This is an interesting discussion. Since the first post, I have 'fixed' the image to not show the reality that was there. I suppose it would be helpful to know the circumstances a bit.
This was shot on San Bruno mountain in a state park that is trying to protect the plants and animals. So first, one would have to decide whether to alter the foliage to make a shot that is different than reality or not. Second, it was shot in early afternoon in very bright sun. That means shooting much more like film - because I could barely make out the review screen - certainly not well enough to see the details that are deemed as less desirable. For myself, I tend toward things as they were, rather than altering them. It is probably why my zoo shots still leave me feeling a bit like a cheat. So a little natural flaw doesn't bother me as much as some others. I realize that all picture taking is a manipulation to some degree or another. The lens chosen, the exposure, the filters, the angle and composition are all somewhat a manipulation of the subject. So does putting an insect in the fridge to make it sluggish bother you? Does removing foliage or nearby plants bother you? Does misting a spider web bother you? The list can go on. Thoughts anyone? Or shall we talk about aperture simulators? Here is the original: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm Here is the 'fixed' one: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580a.htm -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 1:24:04 PM, you wrote: k> Hey,. Shel... k> It's REALITY! What can I say? k> I loved what you captuted, but, change this and change that and I'd find k> it more acceptable? Whatever that means... k> keith k> Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> Behind the three heads in the foreground, behind the center stalk and the >> "V" created by the left and center stalks. >> >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3580.htm >> >> Shel >> [Original Message] >>> From: keith_w <keith_w >> >>> OOF flower head? All three are lousy with teeny, tiny hair-like fuzz >>> needles, that are quite clearly delineated. Some of them couldn't be >>> more than .001-.002" in diameter, yet Bruce and his hand-held lens >>> captured them well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
