hi, I have mixed feelings about the frame. I can not decide if I like it or not. But the photo is very nice. I like the colours and the position of the lizard. The background has a little to much of everything, but you couldn't change that.

Greetings,
Damjan

Thank you Damjan for your comment.

Background - if I could have used larger aperture I would hane been able to make the backround softer or "disappear"
but I did not have my Zuiko 5mm F2 macro (which has vey beautiful bokeh) so you a right - I could not affect the background.

Frame - I don´t like photos without frames. Such photos belong to newspapers, magazines and books OR are just shot for documentary or practical purposes or some other more or less utilitarian purposes to document something or serve as an aid to memory (techical, scientific or research photography). Photos shot for more or less aesthetical purposes benefit of frames or even need frames. Frames help to direct the attention of observer to photograph (Jurij Lotman, a world famous Tartu school semiotic has written about the role of framing in culture). Bad photos do not need frames. Good photos look a bit better in frames and great photos certainly deserve to be framed. Summa summarum - I think that a photo (unless for example it is a photo of my wrecked car to be sent to insurance company) looks a bit naked without frames or unfinished to put in other words.

best regards, pekka.




Damjan Gosak wrote:
> hi, I have mixed feelings about the frame. I can not decide if I like it or not. But the photo
> is very nice. I like the colours and the position of the lizard. The background has a little
> to much of everything, but you couldn't change that.
>
> Greetings,
> Damjan
>