Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 11, 2004, 3:50 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 66
Default

:|
Attached Images
 
MP4-19B is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 11, 2004, 7:42 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

a little cutie, nice shot.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 8:32 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Nice and very cute shot and animal. But... is this wildlife?
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 10:07 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

This photograph is magnificent. The cuteness of the subject's face, the baby blue background, the expression. One cannot look at this photograph without being moved in a positive way. And technically it is impressive, perhaps a slight boost in contrast to reduce the very slight flatness. I got a warm fuzzy feeling as soon as this photo downloaded. Great one.

PS - "Is this wildlife?" Have you ever seen a cat on catnip? Yep, this is wildlife :lol:
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 10:09 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Normcar wrote:
Quote:
PS - "Is this wildlife?" Have you ever seen a cat on catnip? Yep, this is wildlife :lol:
Touche! You got me Norm.
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 10:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Seriously speaking, geoff, the pros go out with their very very expensive gear to capture animals from a long distance in the "real" wilds (if that is a reasonable expression). For some reason many (not me) seem not to consider a photo of a pet or an insect in the back yard, or an animal at the zoo to be roadworthy as a subject. Of course it's a great thing to capture a wild animal in it's natural environment, but that is another area of photography.

I'm personally excited when I see a good capture of a domestic animal or one taken at a zoo with a special expression, where the technical stuff is more approachable by the average person with non-pro equipment. And, this is the major point I think I'm making. Consumer digital cams nowadays can capture "quality" I believe on the same level as the pros. The difference isn't what is possible but how much beating the equipment will take before it breaks. Some of the best photos I've seen even in this forum are not necessarily from the DSLR's even, but the consumer cameras where someone has just caught a "great" image at a great time just when the sun was perfect...things that have nothing to do with equipment expense.

I thought this would be a good string for me to input this, since it's a great example of a wonderful photograph that many cameras could have taken. It was the photographer, in this situation, that made the work great, not the camera necessarily.


Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 10:34 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Norm, you won't get any argument from me on what you stated. I personally have to applaud any photograph that just happens to be a "very good" photograph.

In my opinion, what makes one photograph "very good" may differ from what makes another "very good". Some photos are technically excellent (great control of lighting, exposure, sharpness, etc) but others are situationally excellent ("catching the moment"). I think that it is a phenomenon of the times we live in that digital photography hasafforded the massesthe freedom to experiment in a way that film never allowed (slow turnaround time from snapshot to print). As a result, there are a lot more "catch the moment" photos being captured. It's great.

I guess my comment about it not being wildlife is that I've refrained from posting any pictures of my dog here so as to try and keep the categories that Steve has established as pure as possible. In some cases there will be overlap. For example, I take a macro shot of some insects - should that be posted in the Close Up category or in wildlife? Sometimes I post in one category and sometimes in the other...
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 11:08 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

geoffs, I doubt that Steve is going to complain if you share photos of your dog. I hope you do, if it's going to be as wonderful as your bird photos.

I know that I've seen dogs "without a leash" that are alot wilder than any bear I'd wish to meet in the woods.

Wild is subjective I'd say, I'd personally love to see some photos of your dog.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2004, 11:49 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

This is where we will disagree. It is a good picture (better than many cat photos I've taken) but it's not "wildlife". This is a domesticated cat. A Pet. They are not easy to photograph (well, some are, but some are not) and it certainly takes skill to take a good photo of them (especially kittens.)

But it isn't "wildlife." That is why there is another forum for them. A bengal tiger is a zoo is not "wildlife" and it's a lot closer to a wild cat than this one.

Now, it can also be said that I don't really care if it's posted here. I only say it because there actually is a "Right" place to put it. geoffs, please post a picture of your dog, just put it in the correct forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normcar
Consumer digital cams nowadays can capture "quality" I believe on the same level as the pros. The difference isn't what is possible but...
Normcar, when you finally get your hands on the 1D Mark II, you'll learn that your comment is wrong. The Mark II can get pictures that are not possible with my "consumer grade Digital SLR". It can focus faster and more accurately than my 10D can ever hope to achieve. And that costs me pictures. Consumer grade cameras are getting better (higher MP, some reduced noise) but AF speed and low noise at REALLY high ISO is still only in the Pro class cameras.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2004, 12:00 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
A bengal tiger is a zoo is not "wildlife" and it's a lot closer to a wild cat than this one.
For zoo animals we have a problem - where do such pictures get posted on Steve's Forums? If not wildlife then there's no category suitable other than Other Photos. Would that be your suggestion?

Zoo animals are a special category. They are not domesticated animals and, through no fault of their own, they live out their lives within confined quarters. I'd still term them to be "wildlife" but the "thrill of the hunt" isn't quite up to par with that of the photographer going out into the woods and imaging free ranging wildlife. They can still be difficult to photograph well though.
Quote:
geoffs, please post a picture of your dog, just put it in the correct forum.
I've already posted photos of my dog in Stupid Pet Tricks which I'd rather see renamed to just Pets.

Quote:
The Mark II can get pictures that are not possible with my "consumer grade Digital SLR". It can focus faster and more accurately than my 10D can ever hope to achieve. And that costs me pictures.
Can the Mark II focus in real time such that I can get nice sharp photos of swallows as they swoop and turn when catching insects over a field or over water? I tried that today with my prosumer c-8080wz and had a hell of a time (interpret that to mean lots of bad photos).


geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.