On 6/16/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ========== > I don't know, frank, there are still people in the first one. <g>
Just to put the bears in their context. <g> > Overall, nice shots. Mildred is very nice, although it would be better if > both her nose and eyes were in focus (greater depth of field), but you got her > eyes in focus which was the crucial. Actually, I was going for tight focus on the eyes, with the nose OOF-ish. I think I may have missed the focus point of the front eye by about an inch, which for me ain't bad. But, as far as the dof, it's about where I wanted it to be. I guess you and I have different views as to what "better" is... <LOL> Very nice shot, hard to get good detail on > black bears. Hair is great. Thank you. I'm glad you liked it overall. > > Now would you get back to "street photography" where you belong??? Us nature > photographers don't need the competition. ;-) I don't count shooting animals in captivity as nature photography. Not that there's anything wrong with it; there certainly is an art or skill to get the animals with as few artificialities in the frame (fences and the like) as possible, and shooting animals in zoos or enclosures is lots of fun. But, real animal nature photography to me is shooting these fellows in the wild, like Ken Waller does so well. So fear not, I'm not treading into your territory. I'm back in the city where I belong. Tomorrow, a fresh PAW, taken in a jazz bar... <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
