Yea, that would be great! I put the images up in a gallery on my web page so that's were they will "live," if anyone wants to see them side by side! Again, nice work roman, thanks.

All destoryed, including the small ones on my web site. Thanks for letting me play!

Roman

Frustrating! Interested in the topic, took the time to read the thread, get to the end and the images have been deleted. Followed link to Tony's site (nice site, Tony) and found the three versions but which are Tony's and which are Roman's? What was learned and shared here? Should this thread then be deleted and the bandwidth relaimed for other use?

While I am sensitive to image theft and all of that, frankly, it's a low risk/low stakes situation and elevating those conerns above the lasting educational value of threads like this one seems out of balance to me. If I'm really concerned about misappropriation of an important image, I don't post it in a public forum. Instead, if I'm looking for input, I'll consult a colleague directly and privately.

All of that aside, I'm still curious about Tony's original (unanswered) question: ...is this an image of a nanny and kid on a rock, or is it more than that? Roman says it could be a real money-maker. But why? Isn't that the crux of the matter? The answer to that question is usually the best way to inform editing so the power of the captured moment is visually conveyed.

Tony, you requested 'a real honest assessment.' If you got what you were looking for here, please ignore my comments. If not, then think about it this way. This is a pretty picture (nice scenery) of two goats on a rock, looking at you. Is there some drama, a story or memorable moment? I can't see it if there is. You have come upon these two and they are now looking at you, as opposed to whatever they were doing before you appeared. I find myself wondering about that... what they were doing before they stopped to take notice of the camera.

All three are diffrent versions of my post processing. Color Sepia, and B&W.

I know how hard it is to get shots like this, and to include some elusive wildlife in the shot is only gravy. Right place, right time. Quality Landscapes with dramatic light are difficult enough, to include natural animals only adds to the sellability of the image.

This can comfortably be printed up to 30" x 45", and I know I get $850.00 for basic frame/matte for that size shot so therefor it was my opinion that it would be able to also be used on covers or spreads for magazines, as well as fine art prints.

I am guessing you don't appreciate the picture based on your final comment....I say to each their own. I went to your web site, and personally I like your shots on your site, but I can bet to some who visit it, its just a bunch of knives with a background. We all see through our own filters and thats absolutly fine (and as it should be)

We each have things that excite us. It is ok you dont get what I or others find so special about the picture.

Roman

I appreciate your comments and perspective. My point (which I obscured by being too wordy) was really about the advisability leaving essentially gutted threads on a forum that may distract and/or frustrate others versus having a policy that encourages participants to not post images they may feel compelled to delete later. It's an administrative issue.

Regarding the image in question - it's not that I don't 'get' what others find so 'special' about it - nor is this one of those issues that boils down to taste alone, as you suggest. My observation is just that - and not an opinion. The goats (and isn't this one of the challenges in wildlife photography) are reacting to the human presence - they are looking at the photographer. While the backdrop is stunning, access may have been difficult and good fortune planted wildlife in the scene, it's still a scene showing animals looking at people.

Certainly there are exceptions but where wildlife in their natural surroundings are concerned, would anyone really disagree that images of wild animals doing what they do in the wild are far more compelling than images of wild animals looking at the photographer who is looking at them? It is my observation that this is the one thing that could elevate what is already a very good image into the 'great' category. That you would respond to my observation, as you did above, with "It is ok you dont get what I or others find so special about the picture" is frankly laughable.

Laughable? Please elaborate.

Roman

Guessing you dont want to talk about this?

Roman

Roman, it's OK if you don't get what I and others find to be an important consideration in photographing wildlife. We all see through our own filters. I visited your pbase gallery and I find there is much to like about your images, but I bet some who visit think your images are over-processed, unnatural and over-priced.

Regarding my comment about photographing wildlife in their natural habitat, distracted from their natural activities by the photographer's presence, one need not look far or long to find successful professional nature and wildlife photographers who obviously 'get it' as in the following example:

Ray Rafti says, in his article titled Plan Ahead For Photographing Fall Elk, "My No. 1 rule is to never do anything to cause the animal to react to me." Link: http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908260304 About the author: "Ray Rafiti is a Fort Collins nature photographer. He's a field contributor for Nature Photographer Magazine and a member of North American Nature Photography Association. View his work at www.rayrafiti.com"

A visit to Ray's website and his "Wild Faces, Wild Places" project is a nice example illustrating one of the exceptions to the rule. The other obvious exception is domesticated animals that by definition are exquisitely tuned in to their human caretakers - your cat, for example - the one with attitude 'who' talks to you all the time. Thus the popularity of lovely pet portraits that often stimulate comments like, "Look at those eyes!" and "What a cute face!" etc.

I value discussing photography concepts such as these, but your response to my initial post above comes from some other place. I visit this forum to participate, share and learn - not to be stiff-armed by you. If you believe I somehow mis-understood your intent, re-read the first paragraph herein and experience again your very words coming back at you. Your intent could not have been clearer.

Roman, give those around you a little more breathing room - let others be 'right' occasionally - help James et. al. grow the NWP forums by making sure there is a place at the table for anyone who shows up with something to contribute and a sincere desire to be involved.

Well, let’s take a look at what is happening here.

1. You invited me into this conversation when you referred to me in your first response on this. You asked why I find the value in this picture. It is a beautiful scene off the beaten path. It has wonderful drama of winter in the mountains, with a nice glowing side light. For me the picture without any wildlife in it already has merit as a solid shot that will touch many people hearts. The fact Tony was lucky enough to add an aspect of the naturally occurring wildlife in the scene is a bonus for me.

2. Now, I see you mimicking what my original comments to you were. This tells me you took offense at them. My apologies, truly my intent was to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yes I can use my own site (and probably should have as you seem very offended I chose your pictures as the example) or ANYBODYS site as an example. But I never did attack you or your photography. I also didn’t call your comments “Laughable”. Now I understand you think I was attacking you. So be it.

3. I can understand your “discipline” of taking pictures of animals not looking at you. I can even agree with it. But like other photographic “Rules” just because you didn’t follow it, doesn’t mean the end result doesn’t have merit. Heck, just look at some of Steve Bloom’s work (one person who’s nature work I truly admire) and while some of the times he follows that rule…some of his most dramatic work seems to not only have the animal looking at him, but darned near attacking him. My point being that every rule doesn’t have to be followed in lockstep. You do what works for you....Tony makes choices that work for him. Neither is incorrect....just diffrent.

4. I value discussing photography as well…and this IS a forum. Just because we don’t agree is reason to believe that EITHER of us is encroaching on one another’s “breathing room”. Which brings me to my last point.

5. Ok…lets deal with your last statement. Let others be “right” occasionally? That’s not my job. Everyone here who participating in the forum has the right to their approach…its their art and creation, and that inherently makes them right....and I actually LIKE that we differ in opinions. If we didn’t , everyone work would be EXACTLY the same. I don’t WANT us to all agree. The fact I am strong in what I understand in and believe shouldn’t suffocate others…but provide just another perspective in the multifaceted world we live in. Anyone who feels like they need “breathing room” around my opinions….well I would point them more to their own reflection in the mirror more than myself. I don’t need you or anyone to agree with me to be “who I am”, and I would wish only the same stregnth of self to everyone out there.

In closing I totally disagreed with your assessment of Tonys picture. I also respect your right to feel the way you do. I don’t expect you to change for me or anyone…but this is a DISCUSION forum….and all we are doing here is discussing. If you’re reading more into it…that’s your prerogative. I hope it serves you well.

Roman