RE: Why not...SHADOW SIDE LIGHT!
- From: Douglas Herr <telyt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:03:23 -0500 (EST)
Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>Jim Brick showed:
>
>>
>> http://www.visualimpressions.com/Friday%20flowers/Friday_flower_1.jpg
>
>
>Certainly why not! It has far more going for it than many we see. The
>difference between this flower photograph and so many posted is....... This
>is shot from the "SHADOW SIDE!"
>
There are several nature/wildlife photography websites where critques of a
photo made from the shadow side invariably include a suggestion to add some
fill flash to get rid of the shadows. I COULD SCREAM!!!
I suspect it's a cultural difference between the nature photography clan and
the Leica (in this case, brand isn't important) clan. The nature photography
clan is approching photography primarily from the nature side, photography
being secondary, while the Leica clan's emphasis is photography.
My question is, why not both? Why can't a photo of an animal be interesting
not only to those whose emphasis and primary motivation for photography is the
animal, and also to those who draw with light, animals happening to be the
subject?
Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com
=========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be replied to
per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to unsubscribe.
Other related posts:
