheetah's back against the green grass. I would try to get a bit more detail out of the cheetahs right eye if this were mine. And of course, just my preference but if she perked her ears up for some reason perhaps you got a shot...
TFS
Grant

[tiziano cei]

great one hilary, i like it :S3:

[Dumay de Boulle]

Love the crop here Hilary...very nice IQ and the light and contrast between the Cat and the grass work nicely...Very nice image

[Morkel Erasmus]

I like the pose here Hilary...sure is some sweet light too
I love their eye colour - agree with Grant it might be worth working on that shaded eye some more.

[Hilary Hann]

Thanks everyone. Grant and Morkel, I had worked on the eye and thought I had achieved a really nice result … until I looked at the image as a whole and the cheetah suddenly looked like the devil. I'm not sure why. The colour was correct, it looked balanced with the other one, but she looked evil. So what I did I'm not sure but I just couldn't post it. Maybe I'll try again.

[Harshad Barve]

Excellent capture Hilary , liked it as posted
TFS

[Rachel Hollander]

Hilary - I like the pose and comp. I agree it's nice to have her on the pleasing green bg.

TFS,
Rachel

[Russell Johnson]

Hilary,

Good light here.

I would prefer a little more eye contact with the camera. I also feel a little more space around the image, particularly on the LHS would work slightly better from a composition perspective.

In terms of photographic style, I was wondering what your overall approach was to the image?

To me this image could be from a zoo/animal park, rather than Africa. There are no elements that get me imagining this cheetah is in the African wilderness.

I think it is the affect of there only being short green grass. Perhaps a wider perspective that screams Africa would work better for me.

[Hilary Hann]

Thanks Harshad and Rachel.

Russell, interesting observation. It could apply to any of the close up portraits shown to us here on BPN, I guess. If the ground is dusty and the grass dry and brown is it more 'Africa' than lush green?

I don't think I know what it is exactly that you ask. Is it not ok to show a side of Africa that is there for anyone to see, just because it isn't dry and dusty? To me, this is a pleasant image of a cheetah sitting in the grass, nothing more or less. Eye contact is one of the least important factors in a wildlife image (to me) because the photographer should be a seemless part of the wilderness, not a focus of the animal. It is a view I don't expect to be shared by many. I probably post my fair share of environmental images here, which aren't to the taste of everyone, but I don't feel confined to any one type of approach, only that it shouldn't be intrusive.

So my focus here, or my intent? A cheetah on a little green mound of short grass, surrounded by more green grass. Not a tree or bush in the vicinity. Just a portrait really. Not sure what else to say, don't think I gave it much thought at the time.
Cheers

[Russell Johnson]

Thanks Harshad and Rachel.

Russell, interesting observation. It could apply to any of the close up portraits shown to us here on BPN, I guess. If the ground is dusty and the grass dry and brown is it more 'Africa' than lush green?

I don't think I know what it is exactly that you ask. Is it not ok to show a side of Africa that is there for anyone to see, just because it isn't dry and dusty? To me, this is a pleasant image of a cheetah sitting in the grass, nothing more or less. Eye contact is one of the least important factors in a wildlife image (to me) because the photographer should be a seemless part of the wilderness, not a focus of the animal. It is a view I don't expect to be shared by many. I probably post my fair share of environmental images here, which aren't to the taste of everyone, but I don't feel confined to any one type of approach, only that it shouldn't be intrusive.

So my focus here, or my intent? A cheetah on a little green mound of short grass, surrounded by more green grass. Not a tree or bush in the vicinity. Just a portrait really. Not sure what else to say, don't think I gave it much thought at the time.
Cheers

Hilary,

I am not saying that Africa images have to conform to 'brown and dusty'. I have spent many months enjoying the green season. My point on the short green grass was more to do with it looking like a manicured lawn of a zoo, than the Mara.

Yes, that is what the Mara looked like, but my point on photographic style was trying to figure why you took the image.

I want to give an honest critique on the image....as you asked in the 'Tight or Wide' thread for people to explain why the image does not work.

You wanted an image of;

'A cheetah on a little green mound of short grass, surrounded by more green grass.'

I feel the image does not work as a tighter portrait. Eye contact would be better, creating an intimacy between you and your subject. It does not mean that your subject has to be staring at you, but have that gaze which creates a degree of intensity.

Grant's Mombo lion image is set in a similar scene, though the image conveys a story through it's behaviour and gaze. (An example of BPN of how tight portraits don't have to be 'Brown and Dusty')

It could work as an environmental portrait as I have already mentioned. I do not feel the subject is strong enough as a stand alone, though as part of the wider environment, it could.

In terms of photographic style, I guess my question was more directed at 'what story do you want your image to tell?' - rather than shooting environmental or tight portrait.

[Hilary Hann]

Thanks Russell, now I understand the context of the question.

[Ken Watkins]

I have looked at this several times, but find it difficult to comment on without seeming to some at least to be accusative or belittleing.

But I will give it a go anyway.

There is insufficient head lift, the eyes have insufficient clarity , a lot of the whites are overexposed, it does not look sharp enough on my monitor, and the pose is nothing out of the ordinary, sorry but that is my view.

[Hilary Hann]

I have looked at this several times, but find it difficult to comment on without seeming to some at least to be accusative or belittleing.

But I will give it a go anyway.

There is insufficient head lift, the eyes have insufficient clarity , a lot of the whites are overexposed, it does not look sharp enough on my monitor, and the pose is nothing out of the ordinary, sorry but that is my view.

Ken, I know that it will come as some surprise to you but it is not always necessary to post a comment, especially if, as you say you find it difficult to do so without coming across as belittling someone’s work.

I wonder if you consider some of the new members to this site who may be debating whether to make their first wildlife post or not. If they saw this sort of comment they would probably go elsewhere as you have offered nothing constructive at all. So you don’t like it, fine, but are your comments at all helpful?

You have one view and you are quite entitled to it, but I am sure that there are many members here who, when faced with images they don’t like, refrain from commenting unless they can offer the photographer some good advice on how to improve the image in post production or in capture.

[Jay Gould]

Hilary, I think Ken's comments are exactly what we need more of on BPN. If I had my way everyone would be "straight". That is the only way we are going to improve.

If you wanted a softer critique, you could have posted in the ETL forum. ETL accepts all subjects and the critiques are gentle compared to the Avian, Landscape, and Wildlife.

Gosh, I want my images to be beat up.

We all like to hear "great image"; however, have you ever looked at how many times all that is said is "great image" without any critique why it is a great image or what is wrong/could be made better critique.

You may not like what Ken has said however for someone to take the time in face of the comments and say, basically, it is soft, is very important.

What the ****, I was going to say something along the same lines and Ken posted while I was thinking, and I was going to add that the eyes, because you do not see the iris, are very important in this image because they set the tone of a leopard falling off to sleep, or - and I do not know if you can - sharpen them enough to result in an alert leopard.

In some ways what I perceive as softness goes along with the falling asleep leopard. My sense of the image is of a very relaxed leopard in side of a very relaxed overall image.

[Hilary Hann]

What the ****, I was going to say something along the same lines and Ken posted while I was thinking, and I was going to add that the eyes, because you do not see the iris, are very important in this image because they set the tone of a leopard falling off to sleep, or - and I do not know if you can - sharpen them enough to result in an alert leopard.

In some ways what I perceive as softness goes along with the falling asleep leopard. My sense of the image is of a very relaxed leopard in side of a very relaxed overall image.

Jay, it is obviously very soft on your monitor, it is a cheetah not a leopard and I am more than happy with constructive criticism as you would have seen on many occasions.

[Jay Gould]

Hilary, you are a very fine photographer and you and a lot of us know it. And yes, you are "more than happy with constructive criticism". That is why I was very surprised at your reaction to Ken.

[Ken Watkins]

Jay,

Thanks for your support in this matter, I agree entirely with your position that there is a lot of "soft" critiquing going on.

Hilary,

Why do you think what I said is "not constructive", IMHO my criticism is easily understood the image has to my eyes the "faults" mentioned. If you wish to read something else into it that is your choice not my intention. I hope that your sarcastic response to Jay is removed by the moderators as it has IMHO no place on this forum.

[Steve Kaluski]

Ladies & gentlemen we are going off topic here. If you wish to discuss this particular subject further, then please feel free to start a new topic in General.

Thank you

[Ken Watkins]

Steve,

I am at a loss to understand which comments you consider to be "off topic" they all seem to me at least to be relating to the critiques made on the image in question and posters views on the comments made by others.

Do you believe that a seperate thread should be started to discuss the "standards" of critiquing or in some cases the total absence of it?

[Harshad Barve]

Can I post a comment you guys allows me :w3

[Jay Gould]

Yes from me but up to Steve. He is the moderator.

I happen to find the subject of the extent of a critique very important. There are lots of this type of discussion in the Photographic forum.

Steve, you could move all of the "off topic" comments to the Photographic forum under a subject: The extent of critiquing; what is appropriate?

Cheers,

[Steve Kaluski]

Ken, as you know this is a critique forum where comments that are constructive, polite, or general advice etc is welcome. My concerns that this was going off topic was with the introduction of how we should say it, with the comment 'straight'. This is not the right Forum or thread on how we should reply, hence my reply.

Ken/Jay if you feel that commenting is 'soft' or have any other views or thoughts on this, then please feel free to contact James with your views.

Therefore, please keep any further comments to critique of the post in the manner set out in the Guidelines.

Thank you.

[Ken Watkins]

Steve,

Thanks for your explanation as to your reasoning, I am glad it was not anything that I said. Nonetheless I think the use of the word straight by Jay is entirely appropriate in the context of his post.
I would have preferred to send this by PM but as you are fully aware this service is denied to me.

[Steve Kaluski]

Thank you Ken for your understanding in this matter and appreciate your reply. As I said, if either you or Jay wish to debate this further, then please feel free to contact James with your thoughts & views.

Steve :S3:

[Jay Gould]

Steve, I do not know why you have a problem with my saying critiques should be "straight". I have written to James and asked him to have a read. I would rather hear what James has to say before I start a thread: Are "straight" critiques permitted?

Thanks for you understanding.

[Robert Amoruso]

Steve,

I am at a loss to understand which comments you consider to be "off topic" they all seem to me at least to be relating to the critiques made on the image in question and posters views on the comments made by others.

Do you believe that a seperate thread should be started to discuss the "standards" of critiquing or in some cases the total absence of it?

Ken,

When I first started moderating this forum a common comment I made was regarding background distractions. As OP's commented that they were constrained due to being in game vehicles, or restricted to roads in Africa and similar places (places I have not been), I came to realize that such comments needed to be caveated with a phrase such as "if it were possible", etc.

I bring this up as you have been a vocal opponent of criticisms related to background distractions, though and on more then one occasion, I have seen you make criticisms related to back ground distractions.

My point is you can not have it both ways. If you want a forum with pointed criticisms then you can't make excuses, either for your own work or that of others. You also can't turn the tables as well and then mention background distractions for one person and not another.

To answer your question above, your first sentence in your original post was "off-topic" and uncalled for. The critique was not.

Subsequently, this thread is straying from critiquing the image at hand and critiquing the critiques. If you are so inclined, go start that thread in GP and link it here in your response. But that is as far as it goes.

Thank you.

[Robert Amoruso]

Steve, I do not know why you have a problem with my saying critiques should be "straight". I have written to James and asked him to have a read. I would rather hear what James has to say before I start a thread: Are "straight" critiques permitted?

Thanks for you understanding.

Why wait, I suggest you go start it. And to answer your question, that is what this site is all about.

[Ken Watkins]

Robert,

You may consider the first part of my original post "off-topic", but it is there for a purpose, as I am sure you are aware, these generalised "accusations" have been made against me and as yet no evidence has been provided to me.

I cannot comment as to whether I have made "contradictory" comments on distractions in the BG as I have no acess to my prior posts, I am sure that my comments on "distractions" will be different and will of course depend on the original image.

Once again I apologise for the "hijacking" of this thread but I have no alternative.

[Robert Amoruso]

Actually Ken you do have a choice, don't hijack it. And James explained the situation with the PM'ing to you so there is no reason to continually bring it up here.

Any further discussion on this aspect and not a critique of the image is off-topic.

[James Shadle]

Ken,
Jay's comments were off topic. His comments were not a critique, rather a comment on the "quality" of your critique.

There is insufficient head lift, perhaps the eyes have insufficient clarity what? , a lot of the whites are overexposed comparing the image to our calibration strip, the whites look fine, it does not look sharp enough on my monitor looks sharp enough on my monitor, and the pose is nothing out of the ordinary, sorry but that is my view.

The word critique is not defined as pointing out negatives. If someone offers a critique to help a fellow photographer, that critique will include both negative and positive elements of the image being critiqued.

I am closing this thread.
All concerned, please tread lightly.