Since Ctein actually posted a picture of a flower—a pink flower, no less—I'm going to use that as an excuse to sneak this on to the blog. This is Ginny, the latest addition to my brother and sister-in-law's household.
Not only is it a picture of a kitten, it conforms to just about every "rule" of composition you can think of. Clear visual center (the eyes)—rule of thirds (bang on)—limited, harmonious color palette, predominantly cool, with warm accents (the three gold dots)—selective focus (note those razor-sharp whiskers...why is it that so many people on digital forums say you can't achieve selective focus with "small" APS-C sensors? I must be ig'nant, because I do it all the time). Note how the "lines" created by the fingers and the kitten's legs follow the direction she's looking.
I'm so ashamed...given my genial loathing for flower pictures and my philosophical contempt for clichés, how can I even turn the camera on a kitty? Granted, she's a member of the family, but still, I think I'm going to have to come to terms with my proclivity to photograph cats from time to time...is there a "cat photographer's anonymous"?
6 MP, ISO 400, 1/30th at ƒ/2.8.
____________________
Mike
Featured Comment by David: "Yeah..nice, pretty cat. But what the commercials don't convey are the litter boxes, the fleas, the hairballs they choke up on your pillow...If you look carefully for the deeper meaning in that photo you will find that it is an ironic treament and the significance of the three lights in the background suggests that the army of good has lost to the army of evil. They are out of focus and this can only imply that God's time has come and gone...So, I'd title it: 'Facade of Certain House Chores and Furniture Replacement.' "
Featured Comment by mph: "You know what it really needs? A humorous, ungrammatical caption in a big, white Impact font."
Mike replies: Something like this?
I think I've now ruined my reputation forever....
Reply by mph: Actually, I was thinking of something like this...
...But, yeah, yours works too.
I think it was Brooks Jensen who said there's no such thing as a bad photograph of a cat.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: Dave Kosiur | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 01:39 PM
I have many pictures of Qwerty (the cat that lives here with me). As cat pictures go, some of them aren't bad. He's a damn fine looking cat. Regardless, I'm certainly not going to SHOW them to anybody.
Good Lord! Not CAT pictures!
Posted by: John Frendreiss | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:01 PM
All we need now is a cute kid picture to complete the triptych of photographic sugary sweetness.
Posted by: chuck kimmerle | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:15 PM
Nice cat.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:22 PM
Oh, please don't open the floodgates to cat pictures!! (That is soooo cute...did you use the ole' Maxxum 7D?) This blog of yours is a forum for SPT's (Serious Photographic Topics), and if you stretch that to include cat pictures, well...well...I have a few hundred to submit, myself!
(Under an alias, of course.)
Tabbies rule.
Posted by: Stephen Gillette | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:26 PM
Rules!......
Badges, we don't need no stinkin badges!
Everyone has a hidden "kitty, puppy, baby" gene somewhere in the brain attached to the camera.
Posted by: Don | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:28 PM
My colleague just glanced over my shoulder.
"Awww, look at the kitty," she said.
Posted by: Matt Buedel | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:39 PM
Stop worrying, Mike. The kitten isn't in a sock.
Posted by: Vance | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:39 PM
Uh-huh.
Now that the barn door has been left open
and the cat has left the station,
will the cute toddler be far behind ??
Posted by: Andrea B. | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:42 PM
Hi Mike:
If you do start a "cat photographer's anonymous" please let me know. I fall under the "spell" of the felines from time to time as well. How not "fine art" can you get. Next it will be clowns.
Here's to cats!
Posted by: Richard Ripley | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:46 PM
Wow Mike, that's a lovely photograph. Perfection!
BTW, who says an artist can't be "professional," once-in-a-while. :)
Posted by: Player | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 02:55 PM
Mike, I'm a big fan of cats, and I've certainly not shyed away from cat photos myself (http://www.blork.org/mondaymorning/index.php?showimage=39), but I have to say (after your bokeh post a couple of days ago) that the three fuzzy orange dots above the cat's head are driving me crazy -- especially the one in the middle!
Other than that; nice cat! ;-)
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:03 PM
Sometimes I don't feel like I have much choice in my subject matter, especially since my wife is a Vet Tech and we have a million cats. Here is a photo of Kiki I took a while back and I still like the photo. Kiki went missing on New Year's Day a few years ago - http://pug.komkon.org/03nov/kikipug.html.
Posted by: Jim Meeks | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:09 PM
"6 MP, ISO 400, 1/30th at ƒ/2.8."
Hey Ctein, you forgot the Neurotic Numerologists.
Posted by: Stephen Best | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:27 PM
Hey, I like to take pictures of my cat, too. She's also named Ginny.
She looks pretty good after 16 years, I think. At least if we've brushed her recently, since she's stopped grooming herself. And if you ignore her sides, where we've had to cut out matted hair (and where her hair has a tendency to come out in clumps if you brush too hard). But we love her. Even if she has taken to thinking outside the litter box, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: mwg | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:29 PM
What's next, captions!?
"I has got Canons!"
Oh, the horror, the horror.
"...my philosophical contempt for clichés..." Oh, really? Yeah, pull the other one; it has bells on it.
Ya better watch it or I'm gonna start illustrating my columns with pictures of my beloved parrots!
pax / Ctein
P.S. It *IS* a very cute kitten. awwwww.
Posted by: Ctein | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:33 PM
Ah but Mike,
It's not what you photograph but how you photograph it.
Just don't post a poorly composed/exposed picture of your toaster when you finally get around to buying a new camera.
Posted by: Charlie D. | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:34 PM
I see 4 lights!
(Sorry, this is a very nerdish Star Trek: The Next Generation reference - though I suppose it does have something to do with the subject today: repeat something often enough and *someone* will believe it.)
Posted by: KeithB | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:56 PM
Cat photographers anonymous?! No way! We need cat photo forum!
Oh wait ... I just did a search on flickr ... 2,543,525 cat photos ... never mind.
Posted by: Kent Ibbott | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 03:59 PM
A great Response to a pink flower.
Thanks Mike
Posted by: Peter Vagt | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 04:09 PM
What??? If it was panthera tigris in the wild it would be OK, but because it's felis silvestris catus in somebody's arms it's not? Is that what I'm hearing?
It's a reasonably (even very) well executed picture of a cat with otherwise absolutely nothing to drag it from the ranks of mediocrity.
I guess that's kind of the problem with pet photos in the context of fine art, they're damnable with faint praises.
Take 2000 of these almost identical, maybe of the same cat, and you could be seen to be making some kind of a statement, however.
I'm working towards the 2000, but it's slow going.
I guess I'm just not cut out to be an artist.
Maybe I could be a photographer instead???
Posted by: Fred Gemmell | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 04:21 PM
I'm a cat person really but to avoid approbation here's a dog.
http://blipfoto.com/view.php?id=69827&month=10&year=2007
Posted by: Tony Collins | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 04:49 PM
For anyone who is interested in cats and art this book is absolutely a must-read: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Cats-Paint-Theory-Aesthetics/dp/1580087930/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195685352&sr=1-1
Sorry for the stupidly long URL.
Posted by: Seth | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 04:55 PM
Fred,
Actually, you're quite wrong. My cat picture is extraordinary, and far better than almost anyone else's cat pictures.
That is the nature of cat pictures.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 05:01 PM
Just a couple cats
http://tinyurl.com/2s7aly
Posted by: Jack Foster Mancilla | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 05:02 PM
Uh, we need to talk about the bokeh in this picture.
;^)
Posted by: ch | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 05:10 PM
Hmmm... Makes we wonder why cat pictures are cliche but people pics are not, at least not automatically. Well, I'd write more, but I'm heading out to do some gritty black and whites of street people.
But seriously, what is there to photograph that isn't at least somewhat cliche? About the only thing that I've been able to think of so far is boogers. Yup, boogers... can't think of any photos of boogers, at least not off-hand. I'm not doubting that they exist though, in fact I would be astounded if they didn't!
Posted by: Keith Forbis | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 08:29 PM
Don!
Wasn't it "Bodges? We don' need no steenkin' bodges!" ?
Posted by: Mike | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 12:48 AM
I don't like cats but sometimes there are photo opportunities one can't overlook. ;-)
http://homepage.mac.com/drjohn/.Pictures/catintree.jpg
Posted by: John | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 01:13 AM
mph,
That was priceless. I literally laughed out loud. ;-)
Thanks for getting my day started on the right foot,
Adam
Posted by: mcananeya | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 03:28 AM
Seth,
Nice link! But this review of "Why Cats Paint" really make me laugh: http://www.amazon.com/review/R20C2OPETO93VC/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Best,
Adam
P.S. I'm starting to suspect that someone put something in my coffee. I don't normally laugh this much at work...
Posted by: mcananeya | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 03:48 AM
I knew there had to be a reason why the Pentax K10d manual had so many illustrations featuring cats.
N
Posted by: Nigel | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 04:39 AM
Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if Mike put his cute cat picture, with cute caption up for sale and it was successful beyond all imagining.
Years of work, dedication, study, struggle and all of a sudden, because of a cat snapshot, fame and untold millions.
Posted by: Tom Duffy | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 07:00 AM
Hello, my name is nextSibling (Hi, nextSibling!) and it's been three hours since I last took a picture of one of my cats.
Yes, I'll agree that they're an artless cliche and everything that can be said and written and photographed of cats has been. Cat photography is the last bastion of photographers bereft of creativity. So why should that stop me or anyone else? If our species has been adoring cats since the ancient Egyptians (or before?), it's surely futile to resist now. So I won't.
http://viewfromthisside.smugmug.com/gallery/3414464#183292862-L-LB
Posted by: nextSibling | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 08:29 AM
Mph, that 'LOLCtein' pretty much made my day.
Posted by: Damon Schreiber | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 09:12 AM
MIke,
I share your proclivity to photograph cats from time to time, primarily I because have a real "thing" for cats, big cats in particular. Whether cat pictures are cliche or not...cats are just too beautiful *not* to photograph.
P.S. Beautiful cat, btw.
Stephen.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 05:59 PM
During my misguided camera club days (a sad memory and confession!) one of the stolidly doctrinaire judges of the fortnightly competitions (God help me!) would disqualify any picture of a cat, regardless of merit. His reason, and the reason that I will not house a cat, living as I do in close proximity to a World Heritage Area of wilderness, is that the cute little animals revert back to their primitive hunting natures when close to home, and if they are attracted by the wilds become serious feral hunters of wild life, threatened and otherwise.
There are places to own and shoot pics of cats, around here the other meaning of shoot is more appropriate.
Regards - Ross
Posted by: Ross Chambers | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 12:31 AM
The last cat picture I took was of two cats attacking me and my two dogs....welcome to Kuwait ;)
(Now, where are the Sunset pictures?)
Posted by: Nicole | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 03:58 AM
This year, I came runners-up in a national open subject photography competition with a picture of my kitten playing with a toy mouse. I'm a cat photographer and I'm proud! See picture two on the link:
http://tinyurl.com/2wbzz9
Posted by: Puplet | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 10:21 AM
I remember someone on the Canon SLR forum on dpreview writing a hilarious post a while back about Canon's latest sensor breakthrough, known as the CDBF sensor. It was specifically optimized for photographing cats, dogs, babies and flowers, since that was how most people used their expense SLR's with L-glass.
Posted by: Adam Richardson | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 01:01 PM
It was just a matter of time ... everyone knows all a KM 7D (or Sony for that matter) is good for is snapshots of cats & kids ... get a Nikon and maybe you'll start taking real pictures again !
- Dennis, 7D owner, shooter of cute kids :)
Posted by: Dennis | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 09:38 PM
Well -
The MULTIPLE in the eyes keep it from bein' a 10 on my scorecard.....
Posted by: Gary Shepard | Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 08:46 AM
meow
Posted by: Mark S. | Monday, 26 November 2007 at 03:56 PM
I had a cat named Sexy that looked exactly like Ginny.
Posted by: Joe the Dog Lover | Tuesday, 09 September 2008 at 02:10 PM