Miguel Lasa"s nature photography

October 15, 2005 7:54 PM

Wildlife and Nature Photography by Miguel Lasa. Wow. (via)
posted by hortense (18 comments total)

Nice.
There may be cooler jobs in the world than being a professional nature/wildlife photographer, but in my book it's gotta be in the top 5.
posted by spock at 8:14 PM on October 15, 2005

Very cool shots of the great grey owl. For a second I thought they were the same as those in a Nat'l Geographic from earlier this year.
posted by DakotaPaul at 8:19 PM on October 15, 2005

I gotta say, however, that the quality of the web site design does not mate well with the quality of the photography. Friends don't let friends make headlines with Comic Sans, dude.
posted by spock at 8:19 PM on October 15, 2005

Very nice. Just when I think I'm starting to like my own photography, I see stuff like this that makes mine look like shit.
posted by Eekacat at 9:39 PM on October 15, 2005

Do you realise just how many hours out in the snow in the woods you need to log in, with perfectly dry lenses, in order to get up this close to some of these birds?
posted by Balisong at 10:23 PM on October 15, 2005

No, why? Is that something I should think about when looking at photographs? "Nice composition, but MAN, the HOURS he must have sat in the woods with PERFECTLY DRY lenses." I guess I am pretty superficial and take in the beauty presented to me at face value.
posted by Eekacat at 10:30 PM on October 15, 2005

I was merely trying to covey that in addition to nice compositions, and benign beauty, these photos took a lot of time and work. Something that is under apriciated when someone only takes in the benign beauty, without realising how hard it is to get there.

But thanks for the snark. I guess this wouldn't be Metafilter if we couldn't argue about it.
posted by Balisong at 11:03 PM on October 15, 2005

Why is it under appreciated if I don't consider "how hard it is to get there"? Your first comment completely ignores the beauty of these pictures, and to me that is as absurd as how you must think of how I view these photographs. When I listen to a great musician I don't think "wow, think of all the blisters he got on his fingers from hours of practice to play like that". There are quite a few powerful images that Miguel Lasa is presenting us. I don't see these as presenting his torture and toil capturing them, but rather his own appreciation of the natural world. I do understand the work that went into these, but I couldn't really give a shit how long he sat in the snow keeping his lenses dry to take them. Your welcome for the snark. It took me years of being teased by siblings, ostracized by peers, and much inner turmoil to come up with such sarcasm. I hope you can appreciate that.
posted by Eekacat at 12:27 AM on October 16, 2005

I do! I grew up with many layers of sarcasm by my parents!
I see you haven't ever grown up out of yours. Maybe you should consider just how many calouses some musician has endured to bring you some bit of enjoyment.
Good songs are hard to come by. So are nice nature photos.

That's it! I'm calling your siblings and peers!
posted by Balisong at 12:44 AM on October 16, 2005

All beautiful shots, but this took my breath away. I know almost nothing about the equipment required to create such crystalline images, but the small amount I know about composition and framing tells me I could head out into the wild with the most expensive lens ever made and still not have the requisite eye and timing to take a picture like this one. Thanks, hortense.
posted by melissa may at 12:55 AM on October 16, 2005

Ahh, I see Balisong, your sarcasm grew up into condescension. Thanks for the snark, glad to see you aren't above it.

I do appreciate the work that someone has gone through to "bring me some enjoyment". It's just not the first thing I think of while enjoying it. The art is forefront for me, the mechanics secondary. Your opinion seems to differ. Parallel lines rarely meet.
posted by Eekacat at 1:39 AM on October 16, 2005

Are you two gonna kiss?
posted by undule at 2:16 AM on October 16, 2005

reminds me. if you're in the UK this month you can see the BBC wildlife photography competion at the natural history museum (here are some of the winners from 2004)
posted by tnai at 3:02 AM on October 16, 2005

Are you two gonna kiss?

Wow. I'm having flashbacks to the Gyan/Citizen Premier debates of 15 July 2005...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:35 AM on October 16, 2005

Parallel streets meet in non-Euclidean space, otherwise known as the West Village, Manhattan.

Just so you know.

The photos are awesome. Owls are cool, but I've only ever seen a wild one twice (one was a giant snow owl!).
posted by Goofyy at 6:08 AM on October 16, 2005

Ah, I see the problem now Eekacat, you thought I was addressing you because my post was after yours. I wasn't. I was simply throwing a statement 'out there' to the community.

It wasn't an attack on your photography skills, just a statement. I think you are taking this a little too personally.
posted by Balisong at 7:08 AM on October 16, 2005

The many hours and days of work don't affect my opinion of the photos, but they do make me question whether it's one of "the cooler jobs in the world".
posted by smackfu at 8:07 PM on October 16, 2005

In the words of my friend:

Photo number 15 is by far one of the best wildlife photos I've ever seen, from a purely artistic stance. The intentional off-center framing is beautiful, and it fully conveys the fact that Owls are functionally blind (as does the bleach-white background). The bird has its eyes open, but they're empty because it's just listening and feeling--its visual cortex is probably flat-lined, and you can tell this just by looking at the picture. In addition, simply looking at the bird's face conveys a sense of intense, but calm, concentration; you'd never guess it was in the middle of a high-speed, murderous act, and the only reason you can tell that from the picture is because of the wing movement. Fucking brilliant.
posted by iamck at 6:00 PM on October 17, 2005