Well there you see how easy cats can vanish...

-- Hakan Liljenberg (coracias@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999

Answers

I really love the picture. It's simple, genuine and peaceful. (And I have a cat too :-).. Oh, and by the way, it's a good photograph.

-- Jana Mullerova (jana.mullerova@eurocontrol.be), September 30, 1999.

I don't think domestic animals qualify as nature photography. I'm sure this shot doesn't because of the building and the ladder (they go by the hand of man) rules here. You should try posting this somewhere like Quang Li's photocritique) , where they seem to love this sort of thing.

-- rob dalrymple (robd13@erols.com), September 30, 1999.

Rob, you have to chill out. Since Hakan has posted here 5 Bazillion times, I'm sure he is aware of the "hand of man" rule.

Was a nice change of pace, Didn't care to analyze at all, just smiled. I'd bet $50 he/she just ate dinner.

Steve

-- Steven Sisti (stevesisti@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

I agree that although this image does not conform to the forum rules, it is nevertheless, wonderful. The contrast between the dark wood of the building and fur...along with the flower and all in soft, even light really make this shot work. I would love to know what film this was shot on. I guess sometimes you just have to "break the rules".

-- Mark Castiglia (markus777@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999.

I can't see the hand of man :o) !

-- Adrian Sorescu (guide@rokura.ro), October 01, 1999.

Rob is correct. According to the rules posted by Bob Atkins, this forum follows the nature definition of the PSA rules. It is irrelevant how many times a person posts in a forum. The PSA rules have not changed and neither have the posted rules for this forum. The relevant PSA rule in part: "Human elements shall not be present unless those human elements enhance the nature story and are consistent with the definition of authentic wildlife."

For this image to qualify under the exception to the rule which prohibits evidence of man in a nature image, the image must meet both prongs of the two part test. The building (hand of man) must (1) enhance the nature story. It does not "enhance" the nature story. The most it does is contributes to the composition. The second prong (2) be consistent with the definition of authentic wildlife. Domestic animals are not wildlife and since they are not wildlife, they certainly are not "authentic" wildlife. (Zoo animals and game farm shots are disqualified under the PSA as not "authentic" wildlife. See the PSA rules.) Since this image wholly fails as a nature image, the critique need proceed no further.

-- Chris Varner (Johnny_Pinto @msn.com), October 03, 1999.

Thank you for all your comments. Some of you didn't like this picture in this post and some did. It is an intersting issue, where is the line that separates nature and non-nature photgraphy. This photo have participated in several nature exhibition and even been sold and nobody made any remarks that it wasn't nature photography. Maybe that is because we have so many free-living and abandoned cats that people think of them as a part of nature. I don't say that its wildlife but when they are living free, catching mice and birds they are a part of nature. There are other pictures that could cause discussions. If you show a picture of a Canada goose in the US nobody would think twice about it but here in Scandinavia its an introduced spieces. Is that geniune nature photography? Or taking pictures of escaped budgies in England? Rob, you mentioned Qiang Li's photocritique. I have seen pictures of zoo animals and pigs in a pighouse posted as wildlife there. So it seems there are as many views as there are photographers. Hakan

-- Hakan Liljenberg (coracias@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

" Since this image wholly fails as a nature image, the critique need proceed no further. "

Damn, thats awful clinical. You know, I think there is a fine line being drawn here. I think that while this image has brokenthe letter of the law, it has not broken the spirit of the law. If the user had posted a picture of his tabby playing with a ball of string, THAT would be a total violation.

I don't think that when Bob set up the criteria for this forum that it was meant to exlude pictures like this one. I could be wrong. But, that is the feeling I get. Also, quoting PSA rules is fine.... if we are judging a PSA contest. That is NOT the point of this forum. The point of the forum is an open exchange of ideas for the purpose of improving photographic technique. I don't think we need "hall monitors" here telling us what is and isn't nature photography.

That being said... I like the image. However, the cat seems to be a bit too small for my tastes in the picture. It is the obvious focal point of the picture. The building and ladder and foliage more or less accessories to the cat to tell a story. But I don't feel there is enoug emphasis on the cat itself. It is however a fine shot technically. Exposure and color to me are wonderful and create a dramatic mood for the phototgraph. The splash of orange that is the cat is dramatic and eye catching. I just wish there were more of it.

-- Jeff Swysh (tazzzzzzz@home.com), October 27, 1999.

Before the the critique need proceed no further edict, I wasn't going to contribute to this thread. But, as the law's been so clearly defined for us, I guess I'll have to do my patriotic duty and comment on the photo (PSA rules aside - seen WAYtoo much rhetoric around here, with little or no content, as of late):

Not a cat lover, but like this photo. Seems a bit dark and a bit soft, but I'd have to see an original to decide. Nicely done, though. Maybe if the cat were feral you wouldn't be suffering the slings you're getting...

Y'all have a just glorious day now, 'hear?

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

i think u should kill them all

-- nathan shankes (nshanks@rdhs.sa.edu.com), September 05, 2002.