That vignette business is just distracting, to my eye, rather than adding anything to the images. To each their own, I suppose. posted by Greg_Ace at 12:43 PM on December 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
The orangutan certainly has Bergmanesque quality. posted by Kafkaesque at 1:18 PM on December 15, 2010
Yeah that's the point. Phony vignette sucks. Unless your camera or the situational lighting naturally produces it there's almost never a good reason for the photo to have it.
This is even worse because It's a ham-handed fake of two effects: vignette and bokeh. And it's the same cookie cutter shopchop every time.
Which is a shame because I like some of the shots without it. posted by clarknova at 1:19 PM on December 15, 2010
Some of these are very nice, but I agree that the vignetting is overdone. little cow is right - the 'deer' is definitely a kangaroo. posted by wadefranklin at 2:17 PM on December 15, 2010
I wonder if instead of some digital vignette-trick, this photographer perhaps used some kind of archaic equipment. No time to research this now for specifics, but I remember reading that there's a veritable cult of using old, optically compromised cameras for effects very much like this one.
In any case, to my taste this is a technicality (not my favorite one, having spent months in the darkroom trying to make my black and white prints ever so perfectly crystal-sharp-what-have-you-notty, but that's not my point), whereas the "gravitas" has to do with the choice of subject and the expressiveness of the same. That vaguely smiling Orangutan is my special favorite (can't retrieve a separate link). posted by Namlit at 5:48 PM on December 15, 2010
« Older Not in the headlines:... | The New York Times presents an... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(But I'll admit my bias right now - I really like zoos.)
posted by SkylitDrawl at 12:13 PM on December 15, 2010