2008/6/13 mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I disagree with you. Your picture is more compositionally complicated, not > awkward. > The first page of that gallery exemplifies what I have thought for a while > now; > that graphically dramatic and simple shots are what people are attracted to > these days. > Almost without exception, those pictures look as good in the thumbnail as > they do at > "full size", so there is not really much point in looking at them. I find > myself, more > and more, clicking on thumbnails which do not allow me to work out what the > bigger > picture [8-)] is.
I agree with you that some parts of nature photography has an uncanny tendency to oversimplification. I think this happens because the species portraiture genre is dominated by people whose prime interest lies with the subject rather than with photography. Ornithologists/birdwatchers, entomologists, botanists, and so on. But take a look at this pic, for example: http://www.biofoto.no/galleri.asp?mode=view&pic=ensen There are _some_ who manage to take technical excellence to extreme without sacrificing compositional qualities. That's the direction I'm looking. If I get there I'd be happy, but it's a fair stretch to go. I remember buying a book by Frans Lanting called "Eye to eye" a while back. A large, coffe-table thing devoted in its entirety to animal portraiture. It got boring after the first 30 pages, even with his talent behind the camera. However, species portraits are by default a part of any nature photographer's portefolio... :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
