I think photography is as much about what not to photograph or include in a photo as it is about what to include. I probably would not have taken the original image if I had noticed the distractions. I pass up a lot of potential images for "imperfections", when I see them.
Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PESO - Simple Macro > This is an interesting discussion. Since the first post, I have > 'fixed' the image to not show the reality that was there. I suppose > it would be helpful to know the circumstances a bit. > > This was shot on San Bruno mountain in a state park that is trying to > protect the plants and animals. So first, one would have to decide > whether to alter the foliage to make a shot that is different than > reality or not. Second, it was shot in early afternoon in very bright > sun. That means shooting much more like film - because I could barely > make out the review screen - certainly not well enough to see the > details that are deemed as less desirable. > > For myself, I tend toward things as they were, rather than altering > them. It is probably why my zoo shots still leave me feeling a bit > like a cheat. So a little natural flaw doesn't bother me as much as > some others. > > I realize that all picture taking is a manipulation to some degree or > another. The lens chosen, the exposure, the filters, the angle and > composition are all somewhat a manipulation of the subject. > > So does putting an insect in the fridge to make it sluggish bother > you? Does removing foliage or nearby plants bother you? Does > misting a spider web bother you? The list can go on. > > Thoughts anyone? Or shall we talk about aperture simulators? > > > Here is the original: > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm > > Here is the 'fixed' one: > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580a.htm > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 1:24:04 PM, you wrote: > > k> Hey,. Shel... > k> It's REALITY! What can I say? > k> I loved what you captuted, but, change this and change that and I'd > find > k> it more acceptable? Whatever that means... > > k> keith > > > k> Shel Belinkoff wrote: >>> Behind the three heads in the foreground, behind the center stalk and >>> the >>> "V" created by the left and center stalks. >>> >>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm >>> >>> Shel > > >>> [Original Message] >>>> From: keith_w <keith_w >>> >>>> OOF flower head? All three are lousy with teeny, tiny hair-like fuzz >>>> needles, that are quite clearly delineated. Some of them couldn't be >>>> more than .001-.002" in diameter, yet Bruce and his hand-held lens >>>> captured them well. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
