Apologies for having a slight rant at such a trivial matter but this bugs me for some reason.
Why is there a trend for photographers to post to galleries such as Surfbirds perfectly good photos which are then labelled 'record shot'? Is it false modesty? Are they implying they're such great photographers that this shot is for some reason 'below-par'? Perhaps this topic has been raised before and it's a bit of an in-joke? In my book a record shot is poor quality, probably fuzzy or grainy but still probably identifiable. Of course if you really are posting a record shot there's no need to state as such as we can all see that that is what it is - the photo can speak for itself! I'm sure there could be much more informative acompanying text such as camera settings used, equipment, distance from bird etc etc. Maybe I'm alone on this one but I'm keen to hear others' thoughts!
James
Why is there a trend for photographers to post to galleries such as Surfbirds perfectly good photos which are then labelled 'record shot'? Is it false modesty? Are they implying they're such great photographers that this shot is for some reason 'below-par'? Perhaps this topic has been raised before and it's a bit of an in-joke? In my book a record shot is poor quality, probably fuzzy or grainy but still probably identifiable. Of course if you really are posting a record shot there's no need to state as such as we can all see that that is what it is - the photo can speak for itself! I'm sure there could be much more informative acompanying text such as camera settings used, equipment, distance from bird etc etc. Maybe I'm alone on this one but I'm keen to hear others' thoughts!
James