You know theres this nice little argument going on about wildlife pics at photo.net (nice place if you havent ever visited it...) . Anyway the one line question is a technically flawed image of an interesting/uncommon behaviour "BETTER" than one that is technically perfect but not as interesting/uncommon?the better off course is laden, better for who? most of the argument there was about better commercially...well even in the world of commerce, there's types and types arent there?
anyway, i wont take this thought any further and you can get in on the fray in pnet if you want to. this is a depends question and even then its a judgement call...
I was thinking about something else, there's this new site called wildindia....and a story and picture on it of a tusker who got shot shortly after being photographed. then i read an article in the newsletter for birdwatchers by shyamal. it talks about avifaunal changes in IISc...that was 1998 i think. I havent seen a lot of the birds he says were there even then ... (i confess now to not being a very good or even assiduous birder. and to the fact that i've seen as vagrants one or two he doesnt talk about...).
I think the point still remains, that all of us morons pointing our lenses at these crits are watching them vanish before the shutter trips. that whether we want it or not we are documenting the disappearing...
at any rate my way of looking at things have changed a lot, suddenly the crits i shoot are very firmly embedded in a human and ephemeral landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment