20D: ROLLING INTO SPRING!

On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:
It's
Bret's skill that makes his images stand out.
Helen

But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's
photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated
photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the
wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world.

Morning Richard,
If Bret's photography looks like"...any typical snapshooter's photo
album..." in your part of the world, then why would anyone make any
comment about his images? The equipment is only a part of the factor
in capturing the image. Being able to reconize and "see" the image is
a huge part. I have seen others with the same equipment produce images
that should have been trashed and not shown to the public.

They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.

Ah but, that is the point of this critque is art is in the eye of the
beholder. In your opinion his images here are "...almost entirely
artless." One of the images, http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76229979
Is more like a catalog of the flower. Than what some folks would say
is an "artsy" image. But his others do come across a style of art that
is straight foward. As is Bret.

IMHO Bret is a very acomplished photographer with a good eye to
capture nature and is lucky enough to be able to be close to it. Even
with a 400mm f/4L lens.;-) He has also shown others the effects of
differant lenses in combination with his equipment. Something I have
not seen from anyone else.

Draco

Getting even isn't good enough.

On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:
It's
Bret's skill that makes his images stand out.
Helen

But that's my point: they don't. They look like any typical snapshooter's
photo album, enhanced by the 20D's capacity generate very sharp and saturated
photos, and the use of very long lenses to acquire close cropped photos of the
wildlife that is obviously prolific in his part of the world.

They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.

What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
sights that we are not privy to.
Helen

On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:

They're fine and pleasant, but almost entirely artless.

Thank God for that!
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Joan wrote:
Please show us your portfolio.

I don't think any of my photos are good enough to digitize and post yet. I'm
struggling to find the time, what with a new baby and a real life to live, to
actually go out and make pictures that I'd like to publish.

I'm not here for self promotion either.

If you want to see what I do have you'll have to come round and look at the
prints. I'm in Surrey, UK.

There seems to be a belief here that this is a competition. Usenet has always
been a forum for discussion and allows people to share their views. As I said,
I find nothing terrible about Bret's pictures but for all the self promotion
and congratulation, I don't see anything that I'd want to put on the wall.

For me, photography is about making a picture that I want to sit and look at,
put on the wall, enjoy. There are many fine photographs out there that are
simply images. Many are perfectly exposed and worthy of any industrial
catalogue or being used to illustrate wildlife books, but they are not art,
they do not provide an uplifting experience, I do not want to hang them up and
enjoy them.

So I stand by what I said, for all his self promotion and bluster, Bret has so
far proved he can take a picture, but not make art.

On Mar 27, 7:52 am, "Joan" wrote:
Nice photos, Bret, but how long since you've been to Australia in mid
year?

Come on down, we can show you how good a winter can be.

Haven't yet made it down that far.
Perhaps I'll come after D-Mac dies? Or maybe the day before.

wrote:

What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
sights that we are not privy to.
Helen

NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the articles they
are combined with.

I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos that, in
context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with images that are
out of context and so lacking the narrative quality that would make them
interesting.

Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a group
dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike and his plight.

Instead of sticking his photos on PBase and publicizing them in here why does
he not sell them to a library?

You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their
photos and demanding obeisance.

On Mar 27, 4:49 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:

Regular readers will already know that Bret is proof that the ability to run
of thousands of photos a week does not improve your composition skills one
iota. No matter how much self-promotion. At least he attributes the good
points in his pictures - generally well exposed and sharp - to the equipment.

I'm wondering how you might have composed that scene differently?
That pic was really about the colors of the blooming trees, not the
horses.
So seeing the horses there, I went to a spot that put the trees in the
background. The horses were in a fenced-in field so I couldn't get
any closer to them from this angle (hence the 70-200 f/2.8L). There
was a fence just out of the frame to the left. I could have included
it with a wider lens, but it would be a distraction and the horses and
the trees would become smaller in the frame. A longer lens would have
been tighter on the horses, but would have cut out the trees in the
background.

All of this "planning" was made in a split-second. I jumped out of
the car, grabbed the 70-200f/2.8L from the trunk, ran to the fence,
and had about 10 seconds before the horse on the ground got up.
No time for tripods, light meters, remote shutter cables and all that
sissy stuff.

My point is that sometimes photography is more than just trying to be
"artsy-fartsy." Sometimes it is just capturing a scene that might
otherwise be missed.
"Snapshooting," you might call it. And I take no offense since I am
arguably one of the world's greatest snapshooters. One of my strengths
as a photographer is seeing (and capturing) scenes that others might
not see. I have a very good eye, but often find it difficult to
capture what I see when the moment is fleeting. Just this week I've
missed a red-headed (pileated) woodpecker and a beautiful shot of a
Kingfisher because I wasn't fast enough, and I'm faster than most.

Right now I'm sitting here looking out the window at the floor of my
back deck.
All those lines, perfectly parallel. Perhaps I'll go out and make a
"composition" turn it into B/W and sell it for a few thousand bucks?
Such is art.

On Mar 27, 9:59 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:
What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
sights that we are not privy to.
Helen

NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the articles they
are combined with.

I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos that, in
context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with images that are
out of context and so lacking the narrative quality that would make them
interesting.

Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a group
dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike and his plight.

Instead of sticking his photos on PBase and publicizing them in here why does
he not sell them to a library?

You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their
photos and demanding obeisance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be dissing my Spike! He's a hero here on the NG. Bret shares
his pics for others to view, and to be critiqued. I don't agree that
he demands obeisance. He's a tough guy and can be harsh at times, but
that's just him. I for one appreciate his reviews on different lenses
and the pics he shows for examples. I enjoy viewing his work and
anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the guts to
post them........and have them critiqued.

wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:59 am, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:
What about National Geographic? Numerous wildlife magazine and pics
that people love? Are their pics "snapshooter's"? The pics consist
mainly of wildlife shots. I see no difference between those pros and
Bret. His work rates right up there with them. Yes he lives in a
beautiful part of the country, and he takes advantage of that and
shares it with us. But I bet where you live you have some stunning
sights that we are not privy to.
Helen
NG's photos are reportage and usually beautifully illustrate the articles they
are combined with.

I'm sure Bret is quite capable of documenting a story with photos that, in
context, enhance a story. Unfortunately, we are bombarded with images that are
out of context and so lacking the narrative quality that would make them
interesting.

Take the pictures of Spike; they'd be much better publicized on a group
dedicated to wildlife and birds to document the story of Spike and his plight.

Instead of sticking his photos on PBase and publicizing them in here why does
he not sell them to a library?

You'll note that there aren't very many NG photographers on here touting their
photos and demanding obeisance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be dissing my Spike! He's a hero here on the NG. Bret shares
his pics for others to view, and to be critiqued. I don't agree that
he demands obeisance. He's a tough guy and can be harsh at times, but
that's just him. I for one appreciate his reviews on different lenses
and the pics he shows for examples. I enjoy viewing his work and
anyone else's work for that matter. But not too many have the guts to
post them........and have them critiqued.


I'm going to have to go through the boxes of photos I've taken in the last few
years and actually pick out those that I'm pleased with. I may even digitize a
couple to get a critique of if I find yet more time to do that. ;-)

Lionel wrote:

Scott W wrote:

Take a careful look at this and tell me what you see.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/76243413

LOL! Very funny. Now you just need one for the other end of the tone
curve.

If I invert it in photoshop, it's real easy to see. Interesting that I
could barely make out that there was some text in my browser but it was
pretty clear in photoshop sRGB. Here's both, with the white one boosted
+12 brightness: http://www.edgehill.net/temp/calibrate.jpg