"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:i69e24dl9ls9dr9ir8mvu9dn2josq1ovap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
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...
--
Focus
|
