Re: First wildlife pictures

Focus wrote:

> 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...

I agree that getting right in-camera and not cropping is what separates
the
true photographer from the hacks that severely crop and overprocess an
image.  The bottom line is whatever you do with your image is only limited
by your creativity and the message you are trying to convey.  You are the
only one that knows the scene and what you are trying to ****tray, so
asking
for critique in a newsgroup forum is like asking the Iraqi people what
they
think about President Bush.  That said; go with what makes you happy.




Rita
-- 
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time.  Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it.  For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com