I wouldn't necessarily be *unhappy* with the others I didn't tick, if they show normal behaviour, even if they had to be put together in an unnatural way, then they're still useful, and often very beautiful.
I agree - but I don't think they're made less beautiful or useful if there's a mention in the commentary (or a footnote on the screen) of how the images were produced.
I find most slow motion and outdoor time lapse photography to be easily identifiable as such, and thus am happy to have them go unlablled. The others I'd prefer to have mentioned in the commentary.
But a lot of nature programmes annoy me these days because the commentary is often REALLY IRRITATING.
I would be rather disappointed if they used a tame lion and didn't let the audience know it was tame. All of these could disappoint if done poorly, it does depend heavily on context.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 09:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 10:02 am (UTC)But a lot of nature programmes annoy me these days because the commentary is often REALLY IRRITATING.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-01 08:41 pm (UTC)