 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2008First wildlife pictures
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/ Comments welcome. (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)  SignatureFocus >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. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to >encourage him in his work. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. SignatureFocus >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >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. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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... SignatureFocus >>>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >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. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > 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. LOL! That's a good point, but that sock is already worn out at the heel and is heavily stained with bodily fluids. Rita SignatureStamping 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 portray, 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 SignatureStamping 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > they > think about President Bush. That said; go with what makes you happy. 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. SignatureFocus > 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. -- www.dicasa.nl >> LOL: you crack me up, as usual. >> BTW: I ditched the Canon in favor of the Sony... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Take my advice Bert: stop photography, you will never learn. It isn't > the camera, it's *you* that makes the errors. #1 Spam (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. 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. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 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 proportions, 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 proportion 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 important part. To each his own. Allen > Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't > see them! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Comments welcome. > (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-) A good start -- I think I see what you are trying to do here, so I have a few comments. First of all, toss anything that has a blurry head or eyes. We all get those pictures; few of us show them. That particularly means head or eyes obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife photography you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will be THE shot. You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with their bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either get a low contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed bodies, or you get something where you can't see part of the animal at all. Small wonder that people want to shoot them with real weapons instead of cameras! I think they are deliberately mocking us. Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these will not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you have enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all the way into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds. Have the camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want him, let 'er rip. You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots first. A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black bear. Then photograph them together (preferably using a 200mm lens and, say a 70mm lens) in all kinds of light against dark, light and neutral backgrounds, lit from the front, with back lighting, and with light overhead. Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stop increments to a full stop both up and down. Keep careful notes on which exposure is which. Then compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to get the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting. One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will often drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you are trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack rabbit. Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment. Things to remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor Thanks for your lengthy reply, CJ. I'll comment in your post to keep it a little easy to read. >> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I >> can't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife photography > you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will be THE shot. In these cases, the blur is caused by some tree or twig in front of the animal and I did that on purpose. > You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with their > bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either get a low > contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed bodies, or you > get something where you can't see part of the animal at all. Small wonder > that people want to shoot them with real weapons instead of cameras! I > think they are deliberately mocking us. It might be much more rewarding too: I tastes both animals and they are great! ;-) > Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these will > not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you have > enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all the way > into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds. Have the > camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want him, let > 'er rip. I don't see that much shade. Could it be a problem with the monitor? Gamma maybe? Unless others agree. > You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like > these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have > patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots > first. I haven't decided yet what I like more: portrait or this "landscape" way. > A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training > tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black bear. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to get > the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting. I'm 100% sure you're right, but I don't have the patience to do all that. I'll just learn "on the fly" ;-) > One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will often > drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you are > trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack rabbit. > Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment. Things to > remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision. I had a feeling the camera was not very consistent with light measuring and color. Strangely enough, nobody seems to see that. Some pictures the grass looks more green, others more blue. Some pictures are light, others dark. This was a big problem with the trees (other post) and also when I made pictures on a ship on the river in Lisbon. Two shots of the same scene in rapid succession, gave two very different shades of light. Although the 40D is very sharp for a 10 MP camera, I decided to exchange it in favor of the Sony A350. After looking at the JPG's of the 40D, I understood there are no in camera JPG's that I like at all. The better consistency in light, the tiltable screen and a few other things made me go back. For now that's it, because the people at the store where I exchanged the camera's, don't like me anymore ;-) LOL! No wonder: I wouldn't want a lot of customers like me either.... Thanks again, CJ! SignatureFocus [ ... ] >>> Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, >>> but I can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> Comments welcome. >>> (Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-) [ ... ] I liked the pictures. They are like the views you get from riding a monorail through the Wild Animal Park. It was nice to see all the colors and the animals against the background. The pictures are not particularly good in a "photographic" sense. Documentary-wise, they are a good trigger for someone who was there and can add context and "feeling" from memory. Of all the photos, there are two I might go back at and look at again. Throw away all others. OK, maybe all but three. If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade. If I were a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close relative of the photographer and we were in his living room looking at a slide show, I'd tolerate them once. When he tried to waylay me into seeing them again, I'd get a phone call and have to leave. Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice. Practice. SignatureFrank ess > [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > tolerate them once. When he tried to waylay me into seeing them again, I'd > get a phone call and have to leave. Just to be a little funny: I'm guessing you're not any of the above, right? So how would you possibly know, what you would do, if you were what you are not? Something like: "If I was a doctor, I'd remove his apendix." ;-) > Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice. > Practice. Absolutely true. I try to learn everyday. Thanks! SignatureFocus > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message >> If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade. >> If I were a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Something like: > "If I was a doctor, I'd remove his apendix." ;-) A /little/ funny? Even less than that. As a matter of fact I /am/ both a curator and a publisher, as well as a brochure-maker; the unstated " ... considering your snaps for inclusion ... " must have been beyond your grasp. Sorry. I should have known. >> Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice. >> Practice. > > Absolutely true. I try to learn everyday. > Thanks! 'Welcome. SignatureFrank ess |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.