Top Nature photos of 2011

[paulie_smith1]

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/12/50_best_photos_of_the_natural.html">http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/12/50_best_photos_of_the_natural.html</a><br>

Some nice work here.</p>

<p>Not all are strictly nature but worth a look.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Yes indeed, some fine stuff, but there's stuff on here that will toast some of that, and that's why it's so cool to hang out here!</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Not really impressed, and not a fan of zoo photos. Like Dave says, there's much better work here on Pnet.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>There's always a "better photo", that's what great about this hobby. And for those who don't like zoos as places to take photos, good for them - I'm happy they can be the elitist few. For the vast majority of photographers here on PNet and out in the real world that's not something that's possible - we are amateurs with other ways to earn a living. Zoos may not be a challenging environment to find the animals, but they are a challenging environment to get a shot that doesn't include artificial lights, concreate barriers and the like. And it's what available to most of us.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Why is it "elitist" not to care for zoo photography?</p>

<p>For the record, I'm only an "enthusiast" bird photographer, I live in a small industrial/mining town in north east England ( no "rural idyll" here) and the nearest zoo is about 150 miles away - yet I find plenty of birds and wildlife to photograph.</p>

<p>Perhaps the difference between me and the supposed "vast majority of photographers" is that I'm prepared to put some effort into it.</p>

<p>Oh, and - for reasons I won't go into here - I don't drive either, so it's not like I can just hop into the car and head off somewhere that I know is full of appealing subject matter.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Nature photography is all about preparation, patience’s and understanding your subject.<br>

It breaks my heart that people link nature to an animal living in a zoo. There is nothing more rewarding than to capture or at least seeing a wild animal in their native environment.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Nature photography is all about preparation, patience and understanding your subject.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My sentiments exactly, Ian.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>I'm glad that you get to do what you want outside of a zoo, but to simply dismiss good photos because they were taken in a zoo is my definition of "elitist". Lots of people don't have the outside the city option, and to put down their very good photos because you can is elitist.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>I have no problem with zoo, game farm or staged photography.<br />What I hate is when someone portrays them as nature or wildlife shots.</p>

[greg_blaney]

<p>Maybe its me but who cares where the shot comes from I was always taught the purpose of picking up a camera, brush, or paint was to make art to capture a moment in time and make it last forever. I have done both zoos, the bush, nature trails, millitary med floats with lots of Marines and Sailors and we allshoot for the same thing the most memorable shot. If a person takes a zoo shot are they less artistic or talented? Like I ranted earlier to me a good shot and eye are just that a great picture.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe its me but who cares where the shot comes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because if its a zoo, <em>it's not "nature</em>" as wildlife photographers mean the word.</p>

<p>The issue - which I thought was clear, but apparently not - is <em>not </em>the quality of the images, but their being presented as "top <em>nature </em>photos", when they're no more about "nature" than a picture of your cat.</p>

[olivia_john1]

<p>good stuff :)<br>

<a href="http://embroideryhorizons.com/">Embroidery designs</a></p>