the subject and framing, composition is good but I it looks like the camera was just too short on dynamic range. and I think trying to recover the shadows on the trees made them look too processed.

It may have worked to meet your goal. Otherwise, the photo doesn't work for me. Elements in the scene are situated in clumps which by their weight grab the eye, but offer no reward of interest for having arrived at them.I think you are looking at this picture from a wrong perspective. it's not about geometry here but the life of the space. it's not about how things are arranged but what is this space all about. what's happening in this place, what do people do here, etc. was an empty space at the moment this shot was taken but it has still life, has a story. one can imagine people gathering doing this and that. it triggers imagination. photography is not math.

I think this photo is probably better looking straight out of the camera. the post-processing made it look too unnatural. like when you look at the side, edge of the face the shadows there are just too light.

Thank you, Claus.Thank you also for starting this cross-over between Oly DSLR and m4/3 users, which has an interest all of its own.

Hi Zin,Zindanfelwrote:Despite vastly improved zoo management and practice over recent decades, for many people zoos still are unsettling. An issue is imprisonment of innocent beings -- and for life -- which raises serious and troubling questions.So, this photograph was a low-key shot at nosing into that territory. The sign-board (painted as an otter, I think) is a "fake" animal, and I wanted to emphasize its fake-ness by revealing its backside, with post supports.That's what I meant when I wrote 'simulation' etc. on two levels. Phew, so I think I got the subtle message:-)Cheers,Claus.

That's it, folks : this is the "48 Hours Time Limit" (more or less).If you still feel like leaving more feedback for another image, feel free to do so (particularly if you have not yet done it).Or maybe you can (group-) reply to the feedback you have gotten. This could include a new version of your image, taking on board the comments received.Butsave your new images for next week's thread, because feedback on new images this week is no longer guaranteed once the Time Limit is posted.Note: this is not a random "rule" to annoy people. The fact of the matter is that this thread is moderately to very busy during two days, and then it cools down. So if you post late, you run the risk of being disappointed by the lack of feedback.Images posted until this minute will still get feedback, if maybe only from me and maybe not today or tomorrow, but later.Thanks, Claus.

I think this explains the real light level and how I could get a sharp portrait at 600EFL F8.0.I shoot A-prioriity Auto-ISO max 800, so camera chose a healthy 1/320s at ISO 400.But please I hope it will not turn into a discussions about the merits of extensive PPing.Thank you all for the comments.

Thanks for your interesting replies.Iwrote:So, this photograph was a low-key shot at nosing into that territory. The sign-board (painted as an otter, I think) is a "fake" animal, and I wanted to emphasize its fake-ness by revealing its backside, with post supports.Claus replied in part:That's what I meant when I wrote 'simulation' etc. on two levels. Phew, so I think I got the subtle message:-)Yes, I thought that might be at least part your intent in your comment, and I should have acknowledged that. Too often my mind is racing ahead of good social skills.Iwrote:Probably the photograph is too subtle to work as I would like, but of course with a camera we must work with what is in front of the lens.Roel replied in part:"Too subtle" is not an embarrasment. Better too subtle than too in-your-face. Your title certainly hints at the deeper meaning you wanted us to see.That is why I talked about "sinister", and I liked it how you portrayed it in something mundane.On the subject of zoos, but also double entendres and how images can manage to project emotions that are manipulated by the photograph, may I suggest that you take a look at a very old entry of mine in the Wed. C&C. Look at the photograph, then read the comments, and finally my group reply.Here:http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33589932Thank you for that background from a 2009 C&C thread. I read all the comments, and of course viewed the photos posted. The sequence is an excellent demonstration of the potential emotional and persuasive power of photographs. They are like our children -- we send them into the world having worked for -- and hoping for -- good and best outcomes, but no longer have direct control over the ways in which they are received and understood.The chain of comments about your photo often does reveal a generally human-centric view of animal confinement, but that topic leads away from photography.Some discussion of elephants in local (Seattle & Tacoma) zoos is here:http://www.freewpzelephants.com/Now I must take me away to work in my too-large garden. We live on a plot of about half-acre (2,210 sq. meters), the same amount of yard space for each of the two elephants in the zoo at Tacoma, Washington. I endlessly toil on my land; the elephants stand listless, any time I've been to see them.

I'm gratified by the praise and feed back. I'm going to do some work on the image in response to the suggestions. I'll post a new variation or two when I get them done. --Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Thank you all for the C&C. I really dig the B&W version myself. The 50mm ZD is one awesome gem of a lens. I'm working on getting some type lighting for macro captures and that way take advantages of the awesome capabilities of this lens.