There hasn't been many mounts posted here lately so I thought I would show you a Leopard I just completed. The first angle did make his head seem a little big, here is another version.

Is it an optical illusion, or does that cat have a huge head??

Here are two done by Diana Konservering Denmark
http://www.dianakonservering.dk/




They do great work.

Cheers,

Andr�

Jerry,

Nice pose and eviroment. I hadn't seen one done quite that way.

I'll e-mail you later!

Mark

The best ones I've ever seen are done by Lifeform Taxidermy in White River RSA (about 10 munutes from my home) who can be found at wwwlifeform.co.za and Buckshot Taxidermy in San Angelo Texas.

(IMO) Mr Spots is the hardest animal to set up right, but when they are done right they look incredibly beautiful and if set up wrongly they look so pig ugly it's not true.

Not bad, but try Wolfgang Schenk, Germany.

www.schenk-taxidermy.com

Jerry,

Do you have any photos of it from different angles?? The one you posted appears to have a leopard's body but a lion's head. -TONY

Here's mine.


A couple of lions for comparison.

Better pic of the bigger lion mount:

Since we're posting pictures, here's mine. I've posted them here before, so I appologize for being redundant.

-Steve

Seeing all these cat pics is making me get all jittery with wanting to go to Africa. I had my wife come take a look and she gave me that classic look of tolerating my hobby and said "Oh no, here we go again"

Amazing mounts, all of them. I have to admit I do prefer the leopards though. There is just something in the way their natural body movements that makes you thing of liquid and steel all in the same animal.

Keep them coming!!!

That's a nice mount, Steve. Geat looking face.

Here's mine.



Pretty lifelike, eh? -TONY

Wow!!! Those are really fantastic!!! Thanks for sharing...

I have mounted several Leopards, but we just never hit it off, they never could get used to me!

I am not even going to touch that one!!!

Tony

That is a great picture, I am currently using it as my screen saver in preparation for my safari in June.

CFA

Tony,

Thanks. Looks like yours has the same look of distain that mine does.

-Steve

JERRY: Your leopard looks excellent and I look forward to shooting my own. Congratulations.

Tony: The head on your leopard looks right, but its belly looks a little full for a wild animal. And it doesn't look very concerned about you photographing it at what looks like close range. Do you take these photos from a blind with a telephoto lens? What kind of equipment do you use? Where is this leopard from?

Hi,
I agree with OMUHONA, Shenk is one hell of a taxidermist. I have seen a full mount bushbuck of his, and it was unreal! He used to live in East Africa I believe and has shot a pile of trophy game himself.

Tony,

Great Photo! I should have one like that, only with a impala next to it but due to the fact I knew nothing about photography at the time, all you can see is a "speck" in a somewhat distant tree! What at least I know what the "speck" is !!

Tell me, from a novice hunters perspective,what sex would that leopard be and what helps you determine that? I am guessing its a Tom, but i really don't know...

Does nobody get their leopards done as rugs any more? I still can't help liking the "traditional" look of leopard or lion trophies done as rugs...

Regards,

Pete

ALL,

Covering several replies here:

CFA,

Not a problem with the screensaver. Just don't try to sell it to someone.

rwj,

Actually the "fat" belly is a bit exagereated because of the way the cat's lying on the branch. He looked a lot slimmer around the middle when on the ground.

See the snippets in red from one of the two other thread links I included below. Both those threads have messages from me about equipment, etc. Feel free to ask any other questions, however.

Yes on the king cheetah. It, as well as those of the well-maned lions, were taken at Tshukudu, a very large reserve just outside Kruger NP. Some of the other critters were taken within or near the park or on concessions I hunted earlier on my 18-day trip to RSA. And congrats for recognizing that as a king cheetah. Here's one of the normal sorts. Her name is Savanah.

Tshukudu has an extensive lion breeding program in place, and this old boy is one of their prime studs. He didn't like us intruding on his space, so started a bit of a roaring session. The other nearby lions joined in. Other than an elk bugle within 10 yards of me while I was bowhunting, it was the most incredible sound I've heard in the wild. Being so close, the roar was extremely loud and enough to raise goosebumps. The lions carried on for a 1/2 hr. Unfortunately, it was twilight when it started, so I had only a few minutes of shooting light. < !--color-->

Pete E,

Thanks. The leopard is indeed a tom. Obviously, I can't answer for everyone on the mounts they prefer, but IF I ever hunted and killed a leopard, it would deserve a full body mount. I had planned to do such with my mountain lion (a bit over 8' from nose to tail tip), but I blew the chance by not storing the tanned hide properly for a couple years. And just last week, I had my taxidermist soak a foot to see if it would stretch without tearing; no go. So it continues to lie across a wooden chest in my trophy room. The two threads below contain lots of wildlife photos that I shot in Africa last June. Enjoy. -TONY

OW's LIVE African Wildlife Photos

OW's LIVE African Wildlife Photos #2

Steve,
The look on that cat's face is great. Your taxidermist should be congratulated. That's one of the most lifelike mounts I have ever seen!
I have this thing about full mounts. I guess I like to relive the moment. I have my taxidermist watch the video and do full mounts in exactly the pose they were in when the trigger broke. The leopard above was coming into the bait, crawling down the tree when I took him. Every time I see that mount, I seem to remember the smell of the bug spray and a hand tighly gripping my shoulder. I shake a little sometimes from an adrenaline rush. Anyone else get that when they see their mounts?

Tony,

I must admit that I missed your photos the first go round and I definitely missed something. Wonderful photos of the cats. The lion, cheetah and of course the lion cubs are excellent and in the case of the lion I'm sure it is the best I've ever seen. You have the touch.

Regards,

Mark

Mark,



Thanks for the kudos. Taking good photos really takes nothing more than practice and learning from mistakes. AND...I made plenty of them when I first got in the photo business more than 30 years ago. I still make them on occasion.



At least today, digital makes those mistakes a lot less costly. Plus, if a pic doesn't turn out, it's usually possible to redo on the spot, though not necessarily true with wildlife.



Maybe when I get back from my NZ hunt next month, I'll post a thread with some of my NA critter photos.



I'm also lugging all my photo gear to NZ and hope to get some shots of tahr, red deer stags and whatever on the hoof. Stay tuned. -TONY

Tony
Do you find editors are shifting towards digital and away from slide? What do you reconmend pixal wise for magazines?

Bakes,



At the end of this is a snippet from one of the messages in the OW's LIVE African Wildlife Photos. Start there, and if you have other questions, holler on me.



As for the "pixel count," it's relative to the overall size of the print. The standard for printing on paper from a digital image is 300 dpi -- dots PER INCH. That translates to at least a 2400X3000 pixel image to print an 8"x10" page. Anything less and the pixel size decreases proportionally. In contrast, a computer monitor will display any image, regardless of the DPI inherent in the original, at 72 DPI. That's why some images posted in messages appear huge on screen when someone doesn't resize them properly for computer use. At 300 DPI, one inch will be over 4 times larger (300/72) at 72 DPI on a monitor.



The preferred standard for magazines is an uncompressed TIF image and NOT highly compressed JPGs. BUT...a JPG that has a high resolution, i.e. 300 DPI, and is not compressed will also work. In fact, many of my photos one magazine uses are the latter at low compression ratios. Reason: the editor's server limits attachments to 1 MB or less. So I size the JPGs to a PRINT size close to what he wants ( 3"x4" [900x1200], etc.)and save them at a file size just under the 1 MB limit.



I also use a JPG compression program called Pegasus, which allows one to see and adjust what parts of an image are affected by the compression. So even though the file is compressed somewhat, I can maintain a lot better quality than a standard JPG compression with run-of-the-mill photo editing software. -TONY



RE: digital images



A lot has changed over the past few years in this regards. Although many publications still prefer transparencies, the upgrading of good scanning technology has allowed them to use even 3"x5" prints, as long as they are sharp and well exposed.



Same goes for images straight from digital cameras. I have one publication where most of what I provide them are either digital in-camera images or 300 dpi TIF scans I do of prints that are sent to me by guides, outfitters, etc.



The newer breed of SLR-type digicams that use lenses from normal 35mm SLRs have even made it better now. The quality of a published image is very, very close to what a transparency will produce. Although my little Olympus 2100 does a good job, a Canon body of this type will be one of my next major purchases so I can take advantage of the lenses I already own.





Quote:

Lastly, do magazines generally get their pictures from...



Again, there's no difinitive source of published photos, but in general...



Some writers such as myself supply the photos for our OWN articles. Other writers merely write and the publication will seek photos from photographers such as me if they are the general type of hunting/fishing ones or live wildlife. In any case, editors always like it when a writer can supply quality images to illustrate their own articles. Plus, the writer often gets paid more for a complete package.

< !--color-->

Thanks mate. The pic's for my article were normal 35mm prints, I'm now trying slide film but I'm finding it more of a challenge to get a good shot with the slide film.

Bakes,



Yup, slide film is a bit less forgiving than print film in regards to proper exposure. Also, depending on the type of slide film one uses, the latitude in the shadow/highlight areas is much narrower than print films. -TONY



P.S. If you or anyone else has more questions, perhaps a new thread is in order so as not to continue hijacking Jerry's. -TONY

Hi Tony. The images are great and thanks for the explanation. How are you overcoming the jpg degeneration when opening and saving the files?
I agree that the canon is the way to go. I use the 10d but am contemplating the new 18mg. which is being developed. Their lenses are truly superb as is the little Tamron 28-300 zoom.
I always enjoy your posts.
Frank

Frank,



I try not to rework JPGs repeatedly. This is why it is VERY important to always keep the original camera image/scan as is and under a separate file name. Once you make changes and compress it, you have forever lost a lot of the info in it. So always open the original, then make a dupe of it and work with it. Then save it under a different file name. That way you always have the original to fall back on.



As I mentioned in the last reply, the Pegasus software is really well suited to compressing JPGs without the usual quality degradation.



I already own an array of Canon lenses that I use with my two 35mm Canon bodies. So that will save lots of money when I finally get the digital body.



My youngest son lives in Colorado. He bought the 10 a few months ago and really likes it so far. He took some stunning bighorn shots near Georgetown a couple weeks ago with the 75-300 IS lens. -TONY