Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stoshowicz" data-source="post: 429717" data-attributes="member: 31397">IMO, how tight you crop or zoom in , really depends on two things, the level of detail thats satisfactory, and what is it that you find most interesting ..and so,, wish to convey. When I look at my own, theres a point where I feel satisfied that I can really see well the interesting thing. Sometimes , like with that nice mockingbird shot, the nice bit is really the whole setting , branches and all. On the giraffe, youd actually lose the subject by zooming back to encompass its whole body. For birds shown to birders&nbsp; , the 'rules' are often really rather tight, super detail , exposure of important body parts,&nbsp; lighting, species&nbsp; etc. Its about the DEPICTION of the subject primarily , and only secondarily artsy. For the enjoyer of wildlife as art subjects , theres a lot more leeway, you can blow some highlight , neglect some nuances, use creative or dramatic lighting ,, and only secondarily is the accurate depiction important.So , what is 'best' depends on audience and intent. So to judge such pix of either genre, you have to decide which standards are the ones the photographer is aiming for, and whether he or she 'stuck the landing'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stoshowicz, post: 429717, member: 31397"] IMO, how tight you crop or zoom in , really depends on two things, the level of detail thats satisfactory, and what is it that you find most interesting ..and so,, wish to convey. When I look at my own, theres a point where I feel satisfied that I can really see well the interesting thing. Sometimes , like with that nice mockingbird shot, the nice bit is really the whole setting , branches and all. On the giraffe, youd actually lose the subject by zooming back to encompass its whole body. For birds shown to birders , the 'rules' are often really rather tight, super detail , exposure of important body parts, lighting, species etc. Its about the DEPICTION of the subject primarily , and only secondarily artsy. For the enjoyer of wildlife as art subjects , theres a lot more leeway, you can blow some highlight , neglect some nuances, use creative or dramatic lighting ,, and only secondarily is the accurate depiction important. So , what is 'best' depends on audience and intent. So to judge such pix of either genre, you have to decide which standards are the ones the photographer is aiming for, and whether he or she 'stuck the landing'. [/QUOTE]

Verification