RE: What's this?
> -----Original Message-----The sample images left me far short of breathless but not being a photojournalist I decided to reserve comment. I also wondered about the statement that the camera's shallow DOF emphasized the speaker in one shot. I have never heard of the author of the article but I began to wonder how much he knew about photography.
> From: owner-photoforum@...
> [mailto:owner-photoforum@...]On Behalf Of Achal
> He has captured 'great' moments but in those three pictures
> that I saw in
> Washington Times article, nothing was 'decisive' (by that
> term, I meant they
> were unlike Henri Cartier-Bresson's decisive moments).
- What man made thing is in Capt's shot? Removing MAN MADE things is differentOn Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Bob <w8imo@...> wrote:Back when I first got into photography I was taught that nature shots did not show the "hand of man", like birds on a telephone wire, etc. So removing things do not make it less of a nature shot.
On 11/5/2015 9:25 AM, Randy Little wrote:Well I am not much one for removing things from shots of Nature. Its really not Nature then anymore is it? The branch going up is distracting but I personally am not sure its a bad thing. It makes the image something to explore. Now I might be biased since I worked on the PBS Nature episode of Humming birds but I like it. I just think the top should be darker to help bring us down from the top of the image. The sharp of the branch is like a nice path that brings use along the flowers to the nice surprise. I am guessing that this flower gets a good amount of birds which allowed you to set up and wait for this to happen.
Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.