Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: IanS on December 10, 2004, 11:46:37 am
-
Howard,
One question though. Why did you place the subject where you did within the frame?
I guess I've been concentrating on getting used to the equipment mostly. The subjects are where they are in the frame mostly by default rather than design. I know this is not ideal, but would certainly appreciate say using one photo as an example and hearing how you feel composition could be improved. Or, perhaps you simply feel that whilst it's a nice photo a completely different approach is required.
-
The treads I had in mind are below in "Is It Art?"
My advice would be to learn as much as you can about art before you you attempt to go your own way and break all the rules. Breaking the rules may work for soem, but generally they know and understand what and why they do what they do. There aren't all taht amny ignorant artists, in my opinion.
-
Thank-you all so far...
Whilst critiquing is good in order to get basic techniques (either picture taking, or post processing), it won't help you develop your own individual style of photography. For that you will need to (a) study examples of photographers you like, or who are acknowledged to be good in their field, ( go out and try to copy their style until you develop your own individual form of expression.
That was one of the things I was hoping for some feedback on. I've only had a DSLR since mid septmber, so technique wise I reckon I've still much to learn.
As for style, I agree with you, looking at other peoples pictures and seeing what you like about them to help develop your own style is the way of the world. However, it would be nice if more of these exchanges had other people's pictures to help illustrate their ideas. After all, if the only way to get ideas is to buy books then (whilst that's not a bad thing) what do forums on the internet add to the process? Ideas are great, and there are a lot of good words spoken here, I'd like to see more pictures though. For those of us learning the ropes pictures can still be the best way to illustrate a point.
Again I have to agree that the hardest part is capturing the animals natural behaviour. It's also becoming the most rewarding. I've already spent plenty of time just watching and waiting and it's amazing what you pick up. Most of it doesn't yield a photo, but you still go home feeling like you've made progress as you piece together what animals do what and when. Certainly helps put a different perspective on what goes on around you!
Thanks again!
-
Ian, the rules of composition are merely a mathimatical statement of what has been found over a long period of time and cultures to be what is intuitively pleasing. Many pleasing images are based on intuition and can be explained by rules. Many dud images likewise are compositionally correct. And of course, there are examples of images that do not comply but are excellant, most often because the selected composition evokes a desired response. These compositions are often stricking because of the unexpected.
-
didger, your ignorance is showing again, and now your stupity is starting to hang out. Someone said once that it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.
"As for the notion that certain 'rules' can be derived from analysis (mathematical or whatever) of works or forms that most people agree are 'beautiful', well, maybe, ... ."
Not maybe, didger, but definitely. If you want to play a semantics game, maybe correlation would fit better than law.
-
Howard, you're completely missing the valid point that compositional "rules" are at best a rough average of what people think about photographs. And for each successful image that follows "the rules" there are other successful images that do not. I'm familiar with the "rule of thirds" and the "golden mean" but don't find them particularly useful when I'm shooting. I have never made a photograph because the width of something was 1.618x the height of something else or evenly divisible by the cube root of apple pi. There's also the concept of originality; the first time somebody photographed Old Faithful it was cool and artistic, but now ther isn't any angle or compositional paradigm that can be applied to the subject that hasn't already been done millions of times. I have some reasonably well-executed shots of Old Faithful, but haven't done much with them because there are certainly millions of other extant photographs of Old Faithful and the odds of my having come up with anything fresh and interesting (not already done millions of times) is about nil.
The artistic side of photography is not about formulae and hoary compositional paradigms, it's about capturing a "decisive moment" or the essence of something that can be expressed in a static image of finite size. Formulae are for people who have no imagination.
-
I have some reasonably well-executed shots of Old Faithful, but haven't done much with them because there are certainly millions of other extant photographs of Old Faithful and the odds of my having come up with anything fresh and interesting (not already done millions of times) is about nil.
I will challenge you on this one as it gets to the real core root of creativity in photography and in some way sorts the men from the boys.
IF you stick to the same tried and tested formulae and approach the subject in the same manner that it has been approached in the past, then there is little room to come up with a new and radical interpretation of the image. However, at some point in time someone will have a revelation - either by accident or confluence of past experience - and do something, which may seem ordinary to them, but to everyone else results in a new interpretation of the same subject.
I actually live within 5-10mins walk of the Eiffel Tower, an object which has been photographed and posted on the internet perhaps more than any other object in the world. If I see another picture looking up from the bottom of the west end pier (coming from the RER station), I think I am going to be sick :D . However, the point of this is that I believed that I had seen every possible interpretation of the Eiffel tower in a photograph (day, night, fireworks, from below, from the top, details of the structure, models jumping in front or adopting any other of a million different poses...) - not more than two weeks ago someone posted what I consider to be an original perspective of this subject, and from a viewpoint I had not even seen or considered.
So, irrespective of the millions of people taking pictures of something there is always the possibility to find a new interpretation. Its just a case of seeing beyond the existing paradigms, and as serious (and in some cases professional) photographers this is what we are expected to do.
-
Let me see if I understand. didger, are you saying you are in the same league as Edward Weston?
For what it's worth, Galileo and Keppler were much more radical thinkers than Einstein and certainly Newton. I am not claiming kinship with those folks because I am creative. Far from it. I merely use formulae, and believe they can be most useful in describing what I see.
Make no mistake about it, didger. I make no boasts of being on the cutting edge of creativity or being the next coming of Edward Weston.
-
"Formulae are for people who have no imagination." I guess that includes folks like Newton, Einstein, Galaleo, Keppler, a number of others and me. Somehow, I feel in pretty elite company.
You're taking that quote totally out of context. I was specifically referring to the artistic side of photography. The technical side of photography has many applicable formulae. Calculating the depth of field you'll get with a given circle of confusion, focal length, aperture, and distance is a straightforward mathematical exercise. Calculating the depth of field that will result in the most visually pleasing image is another matter entirely. Einstein never attempted to calculate how much sky belongs in a visually acceptable landscape.
-
To learn to be a Photographer, first you have to learn ABOUT photography. This includes composition, design, other photographers' work, analysing and critiquing, technical issues, etc etc.
And then- PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.
As opposed to : "I've got a camera for Christmas - now how can I start making money as a Photographer?"
This site is full of some misinformed 'advisers' - as well as well-meaning Pros. The trick is to find which is which - analyse the information. But don't expect it to be given on a plate, over one weekend.
Oh, and disregard the egos of those fighting to be the "Alpha male".
:cool:
-
OK,
I feel somewhat nervous about this but I'd appreciate some feedback on my attempts so far since getting my first DSLR. I know there are some very good photographers here so I suppose I'm looking for encouragement and pointers as to how to make progress through technique rather than wallet.
My favourites so far are in http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/my_favourites (http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/my_favourites)
I think it's fair to say that I think the type of photography I enjoy most is nature and wildlife so some other shots can be found in here...
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/leeonsolent (http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/leeonsolent)
Ian.
-
Ian, I find the photos well composed. However, they don't seem to be anything unique for the subject. That is really hard to do by the way. Some folks never get there at all, but rely on "immature" subjects to get them by. Immature subjects are hard to find - that's why they are immature.
Your efforts are quite good for now, but keep at it. Study hard, your work and that work you like. The reason I asked about the composition relates to other topics here. Your compositions seem to follow certain pleasing guides (rules?). Some say that's crap, some don't. Keep with the tried and true until you really understand why you want to do something else.
-
Phew!! Nothing like a little light reading...
Hmmm... I can see the arguments for many sides of the discussion. What I'm curious about, and I imagine many other inexperienced people are is how the more experienced people got to where they are now.
For example, everyone whether they take pictures or not usually recognises a great picture instantly, so there's obviously something instinctive at play. We all recognise the wow factor when it's there. People such as Micheal (for example) who've been shooting for some time find they see a picture instinctively to shoot it without really thinking.
The question is, did that ability to shoot instinctively develop subconciously over time as they took more pictures, come from an understanding of what makes a good picture compositionally, or come from the first one, followed by an understanding of the latter once the instinctiveness had developed?
I don't know if it matters all that much, but certainly in the design world the people who really seem to know what they are doing also seem to understand a lot about the history of design and what works and what doesn't. It makes me wonder if similar things apply to photography and how to learn to improve your photos through good constructive criticism...
Must be nice to live somewhere that doesn't get dark quick in the winter so you can just finish work and go take some pictures outside without having time to contemplate your naval through the bottom of a wine glass!!!
-
didger, your ignorance is showing.
"The Golden Mean is a ratio which has fascinated generation after generation, and culture after culture. It can be expressed succinctly in the ratio of the number "1" to the irrational "l.618034... ", [about thirds] but it has meant so many things to so many people, that a basic investigation of what might is the "Golden Mean Phenomenon" seems in order. So much has been written over the centuries on the Mean, both fanciful imaginings and recondite mathematicizations, that a review of the literature on the subject would be oversize, and probably lose the focus of the problem."
-
Didger, here is a quote from Edward Weston that may be relevant to the current debate (snowball fight?):
"I never try to limit myself by theories. I do not question right or wrong approach when I am interested or amazed,---impelled to work. I do not fear logic, I dare to be irrational, or really never consider whether I am or not. This keeps me fluid, open to fresh impulse, free from formulae: and precisely because I have no formulae---the public who know my work is often surprised, the critics, who all, or most of them, have their pet formulae are disturbed, and my friends distressed." This is from the January 28, 1932, entry of his Daybooks, quoted in the 1965 Aperture monograph on him.
I believe he also said something to the effect that composition is simply "the strongest way of seeing", but I can't put my hand on the exact quote.
Eric
-
Ian, the rules of composition are merely a mathimatical statement of what has been found over a long period of time and cultures to be what is intuitively pleasing. Many pleasing images are based on intuition and can be explained by rules. Many dud images likewise are compositionally correct. And of course, there are examples of images that do not comply but are excellant, most often because the selected composition evokes a desired response. These compositions are often stricking because of the unexpected.
Howard,
Have you ever tried to justify why a woman is beautiful by the fact that her features comply with given mathematical formulae of composition? Perhaps you have given us a new method for judging beatuy and we should all post a beatuy score as to how good we look. NB Didger get minus 100 to start with for the fluffy white beard (though could be construed as a bonus this time of year :D )
I would agree that the golden rule provides a much tried and tested compositional framework, however, there are many non mathematical concepts (lead in lines, false symmetry, perspective, etc..). These provide a language for describing photographic technique which is helpful in describing concepts, but I would disagree that they are hard and fast rules. At the end of the day a woman is beautiful because she is radiant, glowing and intelligent, not because her nose is pi/4 from her upper lip and her eyes are equidistant between her ears. The same holds true for pictures.
It is good that we have this discussion between the need for formal and informal compositional rules. Cartier-Bresson was very much in the former camp (with Howard) and made the following statement with regard to a photographers education:
"There should be a visual education emphasized from the very beginning in all schools. It should be introduced just like the study of literature, history or mathematics. With a language, everyone learns the grammer first. In photography, one must learn the visual grammar."
HCB's comment needs to be seen in the context that the French system is very formal in its educational techniques and creativity doesn't come high up the list of features - everything can be taught in France! On the other hand there are a group of photgrapher who believe that artistic creativity comes from within and cannot, as such be taught, these favour informal learning. An example of such a person would be Eliot Porter who said:
"You learn to see things by practice. It's just like playing tennis, you get better the more you play. The more you look around at things, the more you see. The more you photograph, the more you realise what can be photographed and what can't be photographed. You just have to keep doing it."
There is also a third group which believe that photography should be a life enhancing holistic experience and that the photograper should become more concious of life through photography. Henry Holmes Smith said on this subject:
"Somebody said recently that the best thing a student could do was to get in some shows and publish a book; but nothing about becoming a human being, nothing about having important feelings or concepts of humanity. That's the sort of thing that is bad education. I'd say be a human first and if you happen to wind up using photography, that's good photography."
In reality all positions are correct as it is necessary to have technical knowledge to master the tools, however, at some point it is necessary to transcend the technical knowledge in order to establish creative art. Once technical knowledge has been transcended then it is only left to master ourselves in order to become master of our art.
-
I'm pulling out of this thread now...
I think that we can reach agreement on this issue if Howard could loosen up a little and get in touch with the spiritual side; and Didger was happy to accept compositional criticism based on tried formula?
...any chance to tone down some of the more aggressive elements in the comments?
-
"Recognition of such beauty is strictly a hormonal thing, so the whole point is invalidated. Ya got that? You ever find that a face or figure of your own gender has classical beauty? Too bad for your mixed up hormones and lucky for you that society is more tolerant of such nowadays. Ever find a horse beautiful? Uh, oh, maybe not that tolerant. Ever find a young child of any gender beautiful? Uh oh, watch for vice cops."
If I am the only one that thinks this is statement is just plain stupidity, the I owe didger an apology.
-
"Oh, and disregard the egos of those fighting to be the 'Alpha male'."
More important than that is to ignore your own ego. Do you take your images to critique to show everybody how good you and your images are, or to learn something to improve next week? The former attitude isn't conducive to learning. Critiques are not beauty or popularity contests. Comments may appear to be quite harsh.
The motive of the reviewer isn't all that important. That is his issue, not yours. The Alpha Male wantnabe just might have soemthing worth saying tp you about your images. If the motive is to just mark his territory, that will become quite evident in the content of the criticism.
I found it very useful and important to the critique process that the owner of the image did not speak. Speaking generally resulted in the photographer defending the image. Egos flair, and the photographer refuses to listen to those "idiots." Nothing learned.
-
Hey, Tweedledummer, uh oops, I mean Tweedledum, no, I mean Twee... ah nuts, I mean Jonathan...It's way premature, but can I use parts of this text of yours if I credit the source, when the time comes?
I would be OK with that. Just drop me a line when the time comes.
-
Ian, I haven't looked at your iamges yet, so don't take anything personnally. A critique can be harsh and still be a learning experience. (My grandson learned to walk by experiencing first hand the pain of falling. Likey much faster than he tried it on a plush carpet.)
The value of a critique is in the "why," not that the image is good or bad. I could tell you the images are lovely. No value. I could say I think the images are crap. No value. But if I tell you why, you can take the critique for waht it is. My opinion and a basis.
An example. I might say Adam's "Moon Rise" is aweful. Why? I once had my camera stolen in Hernandez. So what you say. But it helpful to know my dislike has nothing to do with the image.
Now I will look at your images.
-
Howard,
The reason I asked about the composition relates to other topics here. Your compositions seem to follow certain pleasing guides (rules?). Some say that's crap, some don't. Keep with the tried and true until you really understand why you want to do something else.
The composition is literally done according to what I find pleasing with my own eye. Part of the reason for posting was to get some discussion over the rules of composition whatever they are. I'd have to say it's the part of it all that I'm least comfortable with. I've a book on the subject but it doesn't really help me. Perhaps I need to read through it a few more times...
I'm curious as to which threads you're thinking of, sound like they may be worth a read through. Thanks for taking the time!
-
Having seen your pictures, they are more what are described as animal portraits; and, as many have pointed out, this particular form of nature photography has been done over and over again (mostly because it is easy to set up and capture that type of image - though, still difficult to technically master).
The harder aspect of nature photography is to capture the spirit of the animals and dramatic interplay of nature in motion - for want of a better phrase. Pictures of static animals - good; images of moving animals engaged in their own habitat - better.
Whilst critiquing is good in order to get basic techniques (either picture taking, or post processing), it won't help you develop your own individual style of photography. For that you will need to (a) study examples of photographers you like, or who are acknowledged to be good in their field, ( go out and try to copy their style until you develop your own individual form of expression.
It may be that you have to learn to get up at 3am in order to catch animals at dawn, or be ready for the activity around dusk. It's all about finding out where and when to look and how to get your camera into the right place to take the image. Taking the image is the easy bit (and usually involves some luck) actually being in the right location in the first place is the hard bit.
A general good coffee table book of some exceptional wildlife photography (by amateurs and professionals) is La Vie Sauvage (I think its English title is the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the year book, or something like that). This should give you some good inspiration of what is on the cutting edge of wildlife photography.
Another good example of animal pictures is the National Geographic magazine, their 2004 picture book is on sale till mid January
National Geographic Wildlife Pics (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/pictures2004/postcard01.html)
-
... but I don't see how he could have avoided that log in the picture you talked about. Assuming he could have frozen time and moved, then there would be two options, to move to the left which would cause the chimps to look directly into the camera, which is nice, but not the ideal photo.
The picture in question is
this (http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/image/35844033) one
The technique is called foresight and planning. It is about considering what may be a distraction in advance and then planning to be in a position so that when the 'picture' arises there are no distractions in the sightline.
Now, having said that, there are such things as unattainable ideals and in many situations it just is not going to be possible to be in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time without any icky things in the frame; but the point is to be concious in advance of what to look out for BEFORE the picture opportunity arises, and not at the instant in time that you have to take the picture (by then it is too late, as you point out, to actually do much about anything).
A lot of this is down to experience and making lots of mistakes. I think we can all point to 'the picture that got away...' paradigm in much the same way as fishermen loose the ultimate fish; and in some ways there is a lot of similarilties between the two subjects...just photographers are fishing for pictures. Both require technical skill, a lot of practice and a lot of patience.
As to the specific picture - yes it has some interesting features, however, the critique was and remains, was the log intentionally placed or did accidentally happen to be where it is in the frame? My question is about stimulating self critiquing and really questioning whether what you intended to be in the composition happens to be there by forethought and planning or is the result of laziness to really think about what you are doing. At the end of the day I am only asking the question, I am not going to say the picture is good/bad - I'll leave that for Ian to decide whether the resulting picture is as good as the image he intended to capture before the shutter was released (and don't tell me that you didn't have a clear idea of the picture you wanted to get - that is cardinal sin numero uno).
-
This is turning into quite an enjoyable thread for me!! Thanks all for your thoughts and comments.
DiaAzul,
I think your points are good ones. I did have a lot more pictures of awkward angles which I have now gotten rid of. The temptation for me at first in my ethusiasm is to fire away at anything. You then realise after a while that these shots come more often than others and that actually they're not really any good except as stepping stones to realising that for better angles you need more time, patience and a better understanding of the animal in question so you can get a better position.
The swan thing hit me as soon as I saw it on the monitor back home. Inexperience. I didn't notice the reflection at the time and saw it straight away on the screen!! However I now have a mental note next time when I get better light of what to look for. I must admit to being a bit stumped on exposure with the swan, they have this habit of sticking their head and necks underwater to eat(!!) which makes the neck quite dark, and even with -exposure compensation I still seem to be blowing the white which is very white anyway, ridiculously clean compared to their heads and necks!
As for the two chimps, I remember it being very odd light, strange colours, lots of blue haze, but they were having fun and it showed on their faces. Viewing positions are restricted as you might expect. I agree though, ideally the log wouldn't be there, I don't think there is enough resolution to crop a lot tighter. However, the park is a place where I can spend plenty of time so, one day, maybe the chimps will sit on a different platform without background clutter for me!!
The stump tailed macac (0797) I'm quite fond of. These guys spent 20 years at a laboratory in solitary confinement before being rescued. They have some quite deep emotional scars, and some very sorrowful expressions as a result. They do now however have a wonderful house and enclosure and are finally together in a social group...
Post processing I'm still coming to grips with. I'm not a big Photoshop fan and would prefer to do as little as I can get away with but have yet to find a consistent approach.
Like everyone says, I'm learning it's experience and it helps to hear other people's. It gives you something else to go away with and think about, so I'm grateful to you all.
I think Didger you might need to make it 2.5, intuition and instictiveness definitely have a large part to play, but if some of the rules help me understand what makes that intuitive part work then I'm all for having a look!!
-
DiaAzul, while I have not done it, the faces of people generally thought to be pleasing have been studied. There are certain common relationships amoung their feature. The size and location of the mount relative to the nose. The size of the eyes and distance beweeen the eyes. And so forth.
When a painter sets out to paint a pleasant face, he may not be aware of these relationship and succeeds in painting a pretty face. The face usually doesn't have a small mouth located on the left side under a large crooked nose, with two beady little eyes, close together, peering out from under big bushy eye brows. And so forth. Yet, does the painter create a pretty face merely by accident? No way. Have you ever noticed that pretty people, while each different, do have ceratin common characteristics?
And sure, you can name examples that don't fit. But look at David, the location of his navel, the span of his arms, distance between his eyes, the size of his mouth, etc.. Michaelangelo never saw David as far as I know, but there is a rather attractive man who fits the mold. The statue didn't just happen. It was cleverly designed to look beautiful, even more so than the actual David.
-
didger, your ignorance is showing again
As is your arrogant pomposity...
-
Well Jonathan, the problem seems to be boiling down to I just don't accept as valid that composition is at best a rough average. There is just too much documented evidence to the contrary. I would be surprised if the Greeks sat down and decided that the Golden Mean would be attractive, and then built their buildings that way. No, I suppose they designed builds that were beautiful and then noticed that they had certain proportions.
I agree completely that simply following the rules does not assure a good image. I also agree there are great images that don't follow these rules. I believe a photographer has less than a full bag is it doesn't contain a good working knowledge of conventional wisdom. It is just as important as knowing how to use your camera equipment. (I would guess there is a large number of modern camera users who have no idea how the meter sets the exposure, focuses the lens or what the depth of field will be on the final print.)
I seldom apply the rules conscienciously while shooting. But I am aware of them and apply them while designing an image. If there are no rules of good composition, then the subject of a photograph should fall more or less randomly anywhere in the frame. I haven't noticed this to be true.
I understand what you say about Old Faithful and many other ikon photo sites. I think of Antelope Canyon. Let's say 20 people take 20 images a day for 300 days a year. That is 120,000 images a year. Throw in just 10 years, and you are looking at 1.2 million images. It is likely that there are very few new, freah ways to shoot it and few if any new compositions. But this has nothing to do with composition.
-
DiaAzul, I go with Jonathan here. To split hairs, "about nil" is not impossible. Just not very likely. As I pointed out, with well over a million images of the inside of Antelope Canyon, the likelihood of anyone getting a new and fresh one is pretty small; even nil if you will. I have seen in print some shoots that are essentially just like ones I have taken independently. I saw an image in a gallery in Page and the photographer told me that the scene existed for just a few seconds once, and he got it. I saw essentially the same shot in another gallery, in a book and on a co-workers wall. So much for what one fellow thought was a one-of-a-kind.
"Formulae are for people who have no imagination." I guess that includes folks like Newton, Einstein, Galaleo, Keppler, a number of others and me. Somehow, I feel in pretty elite company.
-
I looked at the images. Not too bad.
The subjects are mature. That is, they have been well photographed already. To seperate a mature subject from the rest, they must be new treatment. While not bad, I have "seen these photos before."
One question though. Why did you place the subject where you did within the frame?
-
Ideas are great, and there are a lot of good words spoken here, I'd like to see more pictures though. For those of us learning the ropes pictures can still be the best way to illustrate a point.
I would tend to agree with you, perhaps what is useful is not just for people to post pictures, but to describe how the picture was actually taken (what is the back story - how long was the photographer say hanging around, how did the picture happen). National Geographic is not too bad for that as there is some story to some of the pictures, the BBC wildlife book also gives some backstory to many of the images.
Going back to some of your pictures:
1/ Try and get the front, or front 3/4 of the animals. You have a few images from behind which are so-so to look at.
2/ You have a nice image of a swan, however, the reflection is cut off at the bottom. Also, the feathers are slightly blown out (so reducing exposure 1/2 - 1 stop may improve detail in the feathers). Generally, when photographing birds I found a need to be especially careful of exposure so as not to loose detail (perhaps 1 stop to preserve detail).
3/ You have quite a few pictures with foreground noise (sticks, twigs, posts, leaves) between yourself and the subject. You need to pay particular attention to the sight lines between yourself and the subject you are focusing on, sometimes foreground objects make good composition, sometimes they are just distracton - if necessary think about how to work them into, or out of the frame constructively.
Out of all the images I quite like 0797 - the ape/monkey with the red face. You captured the furtive look quite nicely and the red/green colours lift the image from being a bit grey. The other which could work out nicely is 0838 with the two monkeys/chimps - perhaps cropping a little more tightly to bring focus into their expression (even going as far as just cropping tightly on the upper body head); again, with this picture you have the distracting log in the background which could have been avoided.
The final point I would make is learning to post process the images to give some form of visual consistency to your work. This is a little bit more difficult to comment on without taking each picture one by one (and even then you are going to get a multiplicity of comments) - but suggest you look at cropping, sharpening, application of curves/levels and other processing techniques to really bring out the textures/colours of what you are shooting. Some of the pictures are a bit flat (lack contrast/punch) which could be jazzed up a bit in an image editing program.
Hope that helps a bit more.
-
again, with this picture you have the distracting log in the background which could have been avoided.
First I'd like to say that those are some nice photographs. To a casual observer they are very good.
I'm no expert IanS, so maybe you can help me out, but I don't see how he could have avoided that log in the picture you talked about. Assuming he could have frozen time and moved, then there would be two options, to move to the left which would cause the chimps to look directly into the camera, which is nice, but not the ideal photo. The other option would be to move to his right, which would cause the monkey's to have either backs towards the camera, a bad picture in all regards.
The only solution I see is to move slighly to the left and get down on the ground, so that the bodies are above the log, but this probably was not possible under the circumstances. I'm not saying you are wrong Ian, please don't get me wrong, I am simply asking for your opion on how he could have avoided that log.
The picture in question is this (http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland/image/35844033) one
-
May I suggest that all participants "cool" it when it comes to personal attacks?
A heated debate is one thing, but name calling isn't appropriate here. This isn't DPReview.
Michael
-
Wow!! You go off and do something for a day and a bit and come back to find a whole new thread!!
I'll thank you all for your ideas, it obvious to me that we have people on opposite ends of the ideas scale who aren't going to agree or even agree to disagree.
At the end of the day what matters to me is that when you go out and take pictures, whatever your preferred methods are, you actually enjoy the process. If that's the case then it really doesn't matter.
I guess I'm one of those people who, if understanding something helps expand your ideas or horizons then I'm willing to take a look and then make my own decision as to whether it helps me. So from that perspective this thread has had some very interesting parts.
However, I think it would be nice now, to simply agree that there are many ways to skin a cat, and as long as the result is a skinned cat, then it's up to you which one you choose. I personally don't like reading some of the harsh words written so let's call time for now on the rules vs. go with the flow argument.
Once again, thank-you to those who provided the asked for constructive criticism, I appreciate your time and thoughts!!
Ian.