Clovis" 2026 Images

[clovishound]

I agree with Mark that the color image is great with the colors in the mane. The B&W shot makes the Lion look more on the dangerous side so it has its merit too.

If you are looking for a more dangerous look. Take your pic of color or B&W. This one I think I prefer in color.

DSC_5036-topaz-denoise.jpg

DSC_5036-topaz-denoise-2.jpg

[daytime dave]

I agree, color seems more menacing on the lion.

[CT_Shooter]

I agree with the others who like the color version better. The BW seems flatter and less interesting to me. On the other hand, the several variations in the color version seem to provide a kind of depth to a clearly focused portrait of a beautiful creature.

[clovishound]

What I like about the B&W versions of both of these images is that they draw the eye immediately to the face of the lion, and pretty much keep it there. In the color version, your eye is quickly drawn to the highlights in the background. There is really nothing of interest there, but the eye keeps going there because of the highlights. Of course, in the B&W versions of both of these, I brought down the clarity, texture and contrast of the background, which helps keep the eye on the subject, so it might be apples and oranges.


Here is the first lion image in color with the background treated the same as in the B&W. While the eye is not drawn as strongly as the original color image, it still competes for attention with the subject, whereas the B&W doesn't. At least for me it doesn't. Full disclosure, I've always liked B&W images, although you do have to choose the right scene, composition, lighting etc. Not everyone likes B&W that much. IMO, it's a more artistic medium. When done right.

DSC_5045-topaz-denoise-2.jpg

[CT_Shooter]

What I like about the B&W versions of both of these images is that they draw the eye immediately to the face of the lion, and pretty much keep it there. In the color version, your eye is quickly drawn to the highlights in the background. There is really nothing of interest there, but the eye keeps going there because of the highlights.

That's not my experience, CH. I actually never focused on the background of either picture. And, now that you've described it, I still am not drawn to it -- at all. That's interesting. Thanks.

On another note, though now sort of related, I enjoy a feature in the NY Times that asks readers to spend 10 minutes looking at a painting, zoomed out and zoomed in, examining it carefully for a variety of techniques and intentions. It's always enlightening. I spent a couple of minutes looking at your two photos before I made my choice. This series might have informed my opinion a bit.

Here's the latest in the series. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... =url-share

[clovishound]

Thanks for the link. Interesting. A lot of really talented photographers have studied traditional art. There is a lot of cross over.