Lion or Cheetah shot?

[globeglimpser]

Recently I went to a game reserve in South Africa and had an awesome trip photographically. Anyway, when I got back I uploaded the shots to different social media and noticed, especially on 500px that one shot was getting positive opinions. This is it:



However, in my opinion - the shot is pretty average and I almost considered not adding it (I am on a free account and have 10 shots per week). To me the background is too busy and it was taken a good 40m away from a vehicle on the river bank.

These two shots on the other hand were not as well received:



Now this confused me because both are of different cheetah seen on different days. The animal itself is far more rare than the lion. We tracked them (and I shot both of these) on foot - up close. In the first there is great perspective through the grass and the second there is an awesome pose.

My question: Am I the only one who feels that the cheetah shots are far better? And if not, does the fact that the subject is the king of the jungle in the first help it?

 

[Overread]

My thoughts:

The lion photo - yes the background is more busy than idea, but its a good solid environmental photo. For one captured in the wild and considering the distance of the background to the subject you'd have had hard time blowing out the background and getting a good coverage on the lion. It's also captured at what looks like the exact moment that the lions jaws are most open.

Many are likely thinking that there was a mighty roar at the same time (when in fact I suspect the cat was more just yawning). You've also got the lipps pulled back fully to show off those long fangs. I can see why people like it.



Cheetah shot 1
Good solid portrait in the wild, but the foreground stems sadly destroy the shot. Foreground blurred elements are a nightmare to deal with esp if they criss cross ovre the subject like they do here - it saps from an otherwise good quality portrait.


Cheetah shot 2
Utterly blooming fantastic shot! And one of the very few I've seen where the cheetah doesn't have that falorn face that those tears and eyes they have often gives. Indeed that looks to be a very happy cheetah; great light and a great pose.
Anyone that rates the lion shot over that one has possibly not actually seen the second cheetah shot.

To my eyes is the best of the three you've shown

 

[Derrel]

The general public LIKES simple,simple ideas in its arts and entertainment. Rather simple shots, like the lion yawning, are very popular with the public. More-advanced art, the things that take real thought and cultivation to appreciate often fare poorly. Just look at American TV shows...Jersey SHore, Housewives this, Housewives that, Biggest Loser,etc.,etc..

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with Overread... #3 is your best shot. On the positive attention that your lion photo received, Keep in mind that the majority of viewers on most sites are not photographers and don't look at the photo from that viewpoint. It is a nice shot, but not the best of the three.

 

[Overread]

I just had a peek at them in full view (as opposed to the resized versions in the site) I think I can see why some would overlook the cheetah. Seen small it looks great, seen larger and you can more clearly see that the focus has sadly caught the foreleg and not the face. At a larger scale it does, sadly, harm the photo because your view ends up pulled toward the leg and shoulder rather than toward the face of the cat (this is the opposite to when its viewed small where the softness of the face is not as clearly seen in comparison to the foreleg and thus the eye focuses far more on the face).

 

[globeglimpser]

@Overread:
1) Great insight- he was indeed yawning. I just got lucky that he did so right into a patch of sun as it lit up the face brilliantly. In terms of getting the whole mouth: this was his third yawn - I missed the first 2.
2) I know the foreground is distracting but I felt that it gave perspective and a sense of the environment. Apart from that, it also showed how low and close I got to capture it. After all, the focal length was only 300mm and the shot is uncropped... I do think that the colouring was a bit cool though come to think of it.
3) I also noticed the missed focus when I uploaded - pity, it ruined what could have been a decent shot. I have another focused one from a different angle here on Flickr. But in that one I am no where near as well positioned :/

@Derrel and @cgipson1: I agree. I spent some time looking at animal shots on 500px and I noticed that a lot of great shots that should be more highly regarded are sinking fast. For example, there are some great shots of servals, wild dogs and caracals which are extremely difficult animals to find and these can't compete with less well taken (in my opinion) photos of lions and tigers. I find it frustrating because all the big animals like lions, elephant, white rhinos and buffalo bore me where as the smaller, rarer under appreciated ones interest me.

 

[Overread]

I think part of what is colouring your view is that you're looking at photos with a wildlife eye rather than an artists in some fashion. So those harder to find, more elusive animals are already getting, in your mind, higher praise for finding such elusive animals. To then get a good shot of them raises them even more.

Also remember that many people are quite simplistic with what they like - a tiger or lion is easily spotted and is something they easily identify with more closely (think of all those media influences that use tigers and lions in marketing or as the lead character as well). So they are more prominent in peoples minds than many other creatures.

Heck just look at how many people "say" that they dislike hyenas because they are scavengers and stealers - despite the fact that lions and hyenas steal off each other all the time (purely the influence of Lion King there)

 

[globeglimpser]

Well I guess that is something I will have to get used to over time...

The reason I elevate them in my mind is because there is a lot more work that goes into finding certain animals. With the lions, we knew where they were sighted in the morning and found them easily by driving around. With a leopard, we (not on this trip) usually drive along the riverbed close to a known territory and pick up tracks which we follow.

However, I do realise that none of that matters when you take the shot. What matters is what the sensor of the camera sees.

 

[Overread]

Or the film

but yes part of understanding the views and opinions a photo generates is understanding the audience of the image as well. Different groups will "see" different things in different photos. Sometimes the photographer can help control that a little with a text comment underneath. Sometimes that can be a major part in how an audiences view on a photo can dramatically shift.

An uncommented out of focus shot of a small dull coloured bird might get very little to no notice or praise. They view it more artistically or technically and within that context it lacks

Now annotated it with a comment that its the only photo of a rare and elusive bird, or maybe one of the last of the species and suddenly the context of how they view it and how they might comment upon the photo shifts.