Great Blue Heron

[Cheryl Flory]

OK, time to get back to feathers instead of scales---:D




Canon 40D
Sigma 50-500
191mm
1/640"
F8
ISO 400
EC -0.33

I know the eyes are not in the rule of thirds areas. But how would I crop this in order to place it that way?
Width-wise this is full frame, some taken off the top and bottom.

Does the second heron add or detract?

worth keeping??? or not???

[Desmond Chan]

Does the second heron add or detract?

worth keeping??? or not???

I don't find the second heron detract. On the other hand, I find that oof far away landscape is not helping with the composition. The two of them form a triangular composition. The heron in the foreground looks sharp with good colors, IMO, but could be a bit brighter.

Also, a bit of halo I can see that is fixable.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Cheryl I think it can work if you use with a caption ... also wish the foreground bird had a good head angle

Caption ...................... why does he get all the fish !!!! :eek::cool:

As a stand alone image I thing the strong behavior for the bg bird detracts from the image !! Do like how you are trying complex compositions !!

[Cheryl Flory]

Thanks, Desmond and Al.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Cheryl - have to agree with AL's assement - nice details and colour with the BIgma - looking forwar to seeing more.

:)

[Harold Davis]

agree with AL too! i did not know you had a Bigma! is this a new thing or have you had it all along?

[Cheryl Flory]

Harold, I just purchased a used one last month. For these bird images, I had rented one when we visited Florida this past spring.

[Gus Cobos]

Hi Cheryl,
I like the capture, but the OOF bird in the background takes away from the main one...:cool:

[Julie Kenward]

Cheryl, I'd think about wiping out the middle horizon line of green and cloning the white over it. Then clone the blue all the way up to the top...see if you like that instead.

[Gail Spitler]

Cheryl - thanks for posting this image. For me it raises the question of when does oof work? Looking at the Art Morris image that is on the intro page to BPN, a full 2/3 of the birds in that image are in focus and the oof-ness (if there is such a word) looks like it is simply a function of the distance away from the viewer. Plus all the birds are doing the same thing. In this image, of the 2 birds, the oof bird is apparently more interesting because we think it is doing something. The bg bird is also bigger. I am wondering if our mind accepts oof bits, when they are smaller and farther away from us. But doesn't like it otherwise. For example, I have a couple different images of lines of birds where for some strange reason I focused on the second bird in the row. From bird 2 to x, there is an increasing oof-ness and they look fine. But as soon as I pop the front oof bird onto the line, the image fails. I think a similar thing happens with the snake image (for me anyway).
Thanks again for posting these. It has helped me to think about how this works.
Cheers
Gail

[Cheryl Flory]

Good points, Gail! thanks.

[Oscar Zangroniz]

Hi Cheryl. I actually like the image as you presented it. Something about the background bird being out of focus that makes it intriguing. IMHO

[Cheryl Flory]

Gail (and others) The IOTW for 10/16/08 from Nikolay is a great example of birds OOF but not distracting.... lovely image.

Thank you for putting into words the reasons for why one image works, and another image doesn't.

you gotta love this list!

[Desmond Chan]

Cheryl - thanks for posting this image. For me it raises the question of when does oof work? Looking at the Art Morris image that is on the intro page to BPN, a full 2/3 of the birds in that image are in focus and the oof-ness [snip] The bg bird is also bigger. I am wondering if our mind accepts oof bits, when they are smaller and farther away from us. But doesn't like it otherwise. For example, I have a couple different images of lines of birds where for some strange reason I focused on the second bird in the row. From bird 2 to x, there is an increasing oof-ness and they look fine. But as soon as I pop the front oof bird onto the line, the image fails.

Personally, I would caution against trying to make any conclusion out of reviewing one photograph of one type of photography from one photographer that there is a law out there that determines what a good photograph is and what makes a photograph fails.

I am sure though that a good photograph is not necessarily one that has the most beautiful subject of interest or one that is technically perfect. Otherwise, it will be easy to produce a good photograph.

[Cheryl Flory]

True, Desmond. But I think that particular photo illustrates some of the points mentioned here:
that the oof birds are not larger,
that the oof birds are not doing something more interesting/more active
that the oof birds form a diagonal line which is easier for the eye to follow that a triangular line.

plus a cleaner bg/horizon lines

These are all things that I think are pertinent to consider when composing or evaluating an image. After that, you may still prefer an image which does not "follow these rules", but knowing more of the aspects which typically make an image more appealing is helpful. IMHO

as someone said, it helps to know the rules before knowing when to break them. :)

[Desmond Chan]

True, Desmond. But I think that particular photo illustrates some of the points mentioned here:
that the oof birds are not larger,
that the oof birds are not doing something more interesting/more active
that the oof birds form a diagonal line which is easier for the eye to follow that a triangular line.

plus a cleaner bg/horizon lines

These are all things that I think are pertinent to consider when composing or evaluating an image. After that, you may still prefer an image which does not "follow these rules", but knowing more of the aspects which typically make an image more appealing is helpful. IMHO

as someone said, it helps to know the rules before knowing when to break them. :)

Thing is, are there rules? Are what you just said rules? If there are rules, when and how you are going to break them? And why?

I'd say the "why" should be the determinant here.

I'm pretty sure you could find photographs out there that have violated all the rules you just mentioned. And the reason that the photographers seem to have violated all the rules is, I would also say, not because they decided to do so at that moment, but it is something else that make the "rules" irrelevant.

Using your photograph as an example, even with all the elements the same, it could have two herons all in focus, two herons and the far away landscape all in focus, two herons with only the background heron in focus, none of anything in focus, and the one that you posted. IMO, they are all different photographs and showing the viewers different things. Which images work better? Why? And who decides that?

[Cheryl Flory]

Desmond, I agree with your comments. And I don't see a difference in opinion from what I meant to say and what you wrote. Perhaps "rules" was too strong of a word, perhaps "guidelines" would be better.

Before I pressed the shutter for this image, I knew I wanted to try getting one bird in focus and one bird out of focus. I have several images I liked enough to save from my attempts at that idea. But the images didn't "grab" me. Going through the discussion here, I have learned several possible reasons.

Like you wrote, a viewer's opinion of an image is up to them, not up to a set of rules. However, knowing general guidelines will help me in learning basic concepts, which generally work. It is up to me as the photographer which guidelines I want to use to try to achieve my idea in an image. After I learn the guidelines of how to use aperture, f stop, ISO etc to achieve sharp images, then I will understand better how to step outside of the guidelines to try something new. My goal is to eventually be able to make creative as well as good images. I think many viewers, especially here, would prefer a good creative image over a good but run-of-the-mill image, any day.

As a novice (not even having a "real" camera for a year yet), I have a lot to learn about the standard guidelines. Which is why I often post images which I am not thrilled with--in order to learn what I did wrong. (OK, another reason is that I don't have that many images that I AM thrilled with. LOL)

[Gail Spitler]

Hi Cheryl and Desmond
I think you are both making important points. And the bottom line is indeed, if there were iron-clad rules, then we could just apply the rules to an image to give it a rating out of 10 - like with Olympic divers.
I'm very much an amateur at all this, and I wonder if there are two kinds of guidelines. The first set have names like the "rule of thirds" and when applied can help make for an appealing composition. These rules can also be broken to dramatic effect as well. The second set of guidelines don't have names that I know, but are things we have learned to expect in certain types of images. For example, perspective says we expect objects to get smaller, lighter in color, and out of focus as they are farther away. And when we create an image that looks like a documentation of the real world, our mind expects rules about perspective to apply. Alternatively, there are images that are more abstract in nature and the real world rules don't apply.

And then the camera does not see exactly what the photographer sees.
And I think using/controlling/ creating oof-ness is tough to do well. Tougher than I'd think anyway.

Cheryl I am glad that you post images that will help you learn. I think most of us benefit from that. It does require a bit of bravery to that. I try to do that as well. And every once in a while I get a goodie that I just want to share. (smile)

Thanks for the discussion guys

Cheers
gail