Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My thoughts, in your particular case, Doug: The vast majority of what you post fit snugly into the "wildlife" genre (possibly within some further sub-categories). You seem to bring extremely high technical standards to your photography; so may be your harshest technical critic. You seem to post only the best (or at least very good) examples; so may be your harshest editor. You've clearly stated your intentions as to: present the subjects in their natural habitat; with accurate coloration of both subject and environment; and in optimal poses and/or behaviors. You've studied deeply the various species and probably know more about them than most of us (certainly more than I). So what's left that I could seriously discuss (or critique) - beyond "WOW - gorgeous"? The aesthetics: While not a truly serious student of wildlife photography; I do enjoy looking at the photographs (as well as dabbling occasionally). Aesthetically I find some WL photographers seem to shoot and post process for the "spectacular" effect; where the image, IMO, transcends the subject. Other's seem to shoot for strong and true documentation (I put you, Doug, in this category). Others seem to use wildlife subjects in pursuit of "Fine Art" prints. Aesthetically I find many of your WL photographs rely heavily on the beauty of the subject, generally centered (or nearly so) in the frame, and flawless technique. In this regard they often leave me with similar feelings as when I view Audubon prints; beautiful, rich, technically incredible; yet not particularly emotionally moving or poetic. I sometimes wonder if you ever experiment with strong asymmetry or other more experimental concepts; while fully realizing (from my dabbling) that just getting the tiny suckers into the frame is plenty challenge enough. The historical context: As stated above - I think your work fits into the ornithological illustration tradition; with the added and more contemporary use of photography to bring "true documentation" into the mix. I suspect that the seriousness with which you pursue your subject documentation concomitant with the quality of your prints, puts you in a relatively new photographic market place. Obviously I'm not critiquing a particular photograph here; but rather discussing a body of work as I've come to know it. Do we as a group have interest in these types of discussions; whether on a particular photograph; or a photographers body of work? Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Dec 17, 2009, at 6:22 PM, wildlightphoto at earthlink.net wrote: > George Lottermoser wrote: > >>>> > Just thinking out loud about the request for "harsher" > (or, as I read it, more serious critiques). > > Can't help wondering, > "What aspects of the image do you want analyzed? > Technical, aesthetic, ideas, the moment chosen, all of them?" > <<< > > I'd welcome this for my own photos and would gladly try to provide > this > sort of critique for others when desired. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information