Re: First wildlife pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, May 11, 2008.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:48:06 +0100, "Focus" <> 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
     
    tony cooper, May 11, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    Bob G Guest


    >
    > 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.
     
    Bob G, May 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Bob G
    <> 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
     
    tony cooper, May 11, 2008
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Bob G" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >>
    >> 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
     
    tony cooper, May 11, 2008
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:15:41 +0100, "Focus" <> wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Bob G" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> 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
     
    tony cooper, May 11, 2008
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    Zilla Guest

    "Focus" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Bob G" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>

    >>

    (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.
     
    Zilla, May 12, 2008
    #6
  7. Dicasa Photography wrote:
    >
    > "Focus" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> 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
     
    Dicasa (the fake one), May 12, 2008
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richie Bee

    garden wildlife...

    Richie Bee, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    487
  2. DT

    free wildlife photo contest with prizes

    DT, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    386
    Hans-Georg Michna
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. wildlife pictures

    , Dec 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    595
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    273
    Attila Jozsef
    Aug 28, 2010
  5. HocusPocus
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    289
    Peter
    Aug 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page