Stunning Animal Photography

December 31, 2005 11:36 PM

Stunning photographyof wild things. Whales, Eagles, and more. Flash interface, but it's not too bad to navigate. Every time I think I'm getting good at taking pictures, I see something like this and just drool.
posted by pjern (28 comments total)

Those are incredible. I love the otter photos.
posted by null terminated at 12:20 AM on January 1, 2006

The iceburg and lightning photo seems a tad overkill. But there is some great stuff.
posted by Navek Rednam at 12:41 AM on January 1, 2006

Actually, some of these look horrendously faked. Particularly some of the eagle shots in the middle section.
posted by Navek Rednam at 12:49 AM on January 1, 2006

It's hard to believe the Whales #19 is real. If so, it is freakin' amazing. The wolves running through the snow is also fantastic.

Thanks for posting this.
posted by MotorNeuron at 12:58 AM on January 1, 2006

Actually, some of these look horrendously faked.

Actually, living in Alaska, none of these look faked to me. While I've not been able to capture animal photos like these, I've been with people when they have.
posted by rhapsodie at 1:09 AM on January 1, 2006

Open yourself.
posted by TheNakedPixel at 1:20 AM on January 1, 2006

Actually, living in Alaska, none of these look faked to me. While I've not been able to capture animal photos like these, I've been with people when they have.

Even Eagle No6?
posted by Navek Rednam at 2:11 AM on January 1, 2006

I lived in Alaska for 20 years, and a lot of the eagle photos looked fake to me.
posted by agropyron at 2:12 AM on January 1, 2006

I was hoping I wasnt the only one to cry Photoshop on some of these...
They are beautiful prints, but some seem too perfect and ruin the feel of the rest.
posted by gren at 4:58 AM on January 1, 2006

It was actually Eagle No. 4 that made me quirk an eyebrow and wonder if it was real. The eagle looks almost plastic and I have no idea how anyone would be able to pull off that shot. But, I don't know too much about photography and the site looks professional enough, and his other pictures valid enough, that I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. In any case, what I wouldn't give to be able to take pictures like these.
posted by Meredith at 6:05 AM on January 1, 2006

Yeah, a few of those really do look like composites (eagle #6 especially), but maybe they were commisioned by the company that makes motivational posters and realism wasn't a priority ... who knows. The majority of those photos are stunning and clearly not the work of a hack.

It does raise an interesting question about when it's OK for a professional photographer to use photoshop though. I'm assuming most people aren't bothered by a photo that has had it's color balance or contrast adjusted, or a photo that has been burned and dodged to bring out details. Didn't anyone else ever sandwich two negatives together in the darkroom before photoshop gave us masks and layers? :)
posted by itchylick at 7:05 AM on January 1, 2006

Great post, thanks. The interface isn't too bad, if you ignore the strolling business on the right-hand side (which I did, just clicking through the pictures one by one).

Another great collection of wildlife photos is Tanja Askani's collection. Some of her stuff, like the baby bunny playing patty-cake with his imaginary friend, has wound up over at cuteoverload.com.
posted by Gator at 7:35 AM on January 1, 2006

And what is that orange zig-zag thing under the green aurora borealis photo?
posted by kozad at 9:24 AM on January 1, 2006

I presume that is meant to be a plane or flying object of some kind. Probably the long exposure (if it is a long exposure) took in some exta, unseen, lights moving across the frame.

It does raise an interesting question about when it's OK for a professional photographer to use photoshop though.

Adjusting your photos so that the colours look good and the contrast is right, and a certain degree of tweakng are cool in my book.

It's when you sandwich two negatives together in the darkroom that you've stepped from the realms of photography and into graphic manipulation.

Also, when it starts to cast doubt on your other, clearly excellent, work. I can't look at any of those landscape and not think, composite, composite, composite. He should have left off the faked stuff or put it in a separate section.
posted by Navek Rednam at 9:31 AM on January 1, 2006

It does raise an interesting question about when it's OK for a professional photographer to use photoshop though

Photoshop is to digital, what darkroom 'techniques' are to film photography. It's just another tool. Without a creative mind what sort of results are you going to get with or without Photoshop?
posted by DrDoberman at 9:59 AM on January 1, 2006

They don't look fake to me. I reckon he has an eye for the right moment, or for what might make a good picture, based on knowledge of animal movements, time of year, quality of light, weather, etc. He sets up a shoot, takes a load of pictures with very good equipment, and then sometimes gets lucky. It looks like he has multiple shots from just one shoot, for instance. But he wouldn't get lucky without all the prep and his knowledge.
posted by carter at 11:46 AM on January 1, 2006

That eagle, for instance - maybe it's a tame eagle with a handler, and he took dozens of shots of it taking off until there was one that was just right. Looks like there may be a little bit of fill-in there, which might give it its studio quality.
posted by carter at 11:49 AM on January 1, 2006

I know I've said it before, but again, here's an example of how Photoshop has totally undermined our faith in the fidelity of the reproduced image.

That said, they're technically excellent. But creatively I feel there's some deja-vu about this stuff.
posted by marvin at 12:06 PM on January 1, 2006

It does raise an interesting question about when it's OK for a professional photographer to use photoshop though.

Unless the photos are reprsented as entirely documentary, why would it matter? Art photos are art, and all art (even "found" art) allows for and pretty much requires manipulation, from cropping (to get the telephone poles out of the shot) to any digital tools you want to apply to your digital photos.

Now, whether these photos are good art is another story. I suspect a lot of people here are oohing and ahhing at the cool pictures of what they presume are real scenes, and that they wouldn't be impressed if exactly the same pixels were instead created from someone's imagination. In other words, they would say this is not good art.
posted by pracowity at 1:06 PM on January 1, 2006

I guess when you read Wildlife Photography then you automatically assume because someone is photographing nature, that they'll leave it as natural as possible.
posted by Navek Rednam at 2:25 PM on January 1, 2006

I agree - me'h. Most people who are vaguely interested in photography AND who have the time to go trapscing through the woods could re-produce these. We have no idea if the guy took 400 photos of some tree and select one that's nice. He's a skilled technition with a camera (regardless of whether he's a skilled photoshopper or not) but he's not a true artist - because I'm presuming he's selected these as his "best" and clearly he has colorized and photoshop adjusted them. That in itself is not a crime. This guy is clearly not a hack but he's really more technically proficent than he is an artist - in particular if you just look his choices, these are cliches (as others have mentioned) - what do you learn or feel from these shots? Nothing new. We have seen ALL of them before - again, not a crime or an indictment against the guy but it's nice in the sense that it's Embassy Suite's art - nothing offensive but nothing that will make you think. Just go through FLIKR sometimes - you can pick out the real artists from just people snapping pictures of their cat.
posted by jbelkin at 3:56 PM on January 1, 2006

Eagle #6 looks like a 3d rendering.
posted by signal at 7:09 PM on January 1, 2006

I've also lived in Alaska, and the scenery and wildlife are that stunning.

Living in Alaska is when I got interested in photography; the landscape is so compelling. None of my pictures have been jaw-dropping, but I did take some fairly nice ones. Wasn't my skill; it was the subject.

But these pictures do have a slight too-pretty, too-perfect feel to them. I have a mixed reaction to them. There's something about them that's slightly unreal.
posted by Savannah at 11:21 PM on January 1, 2006

Wolf #5. Hm.

Irrelevant note: I love the baby bunny. Oh, do I love that baby bunny picture. I just went all gooshy inside.
posted by Savannah at 11:24 PM on January 1, 2006

...then I saw the duck with the flower!

Okay, I'm going to bed now. Sorry.
posted by Savannah at 11:25 PM on January 1, 2006

Regardless of their authenticity, I thought the photos were stunning. They brightened my day, and hopefully did the same for others...that's what's important.
posted by joseywales at 8:06 AM on January 2, 2006

The ones that kind of make me think there is some manipulation are the ones where he's in the water and you can see something above and below the water line at the same time and they match up perfectly, like the bear is looking for just that fish, and the fisherman is fishing for just that fish, and they are perfectly framed. I mean, I guess they could be taken for real, without a doubt, but is anyone that patient? You'd have to wait a long time for it to just happen like that. All above/below waterline shots kind of suggest manipulation to me. Also many of the others look a bit impossible, even computer-generated, though I'm not suggesting they are, it's just how they look I guess.
posted by mokey at 11:44 AM on January 2, 2006

I don't care if a professional has used Photoshop (or whatever) as long as s/he makes it clear that the photo has been manipulated.

That said, the wolves running through the snow is my new desktop wallpaper.
posted by deborah at 6:32 PM on January 2, 2006