Another Lazy Lion
Captured this guy in the Addo Elephant National Park last month. They had very full bellies and were just trying to lounge around in the early morning sunlight.
I played around with a blue-ish toning here and kind of liked it.
Techs:
Canon 7D with 100-400mm @ 130mm
f7.1 @ 1/200 SS @ ISO-800
Exp +0.3
Fill flash used
Interesting use of toning, but it makes it appear quite contrasty which may be the intention. Certainly has a full belly. Not sure how I feel about the missing rear legs, but love the facial expression.
One question though, I've seen you mention that you no longer will consider cloning or other alterations as you want the image to be as real as possible. What is there is there. I can appreciate this attitude and many of the wildlife photographers consider this important. My question is this, how does toning … b&w, sepia or other of these alterations fit with the depiction of nature as it is? I don't personally have a problem with removing unsightly or intrusive sticks for instance. In the above image I would have removed the V shaped, bright sticks by the lions head but would not suggest it given your stated preferences. How does colour not also become a part of the reality of the image.
Me? I'll do what I have to to achieve the vision I have, so it doesn't phase me. I know the big wildlife competitions have strict rules on this but will accept b&w, I just wonder where we have to draw the line at what is real and what isn't. I hope that wordy question makes sense. Personally, I really like b&w images, especially of wildlife as it makes you consider the design and composition of the image more than the vibrancy of any colours involved. :)
These guys are insanely lazy :D:D:D I have seen 9 males but all of them were sleeping all the time
Nice conversion Morkelbhai but may be more of OOTB stuff
TFS
I am with Hilary here, whilst I do not mind experimentation I fail to see how this is any different from minor gardening.
Harshad,
That's why we call a group of Lions a "Lounge" rather than a "Pride", movement is usually very limited throughout the day.:D
thanks for the feedback guys...
I DO see the difference. Changing the colour to a monotone/duotone reflects in some way the only way photos could be captured when photography started out...and some people are in fact colourblind so I don't see the line you're drawing between cloning/gardening and colour space conversions. The fact that major competitions allow B&W but not cloning should be an indicator of how the professional photographic community at large views this subject. Competitions like the BBC WPOTY only allow B&W photos in that specific category - yet they won't allow cloning out of branches or protruding rocks etc.
Here's my stance on the cloning/gardening issue. Often times when I'm going for an artistic feel like a black/white/sepia canvas print I won't mind cloning things out to make the image more simplistic, as such an image serves an artistic purpose...but for natural-history shots (which in my mind could be monochrome or in colour) I prefer keeping things as I saw them in the field. I don't look down on people who do cloning as it takes a great amount of skill to do and each one to his own. I will still patch out a dust spot or minor distraction - I just don't want to remove a twig or rock that was part of the natural scene the animal found itself in. If I can't get into a position that gives me a view of the shot without that element, so be it. Another reason for this is, now I can safely go back to any of my high-res TIFF files I process from RAW when entering into competitions or magazines and be assured that there's no way they can nail me if something is less-than-desirably cloned and I might have forgotten that I did "gardening" on the shot.
And yes Hilary I more often than not opt for higher contrast in my conversions...it's just how I like it, can't explain why...monochrome with too little contrast looks plain bland and boring to me. :)
Morkel,
Whist I realise this is not the place to debate what you should or should not do, I feel that using BBC rules a a guidline is a poor standard, just look at the recent winners, a fake and a photo taken by somebody who was not there. What sort of standards are these?
It is of course your choice, but I have to say the majority of professional photographers that I have met would not admit to what they do under any circumstances.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it. "
Ansel Adams
Hi Morkel, appreciate the honest response and certainly not trying to undermine your photo ethics, you take fine images. I find it an interesting topic. My feelings are more along the lines of what we, as photographers are trying to achieve so I'm always looking for some balance between reality, science fiction, art, pedestrian record shots. They all have their place, it is just interesting to find out where each person thinks that place is.
I have to agree with Ken's summation of recent BBC awards, the quality of last year's was some way below the exhibition I viewed a few years ago. I was under whelmed by IQ, interest of subject and artistic merit.
I do agree with increasing contrast for a bit more zing, I just felt this went a bit further than you normally go.
I tend to disagree with the b&w versus gardening argument. Just because it was once the only way to take an image doesn't make it 'real'. Just because wildlife comps allow it doesn't make it anymore worthy. But I love b&w images so keep them coming ... it was just a point I was interested in debating.
thanks for the response Ken and Hilary
I used the BBC as an example - you will find the same standards on any major competition (Nature's Best, etc)...regarding the BBC WPOTY, while I do get that people are disappointed by last year's wolf-photo charade...it shouldn't make us brand the entire competition with a long legacy...shucks if I stopped watching cricket because of the Hansie Cronje match-fixing scandal (feeling that it's all a hoax and now a disgraced sport) I would be all the poorer for it.
Ken - I have read that article which claims that Ansel also cloned out houses in some of his natural landscapes, I do still think everyone has to make up his own mind in this regard. Like I said - I don't blast people who do use cloning in any and every shot...maybe subconsciously it was my laziness that made me make that decision ;), but I am comfortable with my approach now and if anything it motivates me to get it right in-camera.
For example, when someone tells me to remove a "distracting" out-of-focus rock in the background behind the subject, wouldn't it be better then to go and get a tame animal and place it in front of a green screen and drop in the background you would have liked to see it in front of? Niagra Falls perhaps? I know it's a reduction to absurdity, but sometimes the suggestions for cloning/gardening/removing come for a lot of petty things which IMHO were part of the scene I enjoyed, the scene I took in with all my senses (smell, sight, sounds), and the scene I want to record. Maybe I'll change my mind in a few months or years and start creating Photoshop artworks akin to some of the amazing stuff you see on advertisments and DeviantArt forums...maybe I'll stick with how I do it now...it's just where I am now and I like it, for now :).
Hi Morkel, I am going to look at the image and not step into the 'ring/arena' regarding 'cloning, gardening, etc', as we all have our own views and this has been covered in the past and I am sure it will raise it's head again in the future.
Personally I don't think the treatment or the 'high' contrast has enhanced the image, it's just too strong, nor do I feel the comp works particularly well for me. It looks also as if you have added some film grain to it, or is that just high contrast? It would be useful to include the original colour when posting something like this in the same thread rather than as an additional so readers can compare. I know you like to experiment and at times have very strong views which is good, but I feel perhaps going less strong in contrast (retaining more subtle detail), keep to B/W and an alternative crop (????) might be better.
Sadly 'Fat sleepy Lions' (FSL) are ones to avoid, as they just convey exactly that to me.
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Hi Morkel,
It was mentioned that the lions are sleeping a lot so I find the "what are you bother me for" look of the lion amusing. I would have preferred to see the full lion however and if circumstances were such that you could have photographed the back end too in a separate image, you could have stiched them together. I do that a lot with my bear images as we can't run around getting the perfect composition and many times I am too close to frame the scene in its entirety.
I think this works well with the B&W and for my taste normally prefer a lot of tonal separation and contrast in B&W images. Though I don't dislike the blue toning here; gives it a old-time photo-look, I don't feel I prefer it here over a straight B&W version.
Like Steve, the debate about cloning / gardening have all been covered and will be again again....so the image..
I think I have commented before on your choice of images to be converted in B&W which I feel is the main problem again... but its all subjective and if your happy with it then that is all that matters...with regard to the treatment I totally agree with Steve s assessment...way too contrasty and something funny going on with the eyes.. Sorry Morkel ... Really feel that you should be more particular which images you use ..... I believe that is probably the hardest thing for photographers... to do ..
sorry if this seem s negative, just my honest critique...
looking forward to seeing one of your images in Oct;)
peter
Harshad bahi,Originally Posted by Harshad Barve
Then you got to see polar bears. I saw one bear sleeping for two straight days.
Don't tell me this , this will only add my passion for Tigers :)
thanks for the honset feedback guys.
Peter - I do hear your objections...and I do value your input. In my mind this screamed for a conversion due to the colours not really adding that much for me, and also the tonal range. There are bright whites and dark blacks and a lot in between, and the monochrome enhances the texture of the foliage around the lion and the fur/features and facial expression of the lion itself. Given there are no strong "leading lines" or significant textures, so it won't be a high-impact B&W like some of my other shots and many of yours too...but the motivation for conversion here wasn't for the same reason as the wildebeest or the cheetah on the ridge. I did nothing to the eyes?
Robert - I have yet to try the wildlife-stitching technique you do so well, have to wait for the perfect opportunity. Here his backside was lying behind another bush, so I framed to exclude it.
Reply With Quote
