First wildlife pictures

Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't
see them!
So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/

Comments welcome.
(Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)


--
Focus

On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:48:06 +0100, "Focus" wrote:

Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't
see them!
So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/

I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" said:

Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I can't
see them!
So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/

Comments welcome.
(Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)

A good start -- I think I see what you are trying to do here, so I have
a few comments.

First of all, toss anything that has a blurry head or eyes. We all get
those pictures; few of us show them. That particularly means head or
eyes obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife
photography you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will
be THE shot.

You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with
their bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either
get a low contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed
bodies, or you get something where you can't see part of the animal at
all. Small wonder that people want to shoot them with real weapons
instead of cameras! I think they are deliberately mocking us.

Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these
will not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you
have enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all
the way into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds.
Have the camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want
him, let 'er rip.

You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like
these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have
patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots
first.

A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training
tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black
bear. Then photograph them together (preferably using a 200mm lens and,
say a 70mm lens) in all kinds of light against dark, light and neutral
backgrounds, lit from the front, with back lighting, and with light
overhead. Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stop increments to a full stop
both up and down. Keep careful notes on which exposure is which. Then
compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to
get the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting.

One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will
often drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you
are trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack
rabbit. Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment.
Things to remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Bob G
wrote:



I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. *If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. *The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. *There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

Completely disagree.

I agree that you should disagree. Critique of photos works best when
several comments are offered, and when opposing opinions are
presented. The photographer can sift through the comments and decide
which views make the most sense to him.

I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Bob G" wrote in message
...


I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.

Thanks Bob.
The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
could be sitting in the zoo.
They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals without
gates or anything else between you and them.


--
Focus

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
...


I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.

Thanks Bob.
The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
could be sitting in the zoo.
They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals without
gates or anything else between you and them.

You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
prepared for a critique. I don't make comments like "those are crap
photos" like I see in the Rita/Annika threads. If I make a comment,
it's in response to a post that asks for a critique and the comment
will offer a reason of why I'm making it.

A photograph is a composition. If the background doesn't add to the
composition, then crop. If the background is part and parcel to the
composition, then don't crop. Leaving it in where it should be
cropped doesn't make it any more "real". It just makes it more
"busy". Never cropping because you don't want the animal to look like
it was in a zoo ignores that the animal - in whatever setting - can be
the focus of a good composition.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
...


I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.

Thanks Bob.
The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
could be sitting in the zoo.
They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals
without
gates or anything else between you and them.

You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
prepared for a critique. I don't make comments like "those are crap
photos" like I see in the Rita/Annika threads. If I make a comment,
it's in response to a post that asks for a critique and the comment
will offer a reason of why I'm making it.

A photograph is a composition. If the background doesn't add to the
composition, then crop. If the background is part and parcel to the
composition, then don't crop. Leaving it in where it should be
cropped doesn't make it any more "real". It just makes it more
"busy". Never cropping because you don't want the animal to look like
it was in a zoo ignores that the animal - in whatever setting - can be
the focus of a good composition.

I'm afraid there is no easy way of saying: I disagree with you.
What I see a lot here, like Bob wrote, is pictures of a bird on a tree or
something like that. In this case I thought the area was beautiful and the
combination nice enough to leave them as is. Some pictures even have almost
"hidden" animals in them. I like that. Of all the pictures I really don't
feel like changing anything.
Almost none of the pictures I make in general, get cropped. in fact, I think
if you're cropping a lot, you didn't get the composition right the first
time. Or in other words: your photography is not good.
When I was shooting film, years ago, this wasn't even an option. When I won
a second price in a national photo contest by Kodak, I didn't do any
cropping on that picture ;-)
Rembrandt's Nigh****ch is not my favorite painting, nor is the Mona Lisa.
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean I have to like it. I like to
get of the beaten track and make my own way.
And finally: who decides if a composition is good or not? Mondriaan made
"good" compositions, but I wouldn't even want them on my bathroom wall...


--
Focus

On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:15:41 +0100, "Focus" wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:28:13 +0100, "Focus" wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
...


I think you have to decide if you are photographing an animal or a
nature scene. If you are presenting a picture of the animal, then
crop to animal. The backgrounds in most of the shots don't add to the
image. There are some shots where the background does contribute, but
some that need cropping.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Completely disagree. I went to the web site expecing to find run-of-
the-mill, boring, done-a-million-times-before, pictures of wildlife
and instead found some very appealing photographs, more like
abstractions that work very well than like straight shots of "pretty"
scenes. The backgrounds form an integral part of the harmony. This
photographer has a distinct way of seeing and I would like to
encourage him in his work.

Thanks Bob.
The intention was to show the real "wild" life, not just an animal that
could be sitting in the zoo.
They were taken in a sanctuary that used to be the hunting grounds for the
Portuguese kings. We walked for miles until we finally found this place.
There's something magical about seeing eye to eye with wild animals
without
gates or anything else between you and them.

You sound a bit defensive here. When you ask for a critique, then be
prepared for a critique. I don't make comments like "those are crap
photos" like I see in the Rita/Annika threads. If I make a comment,
it's in response to a post that asks for a critique and the comment
will offer a reason of why I'm making it.

A photograph is a composition. If the background doesn't add to the
composition, then crop. If the background is part and parcel to the
composition, then don't crop. Leaving it in where it should be
cropped doesn't make it any more "real". It just makes it more
"busy". Never cropping because you don't want the animal to look like
it was in a zoo ignores that the animal - in whatever setting - can be
the focus of a good composition.

I'm afraid there is no easy way of saying: I disagree with you.
What I see a lot here, like Bob wrote, is pictures of a bird on a tree or
something like that. In this case I thought the area was beautiful and the
combination nice enough to leave them as is. Some pictures even have almost
"hidden" animals in them. I like that. Of all the pictures I really don't
feel like changing anything.
Almost none of the pictures I make in general, get cropped. in fact, I think
if you're cropping a lot, you didn't get the composition right the first
time. Or in other words: your photography is not good.
When I was shooting film, years ago, this wasn't even an option. When I won
a second price in a national photo contest by Kodak, I didn't do any
cropping on that picture ;-)
Rembrandt's Nigh****ch is not my favorite painting, nor is the Mona Lisa.
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean I have to like it. I like to
get of the beaten track and make my own way.
And finally: who decides if a composition is good or not? Mondriaan made
"good" compositions, but I wouldn't even want them on my bathroom wall...

OK. You've made your point. You aren't interested in the opinion of
others unless they support your efforts. I suggest you borrow Helen
from Annika. She'll tell you how breathtakingly beautiful they are
and how they brought tears to her eyes.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Thanks for your lengthy reply, CJ.
I'll comment in your post to keep it a little easy to read.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2008051108324911272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" said:

Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere, but I
can't
see them!
So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/

Comments welcome.
(Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)

A good start -- I think I see what you are trying to do here, so I have a
few comments.

First of all, toss anything that has a blurry head or eyes. We all get
those pictures; few of us show them. That particularly means head or eyes
obscured by brush, trees, or whatever. Remember, in wildlife photography
you are likely to take hundreds of shots, but only one will be THE shot.

In these cases, the blur is caused by some tree or twig in front of the
animal and I did that on purpose.

You will notice that deer have this maddening habit of standing with their
bodies in the shade and their heads in sunlight. So you either get a low
contrast picture with over-exposed heads and under-exposed bodies, or you
get something where you can't see part of the animal at all. Small wonder
that people want to shoot them with real weapons instead of cameras! I
think they are deliberately mocking us.

It might be much more rewarding too: I tastes both animals and they are
great! ;-)

Well, I expose for the highlights if I have to, but understand, these will
not be your best shots. They sure are not mine. Generally, if you have
enough patience, the animal will either move fully into sun or all the way
into the shade, but he will stay there for only a few seconds. Have the
camera set to motor drive and when you have him where you want him, let
'er rip.

I don't see that much shade. Could it be a problem with the monitor?
Gamma maybe?
Unless others agree.

You are doing good at getting close enough for environmental shots like
these. You will eventually want to get closer for portraiture, but have
patience with that. Get the technique down with the environmental shots
first.

I haven't decided yet what I like mo portrait or this "landscape" way.

A good way to practice is to use the Moose Peterson teddy bear training
tool: get three teddy bears: a white bear, a brown bear, and a black bear.
Then photograph them together (preferably using a 200mm lens and, say a
70mm lens) in all kinds of light against dark, light and neutral
backgrounds, lit from the front, with back lighting, and with light
overhead. Bracket your exposures in 1/3 stop increments to a full stop
both up and down. Keep careful notes on which exposure is which. Then
compare the results. This will calibrate your eye and your camera to get
the exposure you want in almost any kind of lighting.

I'm 100% sure you're right, but I don't have the patience to do all that.
I'll just learn "on the fly" ;-)

One thing you will learn is that the background, if it is dark, will often
drop out entirely if the animal is properly exposed. Great if you are
trying to get rid of a distracting tangle of brush behind a jack rabbit.
Terrible if you are trying to show the animal's environment. Things to
remember when you are trying to express your artistic vision.

I had a feeling the camera was not very consistent with light measuring and
color.
Strangely enough, nobody seems to see that. Some pictures the grass looks
more green, others more blue. Some pictures are light, others dark. This was
a big problem with the trees (other post) and also when I made pictures on a
ship on the river in Lisbon. Two shots of the same scene in rapid
succession, gave two very different shades of light.
Although the 40D is very sharp for a 10 MP camera, I decided to exchange it
in favor of the Sony A350. After looking at the JPG's of the 40D, I
understood there are no in camera JPG's that I like at all. The better
consistency in light, the tiltable screen and a few other things made me go
back.
For now that's it, because the people at the store where I exchanged the
camera's, don't like me anymore ;-) LOL!
No wonder: I wouldn't want a lot of customers like me either....

Thanks again, CJ!


--
Focus

Focus wrote:
[ ... ]
On 2008-05-11 02:48:06 -0700, "Focus" said:

Portugal seems to be flooded with birds: I hear them everywhere,
but I can't
see them!
So I found some other wildlife that might be interesting for you:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Wildlife/

Comments welcome.
(Please be gentle: they are my first wildlife attempt ;-)

[ ... ]

I liked the pictures. They are like the views you get from riding a
monorail through the Wild Animal Park. It was nice to see all the
colors and the animals against the background.

The pictures are not particularly good in a "photographic" sense.
Documentary-wise, they are a good trigger for someone who was there
and can add context and "feeling" from memory. Of all the photos,
there are two I might go back at and look at again. Throw away all
others. OK, maybe all but three.

If I were a curator or a publisher, none of them make the grade. If I
were a brochure-maker, maybe a couple. If I were a close relative of
the photographer and we were in his living room looking at a slide
show, I'd tolerate them once. When he tried to waylay me into seeing
them again, I'd get a phone call and have to leave.

Nice pictures, but busy and not grabbers. Good practice. Practice.
Practice.

--
Frank ess