Ganesh a few hours spent by You, Ravi and Raj in the jungle are indeed a free ride for many of us into the aspects of nature hitherto un-noticed. Thanks for the ride! Having said this there's notable difference between the images considered art and this image so aptly summed up by you "Our art, being an opinion, thanks to only the limited five senses that we are born with, won't even last a few years of our life time. Something which appeared like a "work of art" does not appear so anymore." I think it's the shift in perspective which matters the most. In normal art-images objects are often used as syllables or sentences to evoke a hidden subtext. It depends upon the dexterity of the photographer whether or not S'he is able to fix viewer's attention as intended through grammatical & syntactical use of objects. So the larger picture pictures an idea. But here in doing what you are doing we get to see the objects as "things in themselves" ? The idea you've been exploring now for quite some time.
Both types require different training for viewer as well. Whereas in the former requires cursive vision, parts of stills assembling and running a time lapse in our mind to convey subtext, the latter requires focussed attention to decipher the subtle art of nature's construction. As Raj said It's like meditation. The slow process of revelation. But here too our mind takes a tumble and reads prejudices in the image, such as I likening the leaf to a sentient, conscious being "contrasted" to the subdued background. I'm reading heirarchy in the image. Imagine!! How the simple act of seeing deconstructs our being. I'd be interested in knowing what went in your mind while processing, and prior to that, framing. Did you grapple with some order in your mind?
Still reeling

Another question "what is contrast?". In this image the contrast is simply optical? Then why does it play with my emotion? In doing so the leaf is not revealed in totality. I'm in a lurch. Help me out...

Dear Nirlep, thanks for taking time to share your views in detail.

In normal art-images objects are often used as syllables or sentences to evoke a hidden subtext. It depends upon the dexterity of the photographer whether or not S'he is able to fix viewer's attention as intended through grammatical & syntactical use of objects. So the larger picture pictures an idea.

Yes, I agree with you on this Nirlep. Or in other words success (if we can call so) of the art depends on whether the "opinion" of the artist expressed through her vocabulary finds a place in viewers' heart, if artist is sharing her work with larger audience. The important point for me here is "opinion" not the "truth".

But here in doing what you are doing we get to see the objects as "things in themselves" ?

A few months ago I bought a 100MP medium format digital camera (Phase One) that helps me see at the outset "things in themselves", not in Kantian sense though but in literal sense, in term of amazing art of Nature which typically does not register in smaller formats. This is helping me "wonder about" the Kantian unknowable, "things in themselves".

That said, I must admit that the glow on leaf compared to the subdued bark was what attracted us to photograph this subject. The light was so beautiful and subtle the picture does not justify what we saw. Of course the whole arrangement of leaves and curves was "artistic" too in lesser mortal "human" sense! That would probably answer your other question.

Another question "what is contrast?". In this image the contrast is simply optical? Then why does it play with my emotion? In doing so the leaf is not revealed in totality. I'm in a lurch. Help me out...

I think it also goes back to Seven Plus or Minus Two. Inherently we want to processes small subset of variables. I think "contrast" helps divide the larger frame into smaller disjoint sections which is easier to arrange and ponder over. In some sense we go back to Kantian limitations. The other intention of this image is doing a large print where in I think "leaf will be revealed in totality", again in literal sense, not Kantian sense.

Being with you and Raj was great learning as always. It's not only what we see but how we see makes huge difference. For someone shooting hand held, light was not good there! But here you are creating magic out of it. This for me is not only study of light but also shows depth of understanding of subject, tool and thought process to go with it. I am sure I will appreciate it more when I see large print.

Also awaiting Raj's version..

Almost metallic luster n fine details. Sepia-like tone works very well here, Ganesh.
Regards.