"God is in the details;" and "The Devil is in the details."
I view it in the same light as the "glass is half empty/half full". For the most part, I live my life in the Devil camp. Work is usually focused on solving problems or building something to circumvent problems before they happen. I look for the negative side of things and imagine how bad things could get.
I'm trying to make photography the opposite of work. I look for the positive, and for what delights me about what I'm looking at, and try to photograph it. I am an atheist, but as far as the saying goes, photography is my way of leaving the devil behind and finding God.
The Devil, however, is awfully persistent.
Most of the images I post are unedited, un-cropped and straight from the camera with the exception of some basic manipulation of exposure in Lightroom. And sometimes, like in my moon shot post, I take post production a bit further by knocking the color out of an image or playing with the levels in Photoshop.
I think relying on post-production is a hindrance to developing my photography skills and therefore I want to avoid it. But sometimes, like today, it's helpful to look back and examine what I've done for signs of the Devil in the details. Taking a photo to 1:1 at 12 MP shows instantly whether I achieved the basic goals of 'focus' and subject state.
Here are some photos from my Metro Toronto Zoo trip, and some self-critique:
The Skink is an animal I usually find repulsive, and this one, shot through glass and caught mid-molt, was particularly disturbing for me. The shiny thing on its upper lip is old skin, barely hanging on. As I mentioned in the initial zoo post, I was lucky with the through-glass shots.
My baby, in a 'I'd leap the fence and give you a great big hug, knowing you'd tear me to pieces' kind of way. This was the only time I saw her in front of a fairly neutral background, as she soaked in her pool. I am not happy about the shadows but considering I couldn't get post-dawn or late evening light, I think it turned out OK.
I like his expression but the light isn't quite right - you can see shadows on his face. They might give him more character, but it's tough to say without putting it beside a shot without shadows.
I couldn't quite catch this guy looking straight out; he/she always kept its eyes pointed towards the ground. I think more patience would have paid off. Also, I should have been standing another two-three feet to my left for a better background.
Majestic, yet, the light is coming from behind and not the front. Plus, the light background threw me for a bit of a loop. I could have exposed the front better, but the background would have blown out. I tried to keep the sky blue, and the result is an evenly lit yet dull photo.
I am not partial to grain in my photos. I wonder, sometimes, if I'm pushing the 18-200mm to its limits or if I'm just doing something wrong. It's an F/3.5 lens, and there are significantly better zooms out there. I went for the convenience of the focal range and sacrificed some quality - now I'm not sure that was the best way to go.
So much pink, so much light! This is another shot that would have benefited from softer light. There's just too much burn, and I think a lot of the richness of the color is lost. I do like its beady little eye.
I am really curious about how this guy lost his scale. It was not a small snake, which helped the detail. For a through-glass shot, I have no complaints. But I think if I stood a little to my left, I might have been able to give his eye more play, instead of the scales.
Nikon makes a 300mm prime that I would really like to try one day. The background in this shot isn't quite blurred enough to make the rhino pop the way I wanted. If anyone wants to give me $7.5k or so (I'd have to get a teleconverter, too!), email me for my mailing address. ;)
Maybe not the best photo (again, with the direct light), but man, those hungry, hungry hippos look happy.
© Jeremy Buehler and Bug Noir (www.bugnoir.com), 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment