tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Bob G" <bobjames27@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> 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
>> ****tuguese 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.
>
Many people (perhaps a majority) consider Henri Cartier-Bresson to have
been a great photographer. He was noted as a non-cropper, turning out
thousands of images in perfect 24X36 pro****tions, just as they came from
his Leica. In the 1960s there was a fad picked up by many photographers
of printing images slightly smaller than the paper, showing the film
frame lines. Some were very good, some were horrible; it all depended on
the photographer. Personally, I would hate to be limited to such
nonsense as the Golden Ratio, Aristotle's idea of the perfect pro****tion
for pictures. Have you ever heard of Edward Hicks? He was a 19th century
American painter who turned out many pictures titled The Peaceful
Kingdom, all of which showed animals in relation to their environment;
in all those pictures the animals were a small part of the picture
area-wise but obviously the most im****tant part. To each his own.
Allen
|
