Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: First wildlife pictures

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: First wildlife pictures

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2008
On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:48:06 +0100, "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't
>see them!
>So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:
>
>http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/
>

I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2008

>
> I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
> nature scene. *If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
> crop to animal. *The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
> image. *There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
> some that need cropping.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2008
On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Bob G
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>
>> I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
>> nature scene. *If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
>> crop to animal. *The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
>> image. *There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
>> some that need cropping.

>
>Completely disagree.


I agree that you should disagree. Critique of photos works best when
several comments are offered, and when opposing opinions are
presented. The photographer can sift through the comments and decide
which views make the most sense to him.

>I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
>the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
>and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
>abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
>scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
>photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
>encourage him in his work.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2008
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Bob G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>
>> I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
>> nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
>> crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
>> image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
>> some that need cropping.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

>
>> Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
>> the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
>> and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
>> abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
>> scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
>> photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
>> encourage him in his work.

>
>Thanks Bob.
>The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
>could be sitting in the zoo.
>They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
>Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
>There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals without
>gates or anything else between you and them.


You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
prepared for a critique. I don't make comments like "those are crap
photos" like I see in the Rita/Annika threads. If I make a comment,
it's in response to a post that asks for a critique and the comment
will offer a reason of why I'm making it.

A photograph is a composition. If the background doesn't add to the
composition, then crop. If the background is part and parcel to the
composition, then don't crop. Leaving it in where it should be
cropped doesn't make it any more "real". It just makes it more
"busy". Never cropping because you don't want the animal to look like
it was in a zoo ignores that the animal - in whatever setting - can be
the focus of a good composition.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2008
On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:15:41 +0100, "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
>>>> nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
>>>> crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
>>>> image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
>>>> some that need cropping.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>
>>>> Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
>>>> the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
>>>> and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
>>>> abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
>>>> scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
>>>> photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
>>>> encourage him in his work.
>>>
>>>Thanks Bob.
>>>The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
>>>could be sitting in the zoo.
>>>They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
>>>Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
>>>There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals
>>>without
>>>gates or anything else between you and them.

>>
>> You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
>> prepared for a critique. I don't make comments like "those are crap
>> photos" like I see in the Rita/Annika threads. If I make a comment,
>> it's in response to a post that asks for a critique and the comment
>> will offer a reason of why I'm making it.
>>
>> A photograph is a composition. If the background doesn't add to the
>> composition, then crop. If the background is part and parcel to the
>> composition, then don't crop. Leaving it in where it should be
>> cropped doesn't make it any more "real". It just makes it more
>> "busy". Never cropping because you don't want the animal to look like
>> it was in a zoo ignores that the animal - in whatever setting - can be
>> the focus of a good composition.

>
>I'm afraid there is no easy way of saying: I disagree with you.
>What I see a lot here, like Bob wrote, is pictures of a bird on a tree or
>something like that. In this case I thought the area was beautiful and the
>combination nice enough to leave them as is. Some pictures even have almost
>"hidden" animals in them. I like that. Of all the pictures I really don't
>feel like changing anything.
>Almost none of the pictures I make in general, get cropped. in fact, I think
>if you're cropping a lot, you didn't get the composition right the first
>time. Or in other words: your photography is not good.
>When I was shooting film, years ago, this wasn't even an option. When I won
>a second price in a national photo contest by Kodak, I didn't do any
>cropping on that picture
>Rembrandt's Nightwatch is not my favorite painting, nor is the Mona Lisa.
>Just because something is popular, doesn't mean I have to like it. I like to
>get of the beaten track and make my own way.
>And finally: who decides if a composition is good or not? Mondriaan made
>"good" compositions, but I wouldn't even want them on my bathroom wall...


OK. You've made your point. You aren't interested in the opinion of
others unless they support your efforts. I suggest you borrow Helen
from Annika. She'll tell you how breathtakingly beautiful they are
and how they brought tears to her eyes.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Zilla
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2008
"Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>>

>>

(snip)
>> You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
>> prepared for a critique.

(snip)
>
> I'm afraid there is no easy way of saying: I disagree with you.
> --
> Focus
>


I agree with Tony - not necessarily with ALL his critique, but his intention
to
provide "his" critique. If you agree with a critique, take it, if not leave
it.

Like any form of art, photography is very subjective.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dicasa (the fake one)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2008


Dicasa Photography wrote:
>
> "Focus" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>
>> LOL: you crack me up, as usual.
>> BTW: I ditched the Canon in favor of the Sony...
>> Some very frustrating light measuring issues and consistency colors.
>> But they're all just tools, just like a wrench for a mechanic.
>>

>
> Lol Bert...............................
>
> The Canon 40D is also very frustrating for you?
>
> That makes:
>
> *...........???
> *...........???
> *Canon 350D
> *Nikon D40x
> *Nikon D300
> *Sony A350
> *Canon 40D
>
> All this camera's are crap?
>
> Take my advice Bert: stop photography, you will never learn. It isn't
> the camera, it's *you* that makes the errors.


#1 Spam

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Schoolboy's bee snap buzzes to first place in wildlife photography competition Bruce Digital Photography 8 08-28-2010 04:30 AM
Re: Schoolboy's bee snap buzzes to first place in wildlife photography competition HocusPocus Digital Photography 2 08-27-2010 10:36 PM
wildlife pictures JezUK1@aol.com Digital Photography 10 12-15-2005 02:46 PM
free wildlife photo contest with prizes DT Digital Photography 1 08-19-2003 02:30 PM
garden wildlife... Richie Bee Digital Photography 4 08-06-2003 12:31 PM



Advertisments