On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:15:41 +0100, "Focus" <focus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"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...
OK. You've made your point. You aren't interested in the opinion of
others unless they sup****t 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
|
