On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 21:22:51 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-08 19:37:35 -0800, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:52:43 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no problem with his posts, but I find his caged bird shots
>>> distasteful,
>>
>> I really don't see why. Few would object to a photo of a monkey or a
>> lion taken in a zoo. The only difference is that the cage is a bit
>> bigger. We voice no objection to photographs of house pets, but house
>> pets are prisoners of a sort. Millions of dogs and cats live their
>> entire lives in the confines of a house or at the end of a leash.
>> Bigger cage.
>
>Maybe distasteful was the wrong choice of words. It just seems Miguel
>kept getting it so wrong it became painful to see him repeat it over
>and over.
>There are bird sanctuaries and aviaries all over the World where birds
>are kept under better conditions. These birds are certainly not pets.
>On my trip to South Africa I visited a massive bird sanctuary where
>birds were housed in several huge walk-through aviaries
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_3466Aw.jpg where you could
>get up close to birds such as this
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_3490w2.jpg
> a vetinary/recovery center, and in open areas on the property (not a
>great shot, but you get the idea
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_3456Aw.jpg) a bunch of quite
>happy uncaged, free to roam parrots.
How do you know the parrots are happy? How do you know the parrots in
smaller cages are unhappy? What if they want to roam further than
this facility allows them to, or further than their clipped wings
allow them to? Was Dr Doolittle your shooting companion?
>I did not post any of the shots I took there before because of the
>controversy regarding Miguel's caged bird shots.
They are still cages. Just bigger cages. Either the bird is free in
the wild or it is contained in some way. A bigger cage isn't freedom.
We just build facilities where the public is allowed to feel that they
are seeing the bird in some sort of natural habitat so they won't have
to actually go out to a bird sanctuary in the wild and hope to spot
something.
The detractors of Miguel's photos have complained that the birds are
caged, not free. Some have gone to the ridiculous extreme of
accusing him of trading in the bird black market.
>> We encourage Dudley's photographs of his dog, but that animal has
>> little more freedom than a pet parrot. He has the run of the house,
>> but so do many pet birds.
>
>Different issue with Dudley, his dog and pet birds, fish, cats, etc.
Why? Are the other pets free or caged? Why is it acceptable to keep
one type of pet in a cage but not all types of pets in cages?
You should, of course, understand that I'm not advocating that no
human should keep a pet. I've owned dogs, cats, hamsters, and a
parakeet. All confined in some manner. I'm just trying to point out
the absurdity of saying that a caging a parrot is any worse than
caging or confining any other animal.
>> Some pet dogs are kept in cages when the
>> owner isn't home.
>
>None of mine ever were.
You know that's beside the point.
>> My problem with the caged bird shots is that, photographically, they
>> are poorly executed. If he'd take the bird and pose it against a
>> natural background, it would be a better photograph. But, the bird
>> would go back in the cage after the shot.
>
>I just don't think Miguel saw what was not right about his bird shots.
>When he started posting I think he actually believed he had good
>captures of those birds.
There is a language barrier, and Miguel is very much over his head in
this group. Or, at least, compared to the people who post in this
group who actually take photographs and work at learning how to do it
better. There are some very obvious exceptions to this.
>>> and I find his religious shots poorly thought out and
>>> executed.
>>
>> There's nothing of interest in those photos. I don't care if it's a
>> priest or a politician...a dull photo is a dull photo. It's not the
>> profession, or calling, of the subject.
>
>Again there is nothing wrong with photographs with a religious theme,
>or of religious buildings. Most of his were just not in anyway
>interesting or good.
>What I dislike is his evangelistic tone when linking them to some
>festival, religious feast or holiday.
Yeah, but he really only got carried away once on this, and that after
some pretty vicious hounding.
This whole thing reminds me of the old joke about the guy who asks
someone if he'll give him a blow job for $1. The person indignantly
replies "Of course not! I'm not a cocksucker.".
The guy then asks if the person will give him a blow job for $1
million. The person asked pauses, and then says "OK, for $1 million,
I'll do it".
The first guy then says "Now that we know what you are, let's
negotiate on price".
In this case, what is being negotiated is the size of the cage.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
