I agree with (was it?) Bruce, who said it looked a bit like a stuffed bear.
Perhaps sometimes with a long lens you can get too close. Technically
perfect, but with no room for context. It's beautifully shot, but it's
just a bear's head with some indeterminate vegetation.
I felt the same with one or two of the close-up shots Christian posted
recently, though I hasten to say that some of his other shots were quite
superb.
I feel there is a danger with wildlife pictures, that more is less. The
closer you get, the less you see. It reminds me of Shel's recent post
concerning the reproductive and excretory organs of squirrels. That much
detail is great for determining the sex of the creature in question, but
does it make for a photograph or an illustration in a biology book?
John
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:28:08 +0100, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
you guys know the drill
Yea, nay and or comments
what would you do differently?
Thanks in advance
Kenneth Waller
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
