# How to frame a good bird/animal shot



## Jack Douglas (Feb 9, 2015)

Hi All, 

Two years into this renewed hobby and I'm still learning and needing to learn many things. It seems I have been too focused on maximizing the subject and framing or cropping to closely (I suspect this comes from CR's focus on "sharpness in detail" influencing me) and also I've been placing my subject too centered, at least this is a comment from someone I believe knows what he's talking about.

So, I'll start with a photo some of you will have see that I posted that I had cropped and include the original so that some suggestions can be made on how to optimize the impact of my shot, say if it were printed.

From there, any sample's anyone wishes to use to illustrate right and wrong framing are fine. Hope to see some good advice for us beginners who care about being better.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2015)

Jack,

I think you will get multiple answers and none are right or wrong themselves, but the right one is the one that pleases you.

Personally I like a little context with my wildlife, so some version of crop with the tree would be my choice. Taking a little off the open side at the right. If you had the entire tree I would go for third lines. Put the center of the tree on a third and bird on a third. Clicking on the full version you can see the birds eye on the larger version of the pic, I think that is important. So if you are printing smaller and can not see the eye pop it wouldn't be as attractive. Make sure you can see his eyes no matter how you do it.

The crop version I see many people taking this type of photo, blurring the background. They look fine but to me are common and because of that boring.

Just my opinions.

And nice detail.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 9, 2015)

takesome1, I appreciate those well thought out comments. Could you take the FF and do with it what you think you'd like, so I could see that? No problem if you're too occupied with whatever, or prefer not to.

I understand about the eye's importance, so that plays into how large he gets displayed when cropping as I understand you. Dark heads and dark eyes present a challenge for sure. 

Jack


----------



## rpt (Feb 9, 2015)

I crop the images (when possible) such that the eye is on the intersection of the thirds. So top right or bottom right for the direction the bird is flying in your image. This works if you are taking a side shot. If it is a frontal shot, then centering it works as well as the thirds rule. Like takesome1 said, whatever makes *you* happy


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 9, 2015)

Thanks rpt, makes sense.

Isn't it whatever makes you viewers happy, well, at least to some extent? Perhaps it's a beginner's trait to think too much that way but I guess I like to please others, not to mention that it's nice to have your ego stroked when you have pleased others. 

Any samples of definitely good/bad cropping, anyone? 

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2015)

Maybe this, I still like to see more eye.
Larger print you would see it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 9, 2015)

takesome1, thanks again. I think that small birds just don't cut it if the print is smaller and perhaps that's one reason I've fallen into tighter cropping. I love to see the beauty in the detail of wildlife.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2015)

This guy is tough with the black band on his head.
It is hard to bring out the eye if he is to small in the frame.


----------



## danielryan (Feb 11, 2015)

Good photography . I love to do photography and like to experiment new things in it . I always keep a collection of photography through printing from site web . I have formed this collection just to check how much improvements, I have made in my work .


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2015)

danielryan, how about posting a shot or two or three to illustrate what you feel was wrong before and what you're now doing.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

Here is my wife's thought. The tree to the right has to go, once you do that it s just about balancing the negative space and your first version is very close to hers.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Thanks, privatebydesign. I suspect from the response I got on my initial crop, which was from a lot of directions very positive, that it may relate to this: some may be looking at the bird as an abstract and just wanting it to be a focal point outside of a context of nature. Others want it to be seen as approaching a tree for landing. Ask your wife for me.

Still hoping for some more generic examples of framing of birds/wildlife to try to get a more general sense of how it's to be done. There must be some consensus, given that a pro suggested to me that my birds should not sit dead center like I've been doing it.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

Hi Jack,

She is a full time professional artist with an art degree. She said it is about geometry, the problem with the tree in this instance is that it is a completely contrasting colour and you can't see enough of it to make a tree reference, also from a perspective point of view it almost looks like the bird is going to fly into the tree.

Her crop is all about weight and geometry, her crop has a very Asian feel to it and the negative space to the top right is calling out for a chop or character in it. I think if you look at her crop and your crop, although they are very similar, her slightly tighter version is a little more refined from an artistic point of view, not from a birders point of view.

I remember the thread that got you thinking go wider and I can see the interest in both styles of image, but in this instance I don't think there is a good wider option, the environment is not integral enough to warrant inclusion. Remember the first rule of cropping, if it doesn't add to the picture it is detracting from the picture.

I am equally 'guilty' of very tight framing, I used to shoot surf photography and was always in trouble because you couldn't see the wave, the wave gives the action relevance, it is the canvas on which the surfer paints, my images were almost abstract in their tightness and not overly popular amongst the majority of surfers.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

privatebydesign, thank you very much for that and especially thanks to your wife. Not much to argue - if it doesn't add anything, it subtracts. However for a beginner that's a challenging concept to implement.

Do you feel that the various CR bird shots posted are well framed or are we generally just so thrilled to get bird X that we don't pay attention, on average?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

privatebydesign, one more thing, how did the length/width ratio enter into the crop? Should we be sticking with standard dimensions as a rule or throwing that out?

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> privatebydesign, one more thing, how did the length/width ratio enter into the crop? Should we be sticking with standard dimensions as a rule or throwing that out?
> 
> Jack



I am an old time slide shooter and see pretty much everything in a 3:2 relationship. I am no big shot, that is just the way I used the medium for many years, cropping slides, especially to project, was a bitch. My wife is an artist who paints, draws, makes lithographic prints and creates 3D ceramics, to her there is no 'rule' on aspect ratio. I had a hard time cropping your image, she didn't.

I think the aspect ratio plays in to the expectation of the image, sounds a bit 'artsy' but I hope you follow. For instance, look through a bird book and all the images are the same aspect ratio, often the same angle onto the bird, same angled twig/branch etc, these are what I, with no birding knowledge, call reference images, you can tell what the bird is, etc, but they lack dynamism or connection. For reference images sticking to aspect ratios and compositions makes sense, particularly if you can include something that confers scale, a nut or berry etc.

But I find far and away the most powerful birding images to be the behavioral style images, this style of image can be art and doesn't respect aspect ratio just the most powerful composition.


There is a place for both styles of image but they take a different mindset and technique.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> privatebydesign, thank you very much for that and especially thanks to your wife. Not much to argue - if it doesn't add anything, it subtracts. However for a beginner that's a challenging concept to implement.
> 
> Do you feel that the various CR bird shots posted are well framed or are we generally just so thrilled to get bird X that we don't pay attention, on average?
> 
> Jack



Hi Jack,

I haven't seen enough of them to comment honestly. I am in FL and can't walk for birders with superteles on occasion! But I am no birder myself, I just enjoyed the compositional challenge you posed........

Beginning in any discipline is a challenge, and small birds particularly so, I think I would take the route of working on a good portfolio of really strong reference style images by which time I would have started to work the behavioral style with much more familiarity of that behavior and having mastered my gear.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Hard to imagine anyone not photographing birds! 

Actually, my mother's to blame and I can recall getting bird cards to paste in a book - these were associated with ?? maybe Nabob tea. Can't remember ever not being enthused about birds, but also all the other wonderful aspects of nature. I had a budgie by the time I was 4 and had a wonderful childhood. Getting outdoors is a real blessing. 

Living in Florida - no snow - birds of all descriptions - oh me oh my. Thanks again, privatebydesign.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 12, 2015)

Privatebydesign brings up a good subject through his wife's review that is overlooked often by the tech gurus.
The lessons you can learn from other arts in the creation of your photographs. Many of the rules, concepts and technique that create a great painting can be incorporated in to a photograph. Our medium is limited in that we do not have control over as many of the aspects. The more we understand those concepts the better we can frame and crop the picture.

PBD's wife, if I understood correctly, partly choose her crop because the content of the tree was lacking. What if you had a different tree, a branch or a bird it was approaching on the banch. What if it were landing? What I am getting at is there is no hard fast rule that says crop tight, crop loose. Crop for your composition or story you tell.

I do have general birding rule of my own that dictates crop size, if it doesn't have eye detail I usually crop to a size it does. In rare instances, such as a rare action or a BIF I might not be as critical. Eye has to pop.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 12, 2015)

JD, have you looked at Arthur Morris's work?

Tons of relevant advice at birdsasart.com and birdphotographers.net


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Good points and thanks guys. YuengLinger, I have been to his site many times but not with a conscious thought of framing such as I posted here. That's a very good suggestion that I will take. Of course, it's all too easy to get lost in the wealth of subject matter there, so a person has to stay focused on the objective.

That's why I was hoping to get some folk involved in providing some samples of what they like and don't like, of course in a very polite discussion - we all know how CR discussions sometimes degenerate. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

BTW, last night I suggested to my wife that we really should take a course or two. _Guess that's pretty obvious_. Trouble with me, and some of you may have seen projects that I've tackled and posted pictures on, I have learned virtually everything other than my career in electrical engineering by read/observe/ask and then just do it. My wife in contrast can't imagine doing without first taking a course. She'd learn to do it the "right" way while I'd do it "my" way, but both have their place of course.

My problem is I'm not very "artistic", to put it mildly. 

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Feb 12, 2015)

This is an interesting topic Jack. I have a friend, who has travelled the world just to shoot birds. He is collecting species and is primarily interested in getting the bird to fill the frame and get as much detail as possible. But in my eyes, his pictures are razor sharp, well exposed images, but they are just documentation of what a bird look like. No habitat, no atmosphere, no composition and to me no value as a picture. A bit like collecting stamps. I always liked the beautiful ones, didn´t care much for complete series of the boring, but valuable ones ...

My interest is primarily photography and to make pictures that are interesting to look at and enjoy. I am not necessarily any good at it, but I´m trying to show the birds (and animals for that matter) in a larger context than just documenting what they look at. 

The most basic of all compositional rules is the rule of thirds. And if you use it properly, it improves your images. When you have this rule under your belt, you can add to it and even break it. But then you should know why. Other simple rules are making sure the birds are looking into the picture, not out of it. Use branches, leaves, light to guide the viewers eyes to where you want them to focus.

I did a fast dive into my (disorganised) library and found some images of fairly common and unspectacular birds, but which I think have some of the qualities I´m trying to describe. The last one is very symmetrical and as such breaking the rule of thirds, but I still think it works.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Eldar, thanks for that. Your description of your friends activities I think fits me and is the reason I've started reflecting on this. The next step is taking action. 

Often birds don't fill the frame so typically there is room for adjustment after the fact. As you say, although sometimes you can't, but one should pay attention to the orientation of the bird, and its surroundings. 

Now I will look over your pictures more carefully and consider what I like or don't like and a little later comment. It's tricky because sometimes people don't want to hear opinions that aren't exactly praise but in this thread I think we want both sides, especially since there is no right or wrong.

Hoping to see more sample shots and comments from others.

I'm dropping in another shot I thought had promise but didn't know how it should be framed. Not a bird but still interesting relative to framing. Of course, I should compose the picture not crop like crazy afterwards but hiking up a mountain trail, lets just say I was tired and lazy. Anyone interested in saying? - a dud or keep it? - how to crop it to advantage (pretending there is no IQ loss)? My skin is thick, no problem with criticism.

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Jack, over the last 7 years that I've been doing wildlife work, I have learned a lot about cropping. A lot of it has come from people like Michael Reichmann, Art Morris and The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (a great read, BTW), but a lot is just trial and error.

When I crop, I try to consider the following:
-Does each element add to the photograph/story I'm trying to tell? If not, can it be cropped without taking out an important element (like a wingtip)? A good example is this second photo. IMHO, the red leaves against the dark background are all that appear interesting. I would crop out the rest of the frame. This is probably the most important consideration. You should be somewhat ruthless in cropping out the elements. Unless something truly adds to the photo or can't be cropped without cutting something out, it shouldn't be in the frame.
-If the subject is in motion it needs somewhere to go - so for your bird photo, you'd want to leave more negative (empty) space in the direction it's traveling
-The same principle applies if an animal is looking to the side - adding more space in the direction it's staring adds some drama/mystery to the shot
-I generally follow the rule of thirds, but I'm not afraid to break the rules. Reflections look best with the horizon in the middle, it's okay to center subjects, and sometimes other elements add leading lines.
-Beyond that, it's all up to you to determine your vision and what looks best to you. As Michael Freeman says in his book, it's best to consider these are guidelines, not rules. If you follow them, you will generally have pleasing results, but not following them isn't "wrong".
EDIT: forgot to add that when the subject is on the ground, on a branch, etc. it should be "weighted" vs. "floating" which means it should be pushed towards the lower part of the frame to anchor it so it doesn't look like it's unnaturally floating.

I'll post some examples in a bit.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Negative space - animal staring out of it:






Leading lines - and interesting flowers:





More negative space for movement:





Basic rule of thirds + plus using the tree as leading line / separator:





More centered for reflection (and to crop out darker water above):





Breaking the rules :


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver, that's a great read and reread, thanks very much. For me it's kind of like riding a bike. As a beginner every step has to be thought through until it starts to become intuitive. Sometimes I, or anyone I guess, subconsciously is a little lazy rather than going through the checklist.

For my sample shot, which was completely mis-framed to begin with, I should only be displaying red against black with not even a hint of tree stump to the right side, is that correct?

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> For my sample shot, which was completely mis-framed to begin with, I should only be displaying red against black with not even a hint of tree stump to the right side, is that correct?


Jack, it does take some practice, but even then, every shot is unique. On the one above, after playing around with it, I like the symmetry of this composition best (below - though my screenshot tool isn't too precise. I'd probabably take more off the top). Also, as you keep shooting, you'll get better at cropping in-camera


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Jack, over the last 7 years that I've been doing wildlife work, I have learned a lot about cropping. A lot of it has come from people like Michael Reichmann, Art Morris and The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (a great read, BTW), but a lot is just trial and error.
> 
> When I crop, I try to consider the following:
> -Does each element add to the photograph/story I'm trying to tell? If not, can it be cropped without taking out an important element (like a wingtip)? A good example is this second photo. IMHO, the red leaves against the dark background are all that appear interesting. I would crop out the rest of the frame. This is probably the most important consideration. You should be somewhat ruthless in cropping out the elements. Unless something truly adds to the photo or can't be cropped without cutting something out, it shouldn't be in the frame.
> ...



+1


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Thanks again, mackguyver.

I'd like to hear some comments from anyone/everyone on Eldar's last greebe shot. Since he posted it I'm betting he doesn't mind hearing the opinions, after all we're not doing this with any personal negativity, only to learn and educate. Are you OK with that Eldar?  Is a symmetrical pair reason to go quite centered? Left/right - up/down?

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Feb 12, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks again, mackguyver.
> 
> I'd like to hear some comments from anyone/everyone on Eldar's last greebe shot. Since he posted it I'm betting he doesn't mind hearing the opinions, after all we're not doing this with any personal negativity, only to learn and educate. Are you OK with that Eldar?  Is a symmetrical pair reason to go quite centered? Left/right - up/down?
> 
> Jack


Be sure, I enjoy having comments. I have learned that the only way to improve is to receive constructive criticism. Some times it´s not constructive, but then I am old enough to skip it and read something else  So please, feel free. These were not meant to be award winners by the way, but merely a quick collection to illustrate what I tried to express in the text.

I added the image of the grebes just because it is symmetrical. It is from a series of about 200 images of these two going through their mating dance. I have tried different cropped versions, to see if it would work that way, but it doesn´t. If I had been able to get closer to the water surface, so I had more depth, a horizon and maybe some vegetation, then it could have been better in another crop, maybe portrait.

But while it is symmetrical, it does have rule of thirds elements also. The top line of their bodies, the back of their necks and their heads are fairly close to where the third lines and intersections are.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 12, 2015)

I'd crop it like this:

I like the background bokeh and think this vertical crop shows it off.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2015)

Sporgon, I think that works. However, my natural inclination is horizontal based on the flight pattern, maybe not really relevant. If this was to be an effective print what size might be ideal?

There was a thread about bokeh but I didn't have time to follow it. This shot is taken from out of my observatory and there is a nice mixture of different species of trees including a fir, way better background than when I was on my deck.

Thanks Eldar, we all know you're a good guy!  If only we had the situation to be able to fame as we'd choose - if only - just when it's about right they move. That's where I'm still far too handicapped.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

Now we have a conversation 

A lot of times when we think we are _'breaking the rules'_ we are actually conforming to others. Composition has some very deep and basic aspects to it that our brains pick up on, even unconsciously.

This image of mackguyvers actually fits in with two different compositional _'rules'_ very closely, the golden spiral, and the triangle.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign, I see it but wouldn't have imagined it. That's cool for sure! I take it the spiral helps you to zoom in on the focus point subconsciously.

Now, the triangle also I see, but have a little more trouble relating to what it's doing for me. Is it a form of symmetry that makes it appealing?

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> privatebydesign, I see it but wouldn't have imagined it. That's cool for sure! I take it the spiral helps you to zoom in on the focus point subconsciously.
> 
> Now, the triangle also I see, but have a little more trouble relating to what it's doing for me. Is it a form of symmetry that makes it appealing?
> 
> Jack



The number φ has long been associated with the 'golden' compositional 'rules'. The Golden Spiral is actually much more compelling to the brain than the overused and often inappropriate 'rule of thirds' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral .

Some people call the diagonal triangle rule the 'golden triangle' but I am not sure how φ ties in with that. http://www.crispphotoworks.com/photography-composition-the-golden-triangle-rule/ It is more about the focal points being in the transit points, the weight of the triangles naturally lead us to the transit points, put your focal point there and 'it works'. As opposed to composing with triangles, which is all about sending the eye in a cycle.

Both these guides are in Adobe Lightroom in the crop mode as well as several others, just go to Tools: Crop Guide Overlay, or in the crop tool mode just push the O button, if you press the O button again it will cycle the various guides. If you push Shift and O the guide will rotate within the frame.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

P.S. The 'rule of thirds' is probably the weakest type of formal composition, it is actually pretty weak in nature and if you look at historical composition it is rarely as close as other lesser known but stronger natural ratios.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Wow, what's the charge of the lesson!  This is getting me thinking. I don't yet have PS or LR and have only used DPP for conversions.

Jack


----------



## rpt (Feb 13, 2015)

Lovely thread. I will post something over the weekend.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> P.S. The 'rule of thirds' is probably the weakest type of formal composition, it is actually pretty weak in nature and if you look at historical composition it is rarely as close as other lesser known but stronger natural ratios.


I agree to this to a certain point. The main advantage with the rule of thirds is that it is easy to learn and understand. When someone starts being critical to his/hers composition, they will see massive improvements by using those simple rules. When you have that under your skin it becomes a lot easier to see different compositional opportunities. Spiral, triangle, three dimensional through layers, positive and negative space etc. are all important compositional opportunities (the word rule is a bit odd to use on composition), which can be very powerful. But I believe one needs to build consciousness around composition first, with a simple rule/guide and then build on it.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Now we have a conversation
> 
> A lot of times when we think we are _'breaking the rules'_ we are actually conforming to others. Composition has some very deep and basic aspects to it that our brains pick up on, even unconsciously.
> 
> This image of mackguyvers actually fits in with two different compositional _'rules'_ very closely, the golden spiral, and the triangle.


Good job, Private! I was wondering if anyone would catch that, and I'm not surprised that you did. You can't really break any "rules" and create a pleasant composition, because there are so many rules. As you say, the rule of thirds is really just a place to start. The Michael Freeman book is a great resource for people wanting to learn more, but there are even better resources in painting books. I have some excellent ones, but I don't think they are in print any longer. I'll check Amazon and post links if I can find them.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 13, 2015)

This video from B&H, which is called "Beyond the rule of thirds" has some interesting points around composition. Not focused on birds though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtcD84l9eUw


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

This is becoming a great resource, thanks everyone. Would love to see more examples.

I will be investing in some books, the one mentioned for sure, any others that are really good, from personal experience?

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 13, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> but there are even better resources in painting books.



+1

Not only spacial relationships, but color, contrast and shadows. In general all the concepts can be applied. Our medium to a certain extent is controlled by the bounds of reality but understanding those concepts does help.

This thread is more educational than the usual DR, MP, Crop and Tech debates. Refreshing.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 13, 2015)

I must say that I agree with just about everything said in this thread. And certainly with MackGuyver and the reference to paintings and the work of artists.
I have spent a lot of time looking at, and getting inspired by, the works of Leonardo da Vinci (perspective, composition, emphasizing detail and how he went about creating his drawings), Kurt Trampedach (the play and balance between light and shadow in human faces and bodies), and many many others.

Rembrandt, and others of his time period, are another source of inspiration for a photographer: They primed their canvases not with white paint (upon which you paint dark outlines and thus creating your art by primarily painting shapes), but by starting out with a black, or dark, canvas and then mostly painted the light parts, you coloured your surfaces according to how they were lit up - a technique that in many ways resemble the way our cameras and sensors start out, then we open our shutters and gather light from the interesting parts of our subject(s). What they managed to do with such a technique was a way to make colours pop out against the dark canvas.

Much inspiration can be had by a visit to a library or an art exhibit, not only on how to frame/crop and compose a shot, but in many other ways.


----------



## Jane (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack, thanks for starting this thread. I agree with Takesome 1 that this is one of the best threads I've read on CR. Thanks, PBD, for the LR tips that I didn't know.

My pet peeves on wildlife framing are 1) not having room for the subject to fly/run/stare into and 2) cutting off feet even if they are not visible. For example if there's a a long-legged bird standing in marsh grass but there's not enough room for the leg/feet it makes me feel uncomfortable. Virtual legs/feet are important.


----------



## romanr74 (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Here is my wife's thought. The tree to the right has to go, once you do that it s just about balancing the negative space and your first version is very close to hers.



to me this is way too tight. isn't the bird heading for the tree where his nest is? then i think it is imperative that the tree is part of the crop. i don't think people want to look at a tightly cropped bird with not story, but maybe at a bird which is approaching his nest, but then you have to have the context in the picture. at least that's my opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my wife's thought. The tree to the right has to go, once you do that it s just about balancing the negative space and your first version is very close to hers.
> ...



In many cases I agree, in this specific case the tree is out of focus due to the DOF and there is no obvious branch, nest, or point of interest that the bird is heading towards. It also touches on other key compositional tenets, light and shade, and colour. The tree is much brighter than anything else in the frame, your eye can't help but keep going back to the tree, which is not the focus of the image, same with the colour, the tree colour is much warmer than anything else in the frame so again your eye gets drawn to it.

Do this simple trick, defocus your eyes* such that the bird blends into the background and see what your brain takes as the point of focus. It will be the tree. The tree is not the subject so the tree is detracting from what is, therefore it has to go in this specific instance.


*I find nearly closing my eyelids is the best way of doing this though some people can actually defocus their eyes.


----------



## romanr74 (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



the we seem to be unable to make this a really interesting shot...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Not at all. The image has lots of dynamism, the wings and feathers are in a position we don't normally see short of black egrets when fishing (though they are static when fishing). Jack's image has great dynamism and strong leading lines within the wing feathers to the brightest part of the cropped image, which is the subject.

It does lack some context, of course, and had there been a nest with some chicks to the right then the image would be very much stronger, but the challenge was to crop that particular image.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 13, 2015)

Here is a variation over the same topic, with the difference that the bird is flying away from the tree. This may be the most planned shot I have ever made of a bird. 

This willow tit was carving out a nest in the tree and I wanted to catch it just as it kicked off, with his beak filled with carved wood, with his legs not yet retrieved and still within the first wingbeat. Does´t look difficult, but try it yourself. When his head turned up in the opening, I pushed the shutter (full speed on a 1DX). 1st image; Still in the trunk, 2nd image: The one you see below, 3rd image: Tail feathers to the right, 4th image: Bird gone. As the birds were working on their nest, I probably shot about 100 take offs. Keeper rate was Not high. They are so fast, so AF does not follow. So this is manual focus, where I predicted the route it would take. It´s at 1/4000s, f11, ISO4000. (600mm f4L IS II).

From a framing point of view, I wanted the blue sky, leafless trees and the old snow in the background and light coming in from over my head. For the carved wood in the beak to have meaning, I had to keep part of the trunk in the frame, but still have enough air in front of the bird.

My company provides air traffic control systems around the world and this was going into a presentation as Take Off. We also have a centre meeting room, with window walls, where we have shaded all the windows with these images. First image is the head looking out of the trunk, the next 10 are variants of the one below and the last is just the tail feathers in the frame. 

I have posted this before, but it remains one of my favourites. I´d be happy to hear your views though.


----------



## chauncey (Feb 13, 2015)

Something not mentioned is our eye travel across the image which it why all most of my birds 
sit/fly left to right...the way we westerners read


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Hi All, I love to hear everything that's being said. And it really is rewarding to hear that others are benefiting from this discussion and that it is not being trivialized. 

When I started the thread I was a little awkward but now I am thankful because I know that no single person has it 100% right; as stated, there is no "right". 

Now, many of us are somewhat conservative and we don't like the relativistic sense of there being no "morally" right or wrong way of behaving. We may have been raised in a kind of "legalistic" environment and feel the urge to "defend" what is right. I'm not knocking that just pointing it out. This thread is not a discussion on psychology but I thought it interesting to inject the thought here because as I read CR in general I often laugh when wonderful and humorous (to me anyway - maybe I'm twisted! ) heated (not nasty) discussions take place. I love it.

Back to the topic. I'm looking forward to more visual samples that illustrate the points that are being made. Looking for another REALLY good book suggestion cause two will get me free shipping on Amazon. 

Personally, I'm very happy to hear why my sample shot ISN'T really great because that spurs me on to come up with one that is. Not to worry, I know it's good, just not great - I'm not that humble, don't fret about me.  

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Others have said it before so I'm just repeating for reinforcement. The saying, a picture is as good as a 1000 words, has validity but words can really enhance a photo (how, why, where, when, and settings). Thanks Eldar for the comments on your shot that made it take on much greater significance for me. Since my sample shot was not unlike yours I could relate so well to what you've said and it's not just about photography it's about enjoying life, including the human interactions!

This sparrow had an idea of making a nest but I couldn't catch it flying (maybe now but not then). It is tricky. Here she is, I never gave a moments thought to how I framed it, so what should I have done? For sure more space to the right, right? Shot from my deck so I didn't have much choice about the background.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Hi All, I love to hear everything that's being said. And it really is rewarding to hear that others are benefiting from this discussion and that it is not being trivialized.
> 
> When I started the thread I was a little awkward but now I am thankful because I know that no single person has it 100% right; as stated, there is no "right".
> 
> ...



I think one problem in talking about this is the way we say 'rules' and I know people back off from calling things rules. But the truth is our eye/brain does seek an internal harmony in pattern, form and weight, how that is achieved rolls into contrast, brightness, colour etc as elements of the composition.

There is a collection of tenets that our eye/brain find harmonious or seek even when they are not there that form the backbone of 'the rules', and using that fact can add to an image over and above the subject matter. That doesn't mean that all images that follow those tenets are 'good', just that it is much more difficult to create a 'good' image that doesn't follow those tenets.

Now I understand 'breaking the rules' to be a deliberate tool wherein the composition is purposely structured such that your eye/brain can't find the harmony and 'sense' it seeks, your eye/brain is forced into a loop of trying to find harmony but not being able to. When this is done purposefully it can make for very powerful art in that if the image is creative enough it forces the eye/brain to connect to the image on a deeper level. More often than not though this 'breaking the rules' is not done with enough thought (or sometimes any!), or the image is not compelling enough to engage the viewer, because of that the image appears weak or inharmonious.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It does lack context, and in the circumstance I believe PBD's wife has the correct crop.
Had the tree been complete or other substance it would change the dynamic.

My take on it is that the crop in to the tree gives a target the bird is flying to. The target is weak, and probably not worth having in the frame.

With PBD's wifes crop, while the most effective use of the reality that was captured it leaves us with a picture that is quite common. 

It is a sharp well framed picture of a bird flying (common), rather than a sharp well framed picture of a bird flying with food to a nest in a tree (more rare).

Sometimes the reality of what we capture leaves us with the best crop not being the greatest picture.

So would I agree that in this instance PBD's crop is the best use, Yes.
Is it the right crop for all bird shots, No.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Very well stated and true, I envy those who have this ability, privatebydesign. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

takesome1, it is sinking in and I'm learning what to aim for.

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Now I understand 'breaking the rules' to be a deliberate tool wherein the composition is purposely structured such that your eye/brain can't find the harmony and 'sense' it seeks, your eye/brain is forced into a loop of trying to find harmony but not being able to. When this is done purposefully it can make for very powerful art in that if the image is creative enough it forces the eye/brain to connect to the image on a deeper level. More often than not though this 'breaking the rules' is not done with enough thought (or sometimes any!), or the image is not compelling enough to engage the viewer, because of that the image appears weak or inharmonious.



Yes but how do you explain "Find Waldo" pictures.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Forgot to mention, true "bird lovers" and I tend to be in this category tend to focus on the detail of the bird and totally lose track of the need to have context and good framing etc. I'm getting a real good lesson through this thread.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Now I understand 'breaking the rules' to be a deliberate tool wherein the composition is purposely structured such that your eye/brain can't find the harmony and 'sense' it seeks, your eye/brain is forced into a loop of trying to find harmony but not being able to. When this is done purposefully it can make for very powerful art in that if the image is creative enough it forces the eye/brain to connect to the image on a deeper level. More often than not though this 'breaking the rules' is not done with enough thought (or sometimes any!), or the image is not compelling enough to engage the viewer, because of that the image appears weak or inharmonious.
> ...



That is easy, your brain is given a challenge your eye wants to complete, your brain will have harmony when you find the Waldo. And they are great fun! 

An unfinished sudoku or crossword is far more compelling than an empty or full one.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Boy, it just hit me like a brick. I have awakened to the fact that in my last two years with good equipment I've only really made significant advances as a beginner in the technical use of the camera. I've been far too focused on sharp images of a subject and probably 90% of my shots fall into that category. To make matters worse there are no end of everyday folk who are willing to praise such shots and that helps with the self deception.   Thankfully, good kind people on CR nurture the likes of me along. :-[

That sparrow shot of mine is awful! Well, like they say everyone serves a purpose, even if it's just to be used as a "bad example".

Jack

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy, it just hit me like a brick. I have awakened to the fact that in my last two years with good equipment I've only really made significant advances as a beginner in the technical use of the camera. I've been far too focused on sharp images of a subject and probably 90% of my shots fall into that category. To make matters worse there are no end of everyday folk who are willing to praise such shots and that helps with the self deception.   Thankfully, good kind people on CR nurture the likes of me along. :-[
> 
> That sparrow shot of mine is awful! Well, like they say everyone serves a purpose, even if it's just to be used as a "bad example".
> 
> ...


Jack, don't be so hard on yourself. Photography is a journey and it's really hard to keep track of everything when you shoot. Exposure, focus, DOF, focus, subject tracking, composition, and the list goes on... When they all come together, it really is an accomplishment.

Feel good that you've learned the technical part - it's not much fun. Mastering composition is a lot of fun on the other hand, and you can't get a great shot without doing both.

I know I still have a whole lot to learn and I make mistakes every time I shoot. Just keep working at it and keep learning.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks mackguyver, that was like sunshine on a cloudy day. Thankfully, I'm not as hard on other people as I am myself or I'd be one miserable so and so to deal with. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack,

I have to echo everything mackguyver says. This is a journey and each image is a step on that journey, some are traveling faster than others, some start out further down the road, some fall by the wayside, but it no cause for disappointment, it is the journey that is the fun bit. I have been doing this photography thing for over 35 years and I am very happy that I am still learning!

As an example of what would seem to be a diametrically opposite route look at the likes of Brooke Shaden, she has a very artistic background and her output is purely Photoshop driven but her PS techniques, especially in her earlier work, are pretty bad. But that hasn't discouraged her or held back her creative driven photography.

Like you I am more of a technical photographer than an artistic one (and very hard on myself too!), and for my personal images I often ask my wife for artistic input, if you don't have an artistic wife then forums and places where like minded shooters abound is the place to go, just don't ask the local camera club because whilst they are an excellent resource of other photography outlets, composition is generally stuck at the 'rule of thirds' level. 

Nowadays our gear does allow a conscious ability to frame loose with the ability to crop in post, when we were shooting 4MP cameras that luxury just wasn't there. Not saying this is an end point technique, but it is a valuable tool in allowing us to find our own style. Spend a week shooting at 200 instead of 300, or 400 instead of 600, and see what you can get from that after cropping.

One thing you should do if you truly enjoy your photography is read this post The Helsinki Bus Station Theory , I actually went to Helsinki once just so I could stand at that Bus Station, I then flew on to India and took some of the most compelling images I have ever shot.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign, thanks for the encouragement. I am not quitting until I'm no longer able. 

In my early 20's in the 70's I was on fire and had managed a Canon F1 and some decent lenses. That never totally left me but the cares of life and strong mechanical hobby interests caused my shooting to slowly degrade to occasions and holidays. I had plumbed my then new home for a darkroom etc. Then I slowly became too self conscious to even shoot with film. 

Finally, a friend impressed me with his amazing IS telephoto shots and my wife encouraged me to buy a D5100 and 70-300. The rest is recorded in CR, like when I just went crazy and made the best purchase ever, the 300 2.8 and converters. Now I'm starting to look at all aspects of photography and hey, maybe I can be an inspiration to others who are starting out and aspiring. It's great to be retired and have this hobby!

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack, it´s been a joy to follow your journey so far and I´m looking forward to what´s ahead. As I said to you earlier, you have a good eye, you are humble, open and willing to learn, so I´m sure we will see very impressive stuff coming from you.

As you said, we are lucky, actually privileged to have a hobby like this. We are not doing it to put food on the table, but merely because we enjoy the never ending learning experience and the thrill of getting one right every now and then.

When you get your new camera, you´ll discover another dimension to it, so it will be interesting to hear how it goes.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Feb 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> P.S. The 'rule of thirds' is probably the weakest type of formal composition, it is actually pretty weak in nature and if you look at historical composition it is rarely as close as other lesser known but stronger natural ratios.



As an Architect - I find myself "correcting" people quite a bit about the 'rule of thirds'. It's not so much about exact thirds, but more about finding groupings of 3 to achieve balance or to highlight hierarchy. Palladian-motif (worth a google images search) is seen often times in window/door openings... two smaller sidelight windows with a larger door opening. This is 3 elements, but definitely not organized by exact 1/3's. I do realize that the "rule of thirds" as discussed in photography is a literal thirds-grid of the frame, but I've always found it odd that the two principles were never very well correlated. The engineering-side of me says otherwise... everything needs to be hard-and-fast on exacting 1/3 points. I'm sure you can imagine the internal struggle. ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

"Palladian architecture is a European style of architecture derived from and inspired by the designs of the Venetian architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580). That which is recognised as Palladian architecture today is an evolution of Palladio's original concepts. Palladio's work was strongly based on the symmetry, perspective and values of the formal classical temple architecture of the Ancient Greeks and Romans."

So, what's pleasing to the eye changes over the years, rules or no rules, but certain human characteristics associated with our physiology don't - is that a fair statement? Or is this more in the brain. Or has nothing really changed over 1000's of years.

Jack


----------



## mikea (Feb 13, 2015)

Try this post, which is specific to bird photography and aimed at beginners: http://mikeatkinson.net/Tutorial-6-Basic-Composition.htm


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

mikea, great, thank you very much. I'm reading everything. I guess there might be a tendency for those who know to get tired of questions from those who don't but we all didn't know at some point. I haven't sensed this on CR very much if at all.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

Boy I might not have started this thread had I seen that tutorial. If you're new to this like me it's fantastic.

http://mikeatkinson.net/Tutorial-6-Basic-Composition.htm

Jack


----------



## tphillips63 (Feb 13, 2015)

First off, thanks tot he OP for making this thread and to everyone that contributed. This is one great thread!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 13, 2015)

With my 6D passing 25k on the shutter in two years, I obviously have a lot of shots, many I probably haven't even looked at. I am now going to revisit those as well as ones I've already displayed, to re-crop them (where possible) in a more pleasing way, thanks to both the encouragement and helpful information that's being posted. I am indeed thankful.

In fairness, some good folk like jrista were trying to prompt me before now but it just didn't sink in, not fully anyway! 

Jack


----------



## mnclayshooter (Feb 14, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> "Palladian architecture is a European style of architecture derived from and inspired by the designs of the Venetian architect Andrea Palladio (1508–1580). That which is recognised as Palladian architecture today is an evolution of Palladio's original concepts. Palladio's work was strongly based on the symmetry, perspective and values of the formal classical temple architecture of the Ancient Greeks and Romans."
> 
> So, what's pleasing to the eye changes over the years, rules or no rules, but certain human characteristics associated with our physiology don't - is that a fair statement? Or is this more in the brain. Or has nothing really changed over 1000's of years.
> 
> Jack



I'd say it's definitely fair to say that what's pleasing to the eye changes over time. Palladio's work was largely based on Greek architecture - in which you'll often find the golden section/ratio prominently used. That's the part I glossed-over (or didn't even mention) in my earlier post. That the groupings of 3 and golden ratio aren't very far-removed from each other. As with anything aesthetic - no single rule applies to any every situation. Back to your bird... I like what most have said... give the subject some room to move into the rest of the frame. I'm certainly no expert. But when I've used this principle in my own photos, I find that the balance I seek is easier to achieve. Give the subject's eyes some negative space to look at... give the beak of a bird some space to move into. 

Using any of the lightroom overlays will give some guideance, but framing is ultimately based on the subject matter and the areas of in-focus or out-of-focus elements (bokeh) and the movement of the subject in the frame. Color, light/dark, texture, motion blur, etc all become framing elements. I, like you, am learning. I used to shoot slides... not so easy to adjust as a digital photo. It's easy to rely on post processing to fix framing, but if you can get more of the framing right in the camera, it makes for better overall photos.


----------



## Skatol (Feb 14, 2015)

Thank you Jack for starting this thread. +1 what mack, pbd, eldar and all others have stated. Here is my humble submission. Critiques welcome. Original file (raw converted) and final processed image. I wish I would have done a better job at tracking.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 14, 2015)

Excellent thread. Thanks for starting it Jack!


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 14, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Maybe this, I still like to see more eye.
> Larger print you would see it.



my personal preference is somethig like this... but crop a little more of the left out... get rid of the tree in photoshop (and I realize that isn't the easiest... but I don't like the tree...), and I still think that put the bird too square in the middle... it's a puzzler.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 14, 2015)

What if we change the angle a little bit... have it flying down... makes it a bit more dramatic... still have to get rid of the tree... but I hate the tree... so I'm ok with that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

jdramirez, so if I understand you're saying I need a lot more space to the right?? I think initially I subconsciously saw the tree as interfering with the kind of abstract nature of the bird rather than having the bird in a context, and I agree it is too distracting.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2015)

Great thread, comments and links from you guys.

A comment that I would add is that visual art is a little like music. Often a piece of music, whether modern or classical, that has instant appeal, becomes, over time rather boring. It often lacks depth, it's too superficial. 

I find pictures to be the same. Often a picture that has instant appeal, loses that appeal over a period of time, whereas one that has more depth to it, takes more understanding, grows on you over a period of time, and its appeal lasts.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Let's take it back to the technical side for a second,

When it comes to birds I have a few self imposed "rules" that I try to stick to;
The birds eye should be sharp, detailed and in focus.
The colors need to be correct, or at a point to be percieved as correct.
For most shots pieces of the bird shouldn't be clipped, unless it's part of the composition. (Cut because of poor framing is a negative)

With those in mind, not all crops and compositions are possible, for instance;
The origional picture would have rarely been acceptable at the size shown because of eye detail.
If you crop excessively yoursubject may become soft and this is not acceptable.

Sticking with the above basics apply other concepts and rules to make the crop.
I have seen some shots I wanted to apply just a bit of negative space and I felt the addition made the detail of the bird to small. Then there are the times the picture will not hold up to a tighter crop.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Others have said it before so I'm just repeating for reinforcement. The saying, a picture is as good as a 1000 words, has validity but words can really enhance a photo (how, why, where, when, and settings). Thanks Eldar for the comments on your shot that made it take on much greater significance for me. Since my sample shot was not unlike yours I could relate so well to what you've said and it's not just about photography it's about enjoying life, including the human interactions!
> 
> This sparrow had an idea of making a nest but I couldn't catch it flying (maybe now but not then). It is tricky. Here she is, I never gave a moments thought to how I framed it, so what should I have done? For sure more space to the right, right? Shot from my deck so I didn't have much choice about the background.
> 
> Jack



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25036.0;attach=133216

I really like the sparrow, do no crop, although the color seems off.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Great thread, comments and links from you guys.
> 
> A comment that I would add is that visual art is a little like music. Often a piece of music, whether modern or classical, that has instant appeal, becomes, over time rather boring. It often lacks depth, it's too superficial.
> 
> I find pictures to be the same. Often a picture that has instant appeal, loses that appeal over a period of time, whereas one that has more depth to it, takes more understanding, grows on you over a period of time, and its appeal lasts.



I'm with you on this comment for sure, so the challenge is indeed to try to get that really great shot and not to PS it to death. However, we live in a society of instant gratification and so there is always an audience for the "going viral" stuff and the thrill of the moment.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

takesome1, I couldn't open the jpg -says maybe corrupted - any ideas? I had a period of time where I didn't realize the white balance setting in-camera was off so that may have affected this picture. I must admit that I'm a little biased against the lowly (or should I say "hated") house sparrow, it was "dirty English Sparrow" to me as a kid - I'm English so I can say that, right? 

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 14, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> takesome1, I couldn't open the jpg -says maybe corrupted - any ideas? I had a period of time where I didn't realize the white balance setting in-camera was off so that may have affected this picture. I must admit that I'm a little biased against the lowly (or should I say "hated") house sparrow, it was "dirty English Sparrow" to me as a kid - I'm English so I can say that, right?
> 
> Jack



Jack,

The JPG is just a copy of your previous pic. I just copied it. However when I click it does open.

If you shoot in RAW you can fix the white balance. But the merits of RAW vs JPG, and how to white balance is a whole new thread.


----------



## digigal (Feb 14, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy, it just hit me like a brick. I have awakened to the fact that in my last two years with good equipment I've only really made significant advances as a beginner in the technical use of the camera. I've been far too focused on sharp images of a subject and probably 90% of my shots fall into that category. To make matters worse there are no end of everyday folk who are willing to praise such shots and that helps with the self deception.   Thankfully, good kind people on CR nurture the likes of me along. :-[
> 
> That sparrow shot of mine is awful! Well, like they say everyone serves a purpose, even if it's just to be used as a "bad example".
> 
> ...


I think that everyone has to spend a lot of time developing good competence with their equipment before they can move on to spending a lot of time obsessing over unusual light angles, different perspectives, etc. I think that getting so that you don't give a second thought to how your equipment operates when you are presented with an opportunity for a dynamic nature shot makes all the difference in the world as to whether or not you will get it so that your time has not been ill spent. I consider the time I spent putting 260,000 clicks on my 7D just helping refine and increase my keeper rate so that now mostly I'm working on unusual composition, light situation, etc and not all the time wording or futzing with my camera settings. It's just a continuum. Attached are a few from recently--the Great Gray owl was taken AFTER sunset and was so grainy I had to convert to BW! 
Catherine


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

Thanks for posting the pics, Catherine. The owl is quite the shot even if conditions weren't advantageous. I'm hoping to hear more opinions on sample shots, like why they are strong or weak. I see this thread as an opportunity to be forthright without offending and thereby learn rather than get our egos stroked.

Jack


----------



## icassell (Feb 14, 2015)

The topic of composition always leads to interesting discussions. As others have implied, there is no one correct way to compose an image. On the other hand, composition has literally been studied for centuries and there are guidelines that have come out of this study that have addressed what the human eye/brain finds pleasing. I suggest you buy and study a good book on composition (my personal favorite is Freeman's The Photographer's Eye http://www.amazon.com/The-Photographers-Eye-Composition-Digital/dp/0240809343 ). Guidelines that apply to portraiture and landscape apply equally to wildlife.

That said, this is a quick personal take on your image. I put the bird in the upper outer left third, flying in to the scene with his eye leading yours to his target - the tree. It would have been stronger if the tree had been in focus.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

icassell, I agree about the tree needing to be in focus. This was shot not long ago, late December (Alberta) and the light required simply wasn't there with my 4000th shutter speed and trying to keep the ISO down. I had fill flash but it was bounced and not enough to really allow me the DOF. At least I kind of understand the technical challenges. Summer will provide better opportunities for BIF. 

I have previously noted that book and will buy it but I'd like to know of another one or two so I can get free shipping - help anyone.

Jack


----------



## icassell (Feb 14, 2015)

Here are some comp books ...

http://www.photomoti.com/blogs/news/6481608-the-top-five-best-books-on-composition-in-photography


----------



## Jane (Feb 14, 2015)

While Mike Atkinson's tutorial on Composition is very good, elsewhere on his site he talks about throwing bread/food for birds. Please don't take his advice. Bread is extremely bad for birds' health and feeding birds disturbs their natural behavior. The primary rule for wildlife viewing (and by extension wildlife photography) is not to disturb your subject. Here are links to ethics and a code of conduct promulgated by major conservation organizations in order to protect wildlife: 

American Birding Association Code of Ethics at http://www.aba.org/about/ethics.html
Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries'ʹ Tips for Responsible Wildlife Viewing at
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlifewatching/respect-­‐‑wildlife.asp

I'm sure there are similar guidelines around the world.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2015)

Thanks icassell, and oooh Jane - this thread could take a serious turn, I hope not. 

I know a lot of serious birders, generally not photographers, who keep feeders stocked with what is considered appropriate food, SF seeds etc. I understand where you are coming from and I think your case has some merit but I have trouble with fully accepting it. However, I will certainly be reading the link with an open mind. 

I personally think the issue is serious if we're talking feeding wildlife in Parks where they get plenty and then none - that is BAD. Keeping a well stocked feeder all winter for the species that love that, like downy, nuttie and chickie can't be that bad - no? 

Don H, you've been on CR longer than me and may know; has this topic been hashed over? - if you're out there?

Jack


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Jack, 
I meant to add earlier that I agree with the advice on cropping of the chickadee as a horizontal rectangle leaving OUT the tree (which I find distracting). Your focus should be on the sharp eye and the somewhat unusual wing position, which is the focus of interest. Elimination of other distractions makes this a stronger picture and keeps your eye on that cute chickadee. Plus I that more unusual crop add tension to the picture as well. There are different purposes in a bird picture--some, which I call "bird on a stick" are more for identification purposes and you want those to be well exposed showing all parts of the bird well. But all others, I think, should be treated as art and looked at from the way of composition and only keeping elements that strengthen it and eliminating things that weaken it. Yes, we know your bird is flying somewhere but I don't think seeing the out of focus tree adds anything to the story. 
I've added another picture of a pelican preening where I show just the essentials.
Catherine


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

Hey Catherine, my engineering mind is not the best judge but I certainly am inclined to lean in your direction. I posted the shot right after getting it on National Geographic and called it "my special angel" which was due to me not seeing it as a bird. More like a song! 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

Forgot, how would you describe your pelican?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

On ethics of feeding: I'm OK with this from the previous link.

"3. Ensure that *feeders*, nest structures, and other artificial bird environments are safe.

3(a) Keep dispensers, water, and food clean, and free of decay or disease. *It is important to feed birds continually during harsh weather.*

3(b) Maintain and clean nest structures regularly.

3(c) If you are attracting birds to an area, *ensure the birds are not exposed to predation from cats* and other domestic animals, or dangers posed by artificial hazards.

Especially the part about CATS, they kill millions of birds yearly, far more than industrial sites like the Alberta Oil Sands   However, the cats don't make the news.

Jack


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Hey Catherine, my engineering mind is not the best judge but I certainly am inclined to lean in your direction. I posted the shot right after getting it on National Geographic and called it "my special angel" which was due to me not seeing it as a bird. More like a song!
> 
> http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/


Congrats!! See he is better without that tree! OMG you're from Edmonton--that GGOwl was taken outside Edmonton last month! My husband & I flew up there for 4 days to shoot owls with a couple of other guys and drove up and down every little road outside of Edmonton for 3 days looking for owls and only saw this one. We even drove down to Calgary to look for some Snowys and only got close enough to one to get decent photos. Never spent so much time crammed in a car with all my cold weather gear on in my life! I've decided I'm not trying that again until the next big irruption!
Catherine


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

digigal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Catherine, my engineering mind is not the best judge but I certainly am inclined to lean in your direction. I posted the shot right after getting it on National Geographic and called it "my special angel" which was due to me not seeing it as a bird. More like a song!
> ...



Boy, you should have asked me.  I'd have said this must be about the worst place to see owls; at least I sure don't. Hardly ever even see any red-tailed hawks. I live east of Edmonton a half hour not that far from Elk Island Park so one would expect more wildlife but ......

However, those in the city often see much more in the river valley.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis, you make a good point.

However, your statement about previous posts being only half right suggests to me that you didn't read them all really carefully, by analogy not sitting in the woods with the posts. 

Jack


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 15, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Back to the topic. I'm looking forward to more visual samples that illustrate the points that are being made. Looking for another REALLY good book suggestion cause two will get me free shipping on Amazon.


Hi Jack, just want to say that I'm learning a lot from everyone's opinion and perspective too. This is my favourite resource for wildlife photography ideas, examples and inspiration: - 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/wpy/index.html

Spending a bit of time learning to navigate the gallery rewards you with some exceptional wildlife photography. There is also a book produced each year highlighting the winning images which most libraries would hold. Sitting back and working out why each image "works" is a worthwhile exercise.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

Hillsilly, really good, thanks. 

Still I'm hoping for some more specific examples accompanied by some comment as to why they do or don't work, like when privatebydesign placed the golden spiral on the sample shot.

I'm learning of course, but what this thread has done for me is give me renewed desire to alter (improve) what I now clearly recognize was not acceptable. IOW it's no longer acceptable to ME.

Anyone; too shy to post a shot and an opinion? Come on, lets have a look at it.

Jack


----------



## Eldar (Feb 15, 2015)

I´m in my cabin, with only a laptop, so not many images to choose from. But to get it back to images, here is one very simple example, where I have just reframed the same image. 

Why does the first one work and the other three not? 

It would also be interesting to read what qualities you see in this image, beyond being just a boring gull in the air.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 15, 2015)

Here is one more, where there a few more compositional "rules" are involved.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 15, 2015)

And while I´m at it; These are two shots taken milliseconds apart. In my view, one is a rather thrilling image, whereas the other is just a butterfly. What is your views.


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Not the conventional way to look at the Great Grey Heron . . .


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Wow! That second butterfly looks like a fairy! Putting the upper legs down, the change in the tilt of the head makes all the difference in the world.
Catherine


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> And while I´m at it; These are two shots taken milliseconds apart. In my view, one is a rather thrilling image, whereas the other is just a butterfly. What is your views.



Agreed; the second image looks like it's from a fairy story ! The butterfly's position has given it a rather humanoid form, it's a superb shot, whereas the first is, like you say, just another butterfly shot with a shoot of grass in the way.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 15, 2015)

digigal said:


> Not the conventional way to look at the Great Grey Heron . . .



You certainly have a way of tightening the crop to the point of abstract ! I like this, it works very well for me, as does your more conventionally framed B&W owl shot.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 15, 2015)

Digigal, I really like your owl. That is a great example on a situation where symmetry works and of course, the intense look adds to the drama. 

I´m not so fond of your framing of the eagle though. By having it center, it becomes an image of a flying eagle, but there is no story. I would have preferred a slightly wider perspective, with more room in front of the bird, to show where it´s going and give more dynamics to it.

Cropping off heads and legs, or any other part for that matter, seldom works. But the grey heron works for me. I think the other bird coming in from the side plays a vital part. But since we´re here to comment; It might be that a framing a bit more to the right, to reduce open air to the left could improve it, or maybe keep the framing, but crop a bit more horizontally on the left side.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis, with the clarification, I have no problem with everything you said and my read of your post was also just a little off. I like to think I'm good at reading between the lines but sometimes well ........  BTW thanks for the encouragement.

Here's a rule for CR etiquette that I really struggle with - not being judgemental - shame on me!   

I go to bed and take 6 hours off and here I am trying to catch up with a lot more food for thought to digest. This thread will be getting revisited down the road when I need to reconsider.

Funny, Eldar, what did I do when looking at your butterfly first - this is revealing, I looked for what had changed but didn't even pick up on the feet, and noticed that the antennae were better in the first and bemoaned the grass distraction. Then I said hmm both look like "another butterfly picture". We're being honest here, right?! :-\ :-[

The Photographer's Eye: _Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos_ is on it's way and should be here end of this week. Hope I don't start criticizing everyone after reading it - I'll try not too, promise.

Jack


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Digigal, I really like your owl. That is a great example on a situation where symmetry works and of course, the intense look adds to the drama.
> 
> I´m not so fond of your framing of the eagle though. By having it center, it becomes an image of a flying eagle, but there is no story. I would have preferred a slightly wider perspective, with more room in front of the bird, to show where it´s going and give more dynamics to it.
> 
> Cropping off heads and legs, or any other part for that matter, seldom works. But the grey heron works for me. I think the other bird coming in from the side plays a vital part. But since we´re here to comment; It might be that a framing a bit more to the right, to reduce open air to the left could improve it, or maybe keep the framing, but crop a bit more horizontally on the left side.


Hey, thanks for your comments, Eldar. I agree with the placement of the eagle and the herons but the use of the pictures prevented me from adding any canvas or cropping any differently in PS to make these a more artistic shot because they were just as I had used them in a wildlife competition. The eagle shot was taken from a moving boat in the middle of a fjord in Norway and the boat and bird were both moving so that my composition was compromised in that shot (excuses, I know, but I was happy I got the shot and I will have the ability to modify it to a stronger one artistically in PS). 
See the attached unmodified picture I used in competition vs the more "artistic" one.
Catherine


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 15, 2015)

Catherine, anything more than the other bird being removed? To show how bad I am, I didn't initially even notice the other bird.

Jack


----------



## digigal (Feb 15, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Catherine, anything more than the other bird being removed? To show how bad I am, I didn't initially even notice the other bird.
> 
> Jack


Nope--just the low cropping to eliminate the sky which really didn't add anything to the picture.
Catherine


----------



## Jane (Feb 15, 2015)

Digigal - this is an example of missing virtual legs/feet. Your image makes me a little uncomfortable because I know this is a long-legged bird yet there is not enough space in the bottom of the picture for the legs and feet to be. It may just be my feeling but for me it's like cutting off body parts. As there was apparently sky above the brdl in the original image, you could perhaps have allowed more space below instead for where the legs would be if you could see them. Anyway, just my thoughts.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 16, 2015)

Jane said:


> Digigal - this is an example of missing virtual legs/feet. Your image makes me a little uncomfortable because I know this is a long-legged bird yet there is not enough space in the bottom of the picture for the legs and feet to be. It may just be my feeling but for me it's like cutting off body parts. As there was apparently sky above the brdl in the original image, you could perhaps have allowed more space below instead for where the legs would be if you could see them. Anyway, just my thoughts.


I like to apply the same principals to wildlife cropping as I do portraits. I try not to crop at the joints, toes, beaks, wing tips, etc. See the chart below - the same principals apply. When it comes to cropping off hidden feet, I agree that it's best to crop as if they were there, but I think digigal's photo still works well as the focus of the shot is the action, not the bird's body.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2015)

Hi All,

Was drawn away for a couple days but wanted to get back to Eldar's gull. The first the gull has space to fly into and it appears to me he could be headed downward so I'm guessing there needs to be space below. The wing-tips seem to follow the diagonal across the frame?? The lighting is high and such that there is quite a bit of contrast with the inner wing being very bright and engaging and the pose has some aesthetic appeal. And ...... you tell me.

The pair of gulls are nice because there is a kind of balance between the dominant lower bird and the upper bird and they are sitting in the right third's location. They also fall roughly along the frame diagonal and the V of the focal bird sits in the corner of the frame which I find appealing. What else?

Eldar, of course we all know there is no such thing as a boring bird .... well unless it's one I've posted too much! 

mackguyver, can you give a little explanation on you human form's use - red, no; green OK??

Jack


----------



## rpt (Feb 21, 2015)

Here is one of mine. The bird was far out. You can see the settings and the crop I chose in the image below and the output from Lightroom. The first one is a screen capture. Comments and suggestions are welcome. I got the eye and the eye in the reflection on the right intersections of the 1/3rds.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2015)

FWIW, rpt, here is my thought. I see it as being a good choice, virtually centered vertically considering the full reflection, giving space to the right and more based on intuition it does seem correct to show some of the reeds. The thirds part probably I'd not really recognize but maybe with practice.

Got my Freeman book and it is well worth the price so I'll hopefully become more capable in the days ahead. If this thread stays alive I believe it can be helpful to all of us who are new to the trade.

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

Jack, I'm glad you're enjoying the Freeman book. I broke mine out again as I haven't reviewed it in 4 or 5 years. Also, I'll continue the thread with additional and somewhat less conventional examples.

Please feel free to comment (good or bad): 

1. Wood stork feet - Gatorland near Orlando, Florida





2. American alligator scales (captive) - Tallahassee Museum, Tallahassee, Florida





3. Manatee mother & calf surfacing - Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, Wakulla, Florida





4. American alligator sunning - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, St. Marks, Florida





5. Downy woodpecker - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, St. Marks, Florida





6. American alligators (captive) - St. Augustine Alligator Farm, St. Augustine, Florida


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 24, 2015)

Thanks mackguyver,

I'll put on my thinking cap in the next day or two when I deserve a break from the flooring I'm laying down! 

Interactions such as these are good for beginners because they force a conscious effort at analysis. At least for me I wasn't doing it and I can't explain why other than having focused so much on technical things.

I'm still on the fence about the 11-22 but did look at your reference to the 14-24 review and gained some insight through that. I've pre-ordered but they didn't require a deposit so I'm still tentative to some extent but will likely follow through. Back in the day with my F1 film camera my most used lens was a 24 and I always wanted wider but it will take some learning for sure. So please keep me in your loop and thanks as always. 

So are you saying these shots are here to test me or other readers, like they may be bad shots or good shots in your mind and I am to correctly point out why they are good or bad or are they generally "good" or worthy of merit, or am I asking too much of a hint?! :-[

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks mackguyver,
> 
> I'll put on my thinking cap in the next day or two when I deserve a break from the flooring I'm laying down!
> 
> ...


Jack, I'll keep you in the loop and if you're unsure about a $3k purchase, you may want to wait or try the 16-35 f/4IS. I It sounds like the 400 DO II might be a better fit, too, given some of your posts. I'm giving some thought to selling my 300 f/2.8 II and getting the new 400, but I'm not sure.

As for your last paragraph, I would say I'm happy with all of these photos. I wouldn't say they are my best work by any means, but they are _different_ than most of my wildlife compositions, so I thought they might stimulate some discussion.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 24, 2015)

Gotcha, yes up until now I've been more birds than anything and I also was wondering about the 400 DO and doing exactly as you say. I do enjoy landscape and other wide prospects but of course having invested heavily in the 300, it became my baby. Where I live it's Aspen scrub forests and open fields and not quite as stimulating a landscape as other areas such as the Rockies and BC etc. but that doesn't mean there aren't great opportunities with what's here. That's why I need to engage in understanding the artistic side of things.

This small break is not from flooring. Before that I'm filling sanding and painting, yuk. More fun to dream about equipment and captures!

OK, so these shots are OK shots and I'll approach them as having some positives and negatives. Here's a shot I took last winter wondering if it had any merit. On a bad day I say it's without merit, on a good day I think it has a very little merit but wonder what's missing. Drab day when this was shot. Comments, anyone.

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

I think it's a nice shot, Jack. The only thing I might have done would have been to move to the left a bit so the tree wouldn't line up exactly at the boundary of the blurred out dark & medium background elements. That may not have been possible, but the separation might give it a little more visual interest. A good tip I once read is to move around a bit while shooting. A few feet to the left or right can completely change a composition.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 24, 2015)

100% on those suggestions. If only I could remember to do all these little things! I did once notice a garbage can in the far background of a classic car I was shooting and I moved, so there is hope!  I realize more than ever how important good lighting is but sometimes the lighting just isn't cooperating. 

Hmm, seems my break has gotten a little too long! Back to work.

Jack


----------



## DJD (Feb 24, 2015)

The portrait as envisioned by the pigeon when he commissioned the work...







The portrait as delivered by the hipster street photographer claiming to be a portrait artist. 

Just a little humor.
Cheers,
DJD


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 25, 2015)

DJD, I like that kind of humor. Something like I'd be inclined to shoot but I'd know better not to post it!

The portrait looks "stately". I'm planning to do some of my African Grey.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 25, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis, if I understand correctly a fan is someone who is cheering you on as you strive for a goal and well, I sure appreciate that. I believe in life it's more important to be doing your best while pointed in the right direction and improving than to be good and stagnant. 

On the other hand, I'm pretty insecure about me actually fitting that description but at the end of the day I can say I tried. Furthermore, if I can inspire others then it's even more fun.

What I'm trying to come to grips with is the reality that while I do have an idea of what I'm trying to capture, virtually all the various points we are discussing did not consciously enter my head. Probably, most people have the "if only" thoughts after the fact, I guess. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Jack, I'm glad you're enjoying the Freeman book. I broke mine out again as I haven't reviewed it in 4 or 5 years. Also, I'll continue the thread with additional and somewhat less conventional examples.
> 
> Please feel free to comment (good or bad):
> 
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2015)

Jack, thank you for the feedback and I agree with your comments. The woodpecker is upside down, but that was the reality of it's position, and I would like to have been able to get a tighter frame of the alligators, but didn't have the right gear. Also, good read on the mystery crop of the alligator in the reeds.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 4, 2015)

Well here it is; proof that I've been actually working on a hardwood floor and not playing, hint, hint.  

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well here it is; proof that I've been actually working on a hardwood floor and not playing, hint, hint.
> 
> Jack


Jack, how did you get the whole room in the shot ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 4, 2015)

Yes isn't that an amazing trick! Now it's back to work. 

Jack


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 8, 2015)

Now this is an unusual bird/animal shot! A weasel riding on the back of a woodpecker. No joke!

http://petapixel.com/2015/03/03/photographer-captures-weasel-riding-on-the-back-of-a-flying-woodpecker/?trk_msg=3LSJHVA8GCGKFBENTG83PQCFT0&trk_contact=GTPAKHF3UP843T7LBCNSV8LFK8&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fpetapixel.com%2f2015%2f03%2f03%2fphotographer-captures-weasel-riding-on-the-back-of-a-flying-woodpecker%2f&utm_campaign=Epson+SureColor+P600+Review+%7c+Double-sided+Inkjet+Paper+%7c+Photo+Links


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 29, 2015)

Anyone still out there? I'm wondering if this shot has any merit (I know it's just a Junco but). I was FL limited so cropping was unavoidable. Here's both. Constructive evaluation not praise is what's needed, thanks. Basically, is the cropping optimal, are the colors supportive or distractive etc.?

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 1, 2015)

I would place the bird quite a bit lower in the frame. In your crop, his feet are almost mid-frame and there's not much room over his head. Subjects on the ground like this need to be lower in the frame so they have weight - if not, they sort of look like they're floating. Here's roughly how I would crop it:


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 1, 2015)

Well, Ian, once your say it, how obvious, of course. I think I might have been placing the eye at the top 1/3 level. So, I learned a bit more today, thanks. What about the colors?

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 1, 2015)

Oh, another thing, I think your crop removes some distraction from the bottom left??

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 1, 2015)

Yes, on removing the distractions and I'm glad it was helpful. I also left a bit of room on the right of the frame as well. On the colors, what is your question? I see a warm (but natural) white balance, but I think you could tweak the contrast up a bit to separate the bird just a bit more from the background.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 1, 2015)

Just whether the background coloration added or detracted - not that I could do much about it though.

Always appreciate the comments!

Pichu - I couldn't resist! :-[

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 2, 2015)

11mm portrait, nice! Pichu looks like a great photo assistant or at least a great muse


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 2, 2015)

Well, hopefully I now have that urge out of my system - seems I never grew up! I'm sure you're not tempted though, right? 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 5, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Jack, over the last 7 years that I've been doing wildlife work, I have learned a lot about cropping. A lot of it has come from people like Michael Reichmann, Art Morris and The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (a great read, BTW), but a lot is just trial and error.
> 
> When I crop, I try to consider the following:
> -Does each element add to the photograph/story I'm trying to tell? If not, can it be cropped without taking out an important element (like a wingtip)? A good example is this second photo. IMHO, the red leaves against the dark background are all that appear interesting. I would crop out the rest of the frame. This is probably the most important consideration. You should be somewhat ruthless in cropping out the elements. Unless something truly adds to the photo or can't be cropped without cutting something out, it shouldn't be in the frame.
> ...



It's been quite a while but I simply have to give another thank you to all who got me thinking more seriously on this topic and particularly to comment on how wonderful this Freeman book is!!

I read while keeping one eye on the birdies, and I am half way though - will read and reread. 

Now here's one shot that I would like feedback on if anyone is still linked to this thread.

Jack


----------



## Skatol (Aug 14, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> It's been quite a while but I simply have to give another thank you to all who got me thinking more seriously on this topic and particularly to comment on how wonderful this Freeman book is!!
> 
> I read while keeping one eye on the birdies, and I am half way though - will read and reread.
> 
> ...


I think this is a spectacular shot Jack. The lighting adds a bit of drama (lack of a better word). I don't know of anything I would have done differently. Focus is spot on, contrast looks good, highlight and shadow detail are well balanced. Maybe trim just a little bit more off the right side to move the eye closer to the right third?

Brent


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2015)

Thanks Brent. Yes, I should move him over as you say and I wasn't sure based on my monitor but now I would darken the shadows a bit more so the tree is not displaying any detail. It is cropped nominally to create the V, but was never a full body because I was caught with too many mm and no chance to change it.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2015)

oh, and when I learn how, I'll take the suet off his beak! :-[

Jack


----------

