dingo

Have a good look at a dingo. It may become extinct. Cheers, Sam.

This is a photography forum, so please read what I write as a commentary on the photographic worth of this submission rather than its worth at a nature submission, since I recognize that the sighting of a dingo may be rare indeed.

 

A photo should tell us something about the subject that enlightens us and that fulfills us as viewers photographically. It's often hard for beginning photographers who are enthusiastic about 'capturing' something that is personally exciting to recognize the difference between 'personal excitement' and 'photographic excitement'.

 

I posted a photo of a man in a boatyard tonight and the man is not exciting at all personally and certainly is not endangered, so no Green Peace points there. In fact he is handsome but rather common.

 

But photographically, he does somewhat fill the bill (for me at least, but will other members agree?) He fills the frame somewhat, the coloring is good, and he's shown environmentally (boat he is working on as a boatyard workers is behind him and it's complementary to his clothing colors). It was 'exciting' for me to find him like that photographically.

 

I'd personally be 'excited' to see a dingo, but might not take the photo, or might not show it, unless it were more close up than this and showed it in some act of being prototypical 'dingo' or 'animal' such as leading its pups, nursing, yawning, etc. etc., rather than stopped and being wary (e.g. 'caught in the headlights, so to speak, realizing ths is a daylight shot).

 

This particular show probably required getting in closer or using a more powerful telephoto and/or stalking your prey and possibly taking a series of shots.

 

I have only one (maybe two) animal shots in my portfolio, because they should be prototypical -- mine is of a koala in a eucalyptus tree in the Santa Diego Zoo, and unlike the ten thousand or so other shots of him taken by tourists that day, he not only 'fills the frame' but I have caught him yawning, with his fanged lower tooth for goughing eucalyptus, but also shown his krinkly tongue. And that didn't score highly on PN.

 

Everyone has to start somewhere, and after a while the difference between an exciting find and an exciting find photographically will become readily apparent (the scores will let you know for sure -- I'm not rating).

 

I'm writing this lengthy 'critique' to help explain the process and to let you know that 22 months ago I uploaded my first photograph and it was a difficult experience at best and I wondered why the 7s didn't come pouring in (and why don't they still . . . I wonder?)

 

I hope you take these words in the constructive way they're meant, as they're meant as sharing and a way of saying here's how to improve, which is what this site should always be about, not just numbers or 'nice depth of field' or 'desaturate more', if you get my drift.

 

I hope it has been helpful.

 

With respect,

 

John (Crosley)

John, I really appreciate all your eleaborate considerations about what makes a photo good, interesting, special, worth to look at more than once. That's what PN is all about, getting ideas & having stimulating discussions. IMO the specialty of this photo might be that perhaps not many photos of dingos exist which have been shot from a moving boat ;-) Of course, it's burnt out on the front side of the dingo but, when taking shots in nature when both photographer & object are moving, these things happen. In this case the sun stood already low, just before sunset, and that's probably the moment these animals come to the riverside to drink. Otherwise I might never have seen him. One can ponder endlessly about a photo, whether it's good, or bad, or whatever. Thanks very much for your contribution & critique. Cheers, Sam.