Going Home

[Ed Blagden]

OK, this is a bit of a cliché but I'm fond of it.  Mum and her teenage son, going home to the mountain after a day in the swamp.  Taken around 5pm I think.

C&C appreciated.

Ed

[attachment=14569:IMG_2845.jpg]

[wolfnowl]

It looks like she was lying down up to her shoulders, and the resultant contrast between the light at the top of her back and the dark area beneath somewhat mimics the striations in the landscape before her.  Also, it seems strange to have only two elephants together, but that might be selective composition.

Well done!

Mike.

[Ed Blagden]

Mike

This particular herd comprises around 30 elephants.  However, during the day they spread out and you tend to see them in small groupings, and in this case the mother was just with her calf.  The rest of them were spread out over about 1 square mile.  The elephants in this place spend their whole day in the swamp which is why they are dark up to their shoulders - they had just got out of the swamp and were still wet.  In the evening they head off to the forests on the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro to sleep there, and in the early morning they come back to the swamps.  Early morning is the only time you will see them en masse.

It must be nice being an elephant.  I can (and often do) watch them for hours.  They have very rich and complex social lives, and if you watch a herd for a long time you begin to see the different personalities at play.

Ed

[RSL]

Ed, Who says it's a cliche? A momma elephant and her kid wandering alone below the hills doesn't look like a cliche to me. I really like that shot.

[John R]

A superb image. It is nice to see not only the wondeful landscape but the relationship of the elephants as you have described them.

JMR

[EdRosch]

There is a whole lot about this picture that really works for me.  The framing and composition are spot on, and I think the contrast differential with the lower third being high contrast and the sweep of the mountains and sky being more in the midtones really sets things off nicely.  

The only very niggling minor thing is that you happened to catch them both with all feet on the ground.  It really doesn't make that big a difference, but should you have another chance at a similar shot, you might shoot a burst if your camera allows and see if you could get a good frame with a raised foot to further the idea that they're in motion.

Like I said, just a final buff on the polish of a truly excellent shot.

[JeffKohn]

I agree with most of the other comments, it's a good image. I might like to see a bit more contrast in the distant mountain and sky.

[RSL]

I agree with most of the other comments, it's a good image. I might like to see a bit more contrast in the distant mountain and sky.

Jeff, At first I thought the same thing. Then I downloaded it and did some Photoshopping to see what it looked like with contrast boosted in the background. I found I didn't like it as well. There's something about that faint background and the slight color shift toward selenium toning that just works.

[Ed Blagden]

Jeff, At first I thought the same thing. Then I downloaded it and did some Photoshopping to see what it looked like with contrast boosted in the background. I found I didn't like it as well. There's something about that faint background and the slight color shift toward selenium toning that just works.

Thank you all - I appreciate the comments.  Clearly, what seems like a cliché to my Africanized eyes can still look fresh to a wider audience.  

As far as the debate about the contrast of the mountain is concerned, I personally think it is about right.  Kilimanjaro is by far the tallest free-standing mountain in the world.  The base is at about 3,500 feet, and the summit is just a shade under 20,000 feet, so you are looking at over 3 miles of elevation.  Sure, Everest is higher in Altitude, but then again my 11 year old boy is higher than me when he stands on a chair!  What is more, the summit is over 30 miles as the crow flies from where the picture was taken.  This is one biiiiig object.  So two things arise from this:

1.  It is hard for the human eye to judge the scale of the thing, even when you are really there, let alone in a photo.  This shot was taken at a relatively wide 140mm, and the thing still looks damn big.
2.  Because of the huge distance from the eye to the mountain, naturally it is rather hazy and blue: there is not too much colour difference between it and the sky itself.  So I am not surprised to hear from Russ that it looked "wrong" when the contrast was boosted further... because it just isn't like that in real life.  Of course, landscape photos don't have to be exact facsimiles of real life, but they should, in my view, capture the essence.  Changing the contrast in this case would be to change the essence.  

Thanks again,

Ed