rafe bustin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:21:13 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:



Whatcha gonna do with them? Burn them down because they are in your
shot? Sigh.



I didn't make the rule. And you're not
required to follow it. But I'm telling
you... those houses don't help the image
in any way.

Who ever said photography was going to
be easy? Possibly a section of beach
a mile away might have had no houses --
I don't know. Quite possibly it would
have had no gulls!

Photography is as much about what's
*not* in the picture as what *is*.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Like you said, the gulls probably wouldn't have waited while the
photographer moved down the beach a mile or so. It is quite challenging
to take pictures of dynamic natural settings. Not at all like doing
still lifes in a studio. Sometimes it just isn't possible to get the
perfectly composed shot. Given a choice, I will take the picture, and
hope to be able to correct any glaring deficiencies in the editing process.


--
Ron Hunter