Wildlife photographer of the year

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Stevens

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 6, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Nov 6, 2013
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    MC Guest

    Absolutely.

    MC
     
    MC, Nov 6, 2013
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    So?
     
    Savageduck, Nov 6, 2013
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens

    android Guest

    Don't you follow the Dogma?
     
    android, Nov 6, 2013
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    What dogma would that be?

    If the shooter feels some tweaking and adjustment is needed in post to
    finish his/her image for presentation, so be it. I use Photoshop,
    Lightroom & various plug-ins for my PP, as does Peter who probably
    over-cooks his images in post more than most of the regulars in these
    photogroups.

    There are no images posted online or entered in various competitions
    which have not been subject to some sort of post processing, some bad,
    some tasteless, some good, and some outstanding. In the last year I
    have seen wildlife photographs far superior to those shown this
    particular competition run by "This is Colossal", they were just never
    submitted to that site to be judged.

    To see images equal or superior to those in that competition just take
    a look at some of those to be found in NatGeo, The Observer
    "Eyewitness" shots, or many of those to be found in 500px.
     
    Savageduck, Nov 6, 2013
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    android Guest

    Sarcasm's toootaly lost on you? Nevermind, it obviously is...
     
    android, Nov 6, 2013
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    When there is no purpose, or direction to it (sarcasm that is), yes.
    Otherwise I prefer to see it when used to effect, you belief that you
    used it so this time, is a misconception on your part. Hell! there
    wasn't even a smidgin of irony there.

    You pose a question regarding "Dogma" without a declaration of that
    "Dogma". Which "Dogma" is it? The "Dogma" of declaring shots in a
    competition your are not entered in as "shopped"?
    ....or the "Dogma" of an "android" who is just spewing?

    My interrogatory "So?" was merely a statement which could have been;
    "What the **** did you expect? They had to get the shots from the
    camera to the web site, and "shopping" them as you know is just one
    step in that direction."
     
    Savageduck, Nov 6, 2013
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    android Guest

    Do you really need these:.-PPPPP
    Oki, there is a film manifest with that name... I kinda thought that you
    were familiar it.... :...-(
    Hard to get to the good oil these days. ;-)
     
    android, Nov 6, 2013
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    Tim Conway Guest

    I agree, especially the first one of the elephants.
    However, to me, I really don't consider an image objectionable or
    "photoshopped" unless it looks totally computer generated.
    Minor retouching or adjusting even noise reduction and cloning, etc. is just
    a modern continuation of the old darkroom tools available way back then...
    Tim
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 7, 2013
    #11
  12. Eric Stevens

    RichA Guest

     
    RichA, Nov 7, 2013
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    I guess all sorts of someones have written treatise on what is
    acceptable in documentary photography, but first define documentary
    photography.
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_photography >

    In this case we are talking wildlife photography which is not intended
    to be diagnostic as in a field guide, or any sort of historic event
    record. This is wildlife photography which is being judged on a
    subjective basis, so it is hardly documentary. There is an element of
    artistic interpretation here, and some interpretive post processing is
    only to be expected. Probably unavoidable.
    You did?? That's interesting. Are these specifics published anywhere?
    You aren't sure??
    Quite possibly, but what does that have to do with this particular,
    subjectively evaluated wildlife photography contest, judged by web site
    editors with unknown credentials to do so?
     
    Savageduck, Nov 7, 2013
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    Is there a sarcastic emoticon?
     
    PeterN, Nov 7, 2013
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    😶
     
    Savageduck, Nov 7, 2013
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    I figured that coming from me, my comment would be taken as a sarcastic
    jab at the no PS crowd,
     
    PeterN, Nov 7, 2013
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    .... and as for the liberties an artist can take with a paint brush!
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 7, 2013
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    Tim Conway Guest

    I like the kind of sutures that rot away and don't have to be removed.
    Several years ago I cut a nerve in my hand when a glass broke while I was
    drying it and having the stitches taken out was worse than anything else
    related to it. :)
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 8, 2013
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    I went to a bat suitor, he never got my tux to fit.
     
    PeterN, Nov 8, 2013
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens

    Tim Conway Guest

    I know it was just Halloween, but wouldn't a penguin suitor worked better
    than a bat?
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.