>Point out the rant my man.
>I like zoo photos where the photography intentionally underexposes the background to hide the fact that they’re at the zoo. It’s cute.
>I'd rather you not shoot at the zoo at all, faggot.
>Let’s just call it visual literacy.
>It’s a wild animal shot in close up from the shoulders up, plus the lush background in the second pic is a dead giveaway.
>New photographers who are still in their zoo phase will do their goddamnedest to avoid actually showing the zoo environment. It’s almost emblematic of the zoo as a whole, where you have little proxy stand-ins for the natural environment in a wholly artificial, manufactured space. They don’t want you to know you’re in the zoo when you’re at the zoo, and it’s no wonder that photographers are mentally primed by this suggestion and ape it (no pun intended) with their own work.
>Not that anon, but where else would you get that strange spot lightning? Certainly not in nature unless you climbed up a tree and were lucky
On the other hand it would make a lot of sense in a zoo, have a fake wall in the back of the small cage and light the birds from above
>You know, you’re right. What a keenly trained eye you have. I didn’t even realise it at first but looking closer at those photos now I see that OP is indeed smack dab in the middle of his zoo phase. The missed focus, the concealed underbody, the random shard of light right on the subject. It all reeks of a novice. And not just a novice, but a novice who is self-conscious of his status, unwilling or unprepared for a more mature assignment. He goes to the zoo because it is comfortable. The “training wheels” of the aspiring nature photographer. But make no mistake: nothing natural has been photographed here. That bird is in a zoo.
>Maybe it’s because OP shot his photos in a zoo.
