Article

A recent article in Nature Photographers Magazine — "eleven most tiresome cliché in nature photography" (see here) — made me reflect on what I do not like. I share the views of the author of the article, Stan rose, about those annoying stereotypes in photos of landscapes, which he listed, and I have even found that the dobavait′. However, not being an expert on landscapes, I'm more interested in what is happening in the pictures of wild animals, so cliche annoy me much more. Reflections on the subject led me to my own list of 12.

Picture of amphibians and reptiles are interested me the most and I hope sometime to develop my own style in their shooting. So I draw attention to the fact that other photographers — to learn from them and compare what I'm doing.

The most common approach, which often notice on online portfolio for photographers and photos that people show numerous fotoforumah is, when using a macro lens or televika is a picture in which the pet takes a minimum of 50% of the frame, and nothing more to be seen, except some few elements of the environment, such as leaves, grass, or stones. Artificial lighting (Flash) makes it even more similar to the terrarium. So, if it is not a very rare animal, or one that does not live in captivity, I usually think, why the author had occurred to demonstrate such a picture as some kind of achievement. Justified whether the difficulty of obtaining photos of the wild animal, if such pictures, only much better quality can be achieved by taking in a home terrarium or in the Zoo?

The best is both technically and aesthetically — photos of amphibians and reptiles of the ones that I've ever seen were in captivity or in the Studio, with decorations, simulating natural conditions. I saw also that such photographs viewers like more than the same kinds, but made in the wild, where the photographer had to deal with common problems — with bad lighting, a large distance to the object, etc. (I still come back to this issue when I discuss the concerns I have anger photos of animals in captivity.)

Some of my photos, such as the example here with a newborn turtle, also made in the "style of the determinant. But I am aware that the interest in this case might represent the only content, that is, this is just a documentary photograph little Emys orbicularis and not a work of art. I photographed this animal while sightseeing and showing this picture on my site, I want people to see only the little marsh turtle, and not trying to impress anyone with its achievement in photography. The more I'm not going to show this picture to other photographers to get their feedback. The only purpose of such images — Zoological documentation, so I don't rely on what they love all people, including those not interested in zoology. If I still want to know someone's opinion, I will show you the photo rather than the photographer a zoologist. That is why I bother when someone demonstrates to the public on a Flickr photo of common species of frogs or lizards, showing only the animal. I just don't know how to react in this case: all I see is a frog, lizard. but not the product photos, that would be worth discussing. Criticism of mediocrity in this case would have been useless and unfair, because there's nothing wrong with this picture: it just showed in the wrong place and ask opinions, not the audience. In terms of photography, many images look uninteresting and mediocre compared with footage of amphibians and reptiles in captivity, which is above both the style and the artistic and technical terms.

If the image of an animal demonstrates how photo, which the author wants to make an impression on the Viewer, it should be something more than a simple documentary photograph.