First wildlife pictures

First 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:

* photos-of-portugal . com /Wildlife/

Comments welcome.
(Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)


--
Focus

Re: First wildlife pictures

On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:48:06 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:

>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:
>
> * 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.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Re: First wildlife pictures


>
> 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.

Re: First wildlife pictures

On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Bob G
<bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote:

>
>>
>> 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.
>
>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
>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.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Re: First wildlife pictures


"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...

>
> 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
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.


--
Focus

Re: First wildlife pictures

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:

>
>"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
>news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>
>>
>> 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
>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.

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.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Re: First wildlife pictures


"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink . net > wrote in message
news:i69e24dl9ls9dr9ir8mvu9dn2josq1ovap@4ax . com ...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
>>news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>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.
>
> 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

Re: First wildlife pictures

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:15:41 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink . net > wrote in message
>news:i69e24dl9ls9dr9ir8mvu9dn2josq1ovap@4ax . com ...
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
>>>news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>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.
>>
>> 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 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.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Re: First wildlife pictures

tony cooper wrote:

> 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
--
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.

* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com

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 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
--
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.

* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com

Re: First wildlife pictures


"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@aol . com > wrote in message
news:r6qdnR7guqiV3LrVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@supernews . com ...
> 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 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.
>

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.


--
Focus

Re: First wildlife pictures


"Focus" <focus@home.pt> schreef in bericht
news:O6ydndv6LsCgwrrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
> 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.

--
w w w .dicasa.nl

Re: First wildlife pictures



Dicasa Photography wrote:
>
> "Focus" <focus@home.pt> schreef in bericht
> news:O6ydndv6LsCgwrrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
>>
>> 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.

#1 Spam

Re: First wildlife pictures

"Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote in message
news:w4adncbVZMhSqrrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink . net > wrote in message
> news:i69e24dl9ls9dr9ir8mvu9dn2josq1ovap@4ax . com ...
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
>>>news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>>
>>>>
>>
(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.
> --
> Focus
>

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.

Re: First wildlife pictures

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" <focus@home.pt> wrote:
>
>> "Bob G" <bobjames27@sbcglobal . net > wrote in message
>> news:f2feea61-2cd1-4c8f-abba-39db39a62666@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>>> 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
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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