# Kissin' Cousins



## bulldurham (Nov 25, 2016)




----------



## ZombiesniperJr (Nov 25, 2016)

Nice shot


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2016)

Yeah, nice shot indeed.


----------



## kap55 (Nov 25, 2016)

Once in a lifetime shot... and you nailed it.


----------



## WesternGuy (Nov 25, 2016)

Nice capture - right place, right time.  How long were you watching these two before this happened?

WesternGuy


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 25, 2016)

They were on a closing course with one another. I think this might have been a mother and her yearling as they continued to interact with one another. I was going to post this one instead and title it: 

"Listen, Do You Want to Know a Secret."


----------



## WesternGuy (Nov 26, 2016)

The second one is good too. Always interesting to watch a mother and her young interact.  I get to see a lot of that on my trips to Africa when I watch a lion pride frolic on the Savannah.

WesternGuy


----------



## Didereaux (Nov 26, 2016)

Cousins?  Must have taken that in the Ozarks someplace.


----------



## baturn (Nov 26, 2016)

Great stuff!


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Nov 26, 2016)

I like the second as much as he first. Nice set.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2016)

Am I missing something, or is the cute factor over looking the lack of framing and distracting background. I get that you have to take a shot like this when and where it happens, but as an art-object, I don't get what all the fuss is about.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 28, 2016)

These aren't shot in a zoo. To get this shot I have to hike into areas loaded with Water Moccasins and rather large and aggressive alligators. I do bide my time to some degree and having shot many deer interacting, I do know what to look for in their behavior patterns but there are no guarantees. I take the shot when it presents itself and that moment is always fleeting. You don't get to choose your backgrounds and most often have to shoot from farther out than you would like to stay upwind so framing is always an issue. Art object is a bit odd to use as a descriptor of a wildlife shot. This isn't like shooting a still life or a portrait where you can control every aspect of the shot.  Come down here, hike into the swamp, make the same shot and show me a better way. I'm always open to suggestions.


----------



## Achaicus (Nov 29, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Am I missing something, or is the cute factor over looking the lack of framing and distracting background. I get that you have to take a shot like this when and where it happens, but as an art-object, I don't get what all the fuss is about.



Yes, the drive to make every image about art leaves you blind to how something can be interesting as documentation. I'd think less of this image if I learned that he'd deleted a telephone pole "coming out of the deer's head".


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2016)

Achaicus said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Am I missing something, or is the cute factor over looking the lack of framing and distracting background. I get that you have to take a shot like this when and where it happens, but as an art-object, I don't get what all the fuss is about.
> ...



That is an interesting point I hadn't really considered. However, I think there do have to be aesthetic standards before we're willing to give the level of praise we're seeing here.

In my view of things what you had to do in the swamp doesn't matter to me. I can appreciate that, but it really does not play into whether or not the image is successful or not - whether you 'nailed it' or not. There's truly excellent wildlife images out there, and I am sure you have a few yourself - but this, despite your efforts, isn't there in my opinion.

But likewise, this isn't a statement on your skill or anything like that - only on the image itself. Perhaps under the circumstances it requires a lot of skill to achieve, but I don't really critique on skill level or difficulty of the shot. That's admirable. But it not the photograph I'm critiquing, but rather of the photographer.


----------



## Achaicus (Nov 29, 2016)

This image shows relationship, interaction. This photo isn't great art, true, but it draws a response in a similar way that Nick Vujicic does in his inspirational speaking. He's less than beautiful physically but he is in spite of that.

This isn't as emotionally tugging as Nick can be but that's why the picture/s are appealing.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2016)

Fair enough. Though I find the background and framing distracting nonetheless; and unlike the Nick Vujicic analogy, this lack of framing does not contribute to the concept that you find appealing.


----------



## Achaicus (Nov 29, 2016)

Not everything beautiful can be seen, and sometimes the contrast between (visual) ugliness and something beautiful makes the beautiful stand out more. The beauty here is hinted at, since you can't see a relationship directly. I for the longest time couldn't understand how someone could see a tree like Methuselah the bristlecone pine and see beauty in it. All I saw was evidence of death and destruction and mourned that. Those that see beauty find it in the hope of life that is hanging on, beaten but not extinguished. These two deer didn't meet up in a visual paradise, but that didn't stop them from keeping their relationship going. You see distractions, I see hope and that for some is more beautiful because of the distractions.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2016)

Sounds like an excuse.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 29, 2016)

The fun thing about nature photography, or more to the point, wildlife photography for me is that the image should reflect nature as it is happening. It is not always perfect but when I shoot, it is real. I don't remove offending bushes, or pretty much anything else. I record what I see. Not everyone will like it. Such is life.


----------



## Achaicus (Nov 29, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Sounds like an excuse.



It is possible to not like something and understand why someone else would like it. 

You asked why this shot is liked in spite of it's visual flaws. I tried to answer why I like it and my reaction, my opinion is not an excuse. I like it because of things you stated you hadn't considered.  

I agree with you, visually the framing and background are distracting. I don't like it because of what I see, I like it because of what I understand. If you don't understand that's ok.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2016)

No I get it. I'm just saying that the image is the mode which we connect with the subject and as an image - as what I am *seeing* - it's not perfect, IMO it hasn't been 'nailed'. There are elements here that detract from what is not seen. At this point though we're going in circles.

@bulldurham It's clear that we do not share the same aesthetic here, and that's OK. But honestly, I just don't think you can say that this image is worthy of the kind of applause it has received. If it were a landscape, I don't think the argument "I take it the way I see it" would necessarily work. I can appreciate it's the best you could do under the circumstances - but again, that says something about the circumstances, but not the image. Clearly judging by the ratings on this thread my evaluation is not in the majority, though, critique is expected when posting to these forums and so I offered it. If you're happy with these results, then I suppose that's fine - clearly others are as well. I hope I hadn't offended you, this wasn't really my intention.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 30, 2016)

If I didn't think the image was worth some applause or critique,  I wouldn't have posted it. Nailing the shot is a bit of a dichotomy in most cases. I would say on this forum, "nailed" shots comprise of about 1% of everything posted. Show me a shot you've absolutely nailed and I'll find you at least three or four members who will disagree. "Nailing" the "Moment," however is a horse of a different color and that's what most of us strive to achieve given that a photograph is a record of one singular moment in time and to that degree in situation. Even a well lit, well set, well exposed portrait in a studio setting is still just one moment and with all the known factors accounted for, I can find flaws in most everyone I see.  If your aesthetic is only to find flaws in a piece, this forum, like all others is loaded with flawed images.

Most of HCB's work is flawed in one way or another but it is that capture of the moment that we admire and seek to emulate, the technical flaws inherent in the image notwithstanding. Ansel Adams created some of the most technically perfect images ever made and while most are quite aesthetically pleasing, they are most admired for the exposure and processing. Dorothea Lange, one of my photographic hero's work on a purely technical level are processing disasters. Blacks are clogged, whites blown, distracting backgrounds, the list goes on but it is the moment, the emotional connection she made with her subjects that we cherish and in her case, even more so than HCB or Ansel Adams, she was shooting a 4x5 Graphlex view camera so her circumstance, like my own it is as much as a part of the image as is the shot made.

Therefore, I cannot find anything in your comments to agree with.

dorothea lange camera format - Google Search


----------



## unpopular (Nov 30, 2016)

If the framing distracts me as a viewer from the subject (either the abstract or the objective), then I consider that a problem with the image. You say you're open to criticism, but if this is something you cannot accept then what is there to critique?

I do not crique the subject or the circumstances, because this is not what the photographer is responsible for. I critique the captured image, of which the moment is only one element. I also don't believe in superlatives in aesthetics. My philosophy is that everything has equal importance, from the technical, to the aesthetic to the conceptual - all has equal importance. 

So sure, here you captured a moment, but the way it was captured distracts me from that moment. It's a flaw, and I offered criticism on that flaw. You can agree with me or not, but you cannot deny me of what I'm seeing here.

As a side note that is totally unrelated, she actually used a 4x5 SLR, a Graflex RB Series D by the looks of it. I've owned and used an RB Series B as well as a view camera. These cameras are actually pretty fast to use, and a lot of fun, one of my favorite systems. It's not a view camera, however, and the experience is very different.


----------



## Achaicus (Nov 30, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Snip
> 
> but the way it was captured distracts me from that moment.
> 
> Snip



To risk (gently) stepping on Bulldurham's toes, since it is his thread not mine and because he did state "I'm always open to suggestions." 

You've stated something that is so general you could mean you wish he had used a gun, stuffed them, mounted them, built a diorama to best display the pair and photographed that, or it could be something simple like I wish the background was more out of focus or it is cropped like this. His shots are ok to edit if you want to be more specific.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 30, 2016)

I am happy with your philosophy though it is quite obvious I do not agree with it and we could beat this into a dead horse. I too have used all the cameras she used and I did know it was not a view camera even though I said so..it was just an easy explanation point so I used it at face value. Each to his own and from the looks of it, your own is different from most of the other own's; it doesn't make it any more right or wrong, it is just different.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 30, 2016)

You are right. I was probably being too general. Bear in mind, what I am saying here is about the image, not about the circumstances.

The two triangular shaped lumps directly above the heads of the dear form a leading line going out of the frame which is amplified by the fact that the dear are pointed directly to this line. My eye goes from the larger dear, to the smaller, stopping at the center and then outward at the top. Again, this is about the *image* not about the circumstances, and it may very well have been the only option to capture the moment. Nonetheless, this is what bothers me here.

I do like the tension being created, and the choice to center is probably appropriate. Though I think it *may* have been further improved with a slightly tighter zoom/crop since this is what is most interesting.


----------



## bulldurham (Nov 30, 2016)

Here is the choice. I can remove the stump (the triangle) and give you your ideal scene, but do we do this with every image. Is the idea of photography only to present perfect images, or is the idea in the grand scheme to record what is actually there. I saw the stump. I knew it would be in the frame and I could have easily disappeared it, but where do I stop. Taking out the context of where these animals live, eat, breed, etc is to "zoo" them and I abhor anything shot in a zoo as it becomes just another sterile "perfect shot."


----------



## unpopular (Dec 1, 2016)

Then there is nothing really to critique. I cannot suggest that the deer do something different. And being that even your crop/zoom are off limits then I'd imagine you'll find some excuse that your DOF is appropriate as well.

I guess if you make critiquing your photography off limits, then sure, you nailed it. Great job. Love the colors.


----------



## bulldurham (Dec 1, 2016)

When you opened this dialogue, while you critiqued the distracting elements without particular specifics, what you seemed to be challenging was the circumstance in which the context of the photograph was made. I challenged that the moment was as important as being all neat and tidy. You countered with you didn't care..several others kicked in that they too understood the issues associated with shooting in the wild and that the moment did indeed matter. You disagreed. You assumption as to what is most interesting in your more specific critique again challenges the circumstance of the moment and therefore as I stated the first time and will reiterate the second, third and ad infitum will not change how I shoot, or what I choose to record as MY choices are as important - no, they are more important than what you think is the most important element. 

You've suggested you cannot make the deer do something else but errantly stated there was something else the photographer could have done to change the circumstance of the moment. Really?


----------

