|
|
|
Re: In the style of M. Nichols (National Geographic)
[Re: DavidRamey]
#10372
09/14/07 04:45 PM
09/14/07 04:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Colorado, USA
Buddy Thomason
OP
Traveler
|
OP
Traveler
Joined: Oct 2005
Colorado, USA
|
Quote:
I try to record Nature as it is found, not with a distorted view.
David - Do you threfore consider the use of bokeh or the intentional blurring of water in motion inconsistent with a clear vision of Nature? (I do appreciate the legitimacy of your point and I'm not trying to be cheeky in asking. I'm genuinely interested.)
glamson - The duck is cool! But I like the Irish Setter better in a way (if only the eye was visible - same with PossumCorner's kookaburra), because your capture so perfectly conveys the personality of the breed. I guess you could say the same about the duck which looks angry at you and about to attack - displaying the irritability ducks, geese and swans are known for.
|
|
|
Re: In the style of M. Nichols (National Geographic)
[Re: Buddy Thomason]
#10373
09/14/07 06:02 PM
09/14/07 06:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
DavidRamey
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
|
Quote:
Quote:
I try to record Nature as it is found, not with a distorted view.
David - Do you threfore consider the use of bokeh or the intentional blurring of water in motion inconsistent with a clear vision of Nature? (I do appreciate the legitimacy of your point and I'm not trying to be cheeky in asking. I'm genuinely interested.)
Not at all and let me explain why. The use of Bokeh is using selective focus to make the subject "pop" from the background, to guide the viewer's eye to the subject of the photograph, otherwise the subject could be lost in a "busy" background. Our own human eyes have selective focus. Using Bokeh is another way of seeing what we can naturally see with our own eyes. As far as the intentional blurring of water goes, I have seen water take on a blurr in nature in some kinds of light, so again it is something that you can find in Nature without a camera. We all use "tricks" to get the photos to look more appealing, but that doesn't mean we are misrepresenting nature. We use juxtapositions and dichotmies. We use elements of graphic design ie. color, line, pattern, texture and form to create a good photograph instead of a snapshot. Is this misrepresenting nature or just presenting nature in a more pleasing way?
I think the intentional blurring of nature photographs is not representing nature. It is more of an abstract piece of art. That doesn't make it wrong, it just puts it into a different catagory with a different purpose. Now for myself, I normlly do not care for absract art, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, just not my preferance.
Quote:
glamson - The duck is cool! But I like the Irish Setter better in a way (if only the eye was visible - same with PossumCorner's kookaburra), because your capture so perfectly conveys the personality of the breed. I guess you could say the same about the duck which looks angry at you and about to attack - displaying the irritability ducks, geese and swans are known for.
I like the duck photo, but I don't care for the Irish Setter photo. Just my opinion and preferance.
David Ramey Photography
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
2,772
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics641
Posts1,031
Members3,319
| |
Most Online4,088
Apr 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
