Great image, but IMO the top layer, maybe layers, need to be reconsidered - I agree with Ann and Hugo - it would change this unusual scene into something quite smart -
I'm new to photography - would you mind explaining the difference in shutter speeds between this image and the landscape view of the Tetons: 2 sec 100 ISO, as opposed to 1/1500 200 ISO - I realize there must have been less light available for the Tetons, so you opened up quite a bit, but why ISO 200 for the Bulls - what time of the day was the latter taken then?
Oh my but that's quite a composition with all 3 appearing to be guarding each other's backs while they seem to be stuck in the snow. This is a wonderful capture of these great elk. I also reiterate what Hugo pointed out about the top layer needing to be cropped out. I feel just below the bushes would remove unecessary clutter and "clean" the image beautifully. Just think...it's only 2 weeks between a good and bad haircut James ;) It's the digital era. If you don't like it you can always put it back. :) Having said that, however, I'm jealous that the few wildlife shots I've taken haven't come out half as clear as this great capture.
Thanks Hugo. I agree that the upper layer doesn't add anything to the shot. I thought about cropping it before uploading it, but I couldn't get myself to do it because I always deal in 2x3 or 4x5 aspect ratio images. Maybe I should step outside the box a bit. :)
Hi James, Very cool capture, and some very storng winter tones. I primarily like the natural feel of this image, created by those tones. As to the composition, I feel there's one (or possibly two) layers too many in this photo, though (there's the white field in the foreground with the elk in it, the darker brown strip behind it, follwed by yet another lighter one, and finally the bushes and sky (?) towards the top of the photo) Leaving the photo in it's original aspect (I believe) does provide a lot of information about the settings of this shot, but aesthetically, I'd say two (or even one layers) in this image would suffice. The other two seem to be a bit redundant, as they don't add much to the feel of this photo, other than a reference to the depth and scenery.
0 
{K:150877} 1/7/2006