Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More [Archive] - BirdPhotographers.net

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 07:55 AM

For years, heck, for decades, my style has been to work clean, tight and graphic. Many of John Shaw's flowers and the bird photographs of Rod Plank and Tim Fitzharris influenced my early efforts and I quickly fell in love with images that featured backgrounds of pure out-of-focus color. Images like that still float my boat to steal a phrase from my late friend Dr. Hugh P. Smith. (See "In Memoriam" here (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/03/09/in-memoriam-hugh-p-smith-jr-1920-2011/))

Don't get me wrong, I do love images that include lots of habitat. And I love environmental-type portraits with small-in-the frame birds and animals. But for me, the the surroundings need to be pleasing, even beautiful. When they are not, or when they are distracting, I do my best to eliminate the distractions usually by using longs lenses and trying to work clean, tight, and graphic.

When folks post an image of a bird perched in a jumble of sticks where you can barely see the subject and defend their work by saying that they were only "photographing what was there," I do try to make the point that what is there in nature does not always make a good photograph. As John Shaw has written, "The job of the nature photographer is to make order out of chaos." When I find something in an image that is distracting and draws my eye from the subject, I simply state just that.

There are different strokes (and different styles) for different folks. Though I have strong opinions and often voice them I try my best to respect the opinions of others even when they are different from mine. I have put a lot of time and effort into doing critiques on BPN and have tried to lead by example. But I can only call things as I see them If I did otherwise I would not be being true to either myself, or to our mantra, "Honest critiques done gently."

As always I would love to see your best images whatever the style. Each of us needs to develop our own style based on our likes, dislikes, our skills and our equipment, our vision, and our personal experiences and preferences. Am I flattered that so many over the decades have emulated my style successfully? Yes, of course. But all that I have ever done is post my favorite images and comment honestly on the images posted by others.

Please feel free to share your thoughts on any or all of the above.

Dave Woeller

03-14-2011, 08:29 AM

I, for one, would never expect anything less from you or any other critiquer on this site. If you hang around long enough you tend to learn the style of each moderator, regular poster, and critiquer here. This knowledge, and an open mind can be most helpful as you read their comments. Whether you agree or disagree with their words is a personal decision, but at the same time it is all an opportunity learn and grow. How many avian guys and gals have visited the OOTB forum? How many OOTB posters visit landscapes? These questions are outside the scope of the original post, but point out the huge variety of style, interpretation, and knowledge available here. I feel the large percentage of comments, regardless of forum, are honest constructive thoughts from each critiquer, and that's the way it should be.

Andrew Merwin

03-14-2011, 08:30 AM

Well stated Artie. Ultimately, all that matters is how the photographer feels about their own images. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 08:47 AM

Dave, Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for your support :) I welcome wide-ranging comments here.

John Chardine

03-14-2011, 03:25 PM

Hi Artie- some good thoughts and I will comment but I need to know what "clean" and "graphic" mean. I think I know what "tight" means, although I know you are stickler for giving the subject enough room.

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 06:31 PM

Clean: having an uncluttered background and foreground

Graphic: having strongly defined compositional elements

Just made those two up off the cuff; so they make any sense???

Hilary Hann

03-14-2011, 06:40 PM

Thanks Artie for starting this topic which I feel is very important for all nature photographers.

When folks post an image of a bird perched in a jumble of sticks where you can barely see the subject and defend their work by saying that they were only "photographing what was there," I do try to make the point that what is there in nature does not always make a good photograph.
I totally agree with this comment and I sometimes feel that the excuse for poor technique or foresight is that "well, it is nature and that's what it's like out there", which although true doesn't, as you say, make for a necessarily good photograph.

I also think that wildlife/avian photographers can get into a comfort zone of what they think is acceptable and pleasing and then the eye becomes conditioned to this view. It becomes very hard to break away from this thinking to see other possibilities in their own photography and also in other people's view point. Whilst I don't think that it is necessary to always appreciate someone's else technique or style, I would like to thing that some open mindedness about what is being offered could be reflected in the critique process.

Each of us needs to develop our own style based on our likes, dislikes, our skills and our equipment, our vision, and our personal experiences and preferences.

This is so true, and may be easier in a forum with many different contributors as there is a wider depth of opinion, and therefore a new member will feel more encouraged to continue with their style and even to experiment.

In my experience, the majority of views held by (for instance) wildlife contributors in forums such as this, as to what is good versus "doesn't work for me" (which is often accompanied by no extended helpful comments about why!) is vastly different from professional photographers in other commercial fields or even dedicated collectors of wildlife art. I wonder why there is this gulf? Stuart Bowie's magnificent back lit baboon, whilst perfectly suitable to post in OOTB, should have been lauded as a really great WILDLIFE image in its own right. I'm not saying that I prefer it over the polar bears, which is another magnificent image, just that it is a superior wildlife image showing everything we should encourage in wildlife photography. Composition, lighting, patience, technique etc. etc.

So I see a dichotomy between a sometimes pedestrian, ordinary image (and I author plenty of those myself :e3 ) getting rave reviews and some very exciting approaches which stretch the boundaries of what we have trained ourselves to consider 'good' images getting some fairly harsh reviews which offer little to the photographer. Not liking an image is one thing, not offering explanations as to why, or some suggestions on how it could have been improved doesn't help.

The OOTB forum is a fantastic, supportive place to try out new ideas but creativity shouldn't be confined there, it should be allowed full rein in all the forums.

Sorry if I've been too wordy, but it is an interesting topic.

Andrew Merwin
Well stated Artie. Ultimately, all that matters is how the photographer feels about their own images. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This may be true for the amateur photographer but surely won't get you very far as a professional where selling your vision and product is quite an important part of financial success.

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 07:05 PM

Thanks Hillary, A few brief by necessity comments :) I agree that Stu's image is a great image period. I do believe that it was his choice to post it in OOTB.... By the way, blacklit is a cool name for such imiages.

It seems that you are believing the story that you have to make great images to sell images. All that you need to do to disprove that it look in any magazine with natural history images. For the most part, selling images has tons more to do with hard work and determination than it does with skill, artistic vision, or the quality of ones work.

I do not think that anyone here is confining creative imagery to OOTB.... Except maybe the posters....

Hilary Hann

03-14-2011, 07:23 PM

Artie, I'm sure that it was Stuart's choice to go in OOTB. But I have seen images in Wildlife where C&C from other members has told the poster that the image would be better posted in OOTB, not saying that this was the case with Stuart's.

I don't believe at all the story that to sell successfully, the images have to be great! It is obviously not the case. My comment related specifically to Andrew's comment that all that mattered was how the photographer feels about the photographs he/she produces … which ultimately isn't the main concern of someone who wants to sell their images. They do also need to consider what the market wants, sometimes unfortunately.

I don't think that any of the moderators are consciously confining creative imagery to OOTB, far from it. It is more the nature of the beast that if creative images are not understood or appreciated or if the comments are that it would be better appreciated in OOTB (an excellent forum) then other members will re-assess their image and perhaps send it straight to OOTB. It isn't so much a criticism rather than an observation.

This is the only forum I've found which actually offers useful critiques from the moderators and some experienced members with technical knowledge to improve posted images; that it has maintained that over the years is a credit to all the moderators and participants, IMO.

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 07:32 PM

Hi Hillary,

re:

I'm sure that it was Stuart's choice to go in OOTB. But I have seen images in Wildlife where C&C from other members has told the poster that the image would be better posted in OOTB, not saying that this was the case with Stuart's.
Members (and mods are free to have their opinions and folks are free to post the images wherever they wish unless they simply do not fit in a given forum....

I don't believe at all the story that to sell successfully, the images have to be great! It is obviously not the case. My comment related specifically to Andrew's comment that all that mattered was how the photographer feels about the photographs he/she produces … which ultimately isn't the main concern of someone who wants to sell their images. They do also need to consider what the market wants, sometimes unfortunately.
I do not believe that Andrew was talking at all about selling images....

I don't think that any of the moderators are consciously confining creative imagery to OOTB, far from it.

I agree 100% other than the fact that mods like to see good images posted in their forums by good photographers :)

It is more the nature of the beast that if creative images are not understood or appreciated or if the comments are that it would be better appreciated in OOTB (an excellent forum) then other members will re-assess their image and perhaps send it straight to OOTB.

I would blame the poster then for not having the guts to stand up for themselves and their work. I would not be blaming "other members...."

It isn't so much a criticism rather than an observation.

This is the only forum

Which fourm???

I've found which actually offers useful critiques from the moderators and some experienced members with technical knowledge to improve posted images; that it has maintained that over the years is a credit to all the moderators and participants, IMO.

I will comment on the above once I know which forum you are talking about. But no matter which one you are referring to I will disagree pretty strongly :)

Hilary Hann

03-14-2011, 07:48 PM

Sorry Artie, I'm totally confused now. :eek:

I've gone from agreeing with you to having you disagree with a compliment to your BPN forum. Ah well. Such is life.

The forum I'm referring to is BPN and all the critique forums contained within. I think that they offer the best critique available with the most technical information for improving the photographers images. I'm not sure what there is to disagree strongly with this?

I am not criticising Andrew or his comments, just pointing out that pleasing ourselves with our own photography can't be the only goal.

It is more the nature of the beast that if creative images are not understood or appreciated or if the comments are that it would be better appreciated in OOTB (an excellent forum) then other members will re-assess their image and perhaps send it straight to OOTB.

I would blame the poster then for not having the guts to stand up for themselves and their work. I would not be blaming "other members...."
Can't see that I was blaming anyone at all, and feel rather offended that you would think my comments were 'blaming'. Please point me to the exact phrase that blames other members? :S3:

But no matter which one you are referring to I will disagree pretty strongly :)
Great, go for it!

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 08:04 PM

Apologies. When you said this is the only forum I took you at your work and thought that you were referring to a single Forum as best :) I never think of BPN as a Forum but as a collection of Forums. I guess that I would call it a web site or a community.

So thanks for the compliment!

As far your stating that pleasing ourselves with our images cannot be the only goal I would ask, "Why not?"

Being offended is a choice (Byron Katie; www.thework.com).

You stated, "It is more the nature of the beast that if creative images are not understood or appreciated or if the comments are that it would be better appreciated in OOTB (an excellent forum) then other members will re-assess their image and perhaps send it straight to OOTB. It isn't so much a criticism rather than an observation."

You are saying that if folks do not appreciate a given image or if others state that an image would be better off in OOTB that the posters will re-assess and perhaps send it straight to OOTB. From where I sit you are clearly blaming the folks who are offering their opinions. As I said above I would blame the poster for not having the guts to stand up for their own work and post it where they want to post it.

Sorry again for the original mis-understanding. I do agree that this is a great place to learn :)

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 08:05 PM

ps: Sometimes we get trapped by our own mind sets (as I did above).

Hilary Hann

03-14-2011, 08:21 PM

As we say here, "no problemo", it's hard to get points across by words alone.

Just one point and not to be argumentative at all but

You are saying that if folks do not appreciate a given image or if others state that an image would be better off in OOTB that the posters will re-assess and perhaps send it straight to OOTB. From where I sit you are clearly blaming the folks who are offering their opinions.
I disagree with this assertion. I think the folks offering their opinions are doing what they should do. I am more inclined to think that the other photographers are trying to learn where best to place their image for the most feed back. So I would say that they are learning from what happens to other images and make an educated decision on where to post their photos. Is that good or bad? Neither. Just that it may (not necessarily will) result in a narrower field of view. I'm probably quite wrong … it happens.

Anyway, it will be interesting to read other opinions as I've had a good turn at expressing mine! :S3:

Desmond Chan

03-14-2011, 08:36 PM

[snip] I sometimes feel that the excuse for poor technique or foresight is that "well, it is nature and that's what it's like out there", which although true doesn't, as you say, make for a necessarily good photograph.

But, I'd say it's no excuse, and it has nothing to do with technique or foresight. It could very well be the way the photographer wants his/her photograph to be. You may not appreciate the photograph the way that he/she does, but I don't think you can then conclude that it has something to do with their (poor) technique, or that it's their excuse to say "that's what it's like out there". I think you have to know and understand the intention of the photographer first before you can make the judgment.

Steven Kersting

03-14-2011, 08:36 PM

To answer the "question" as posted...I don't care.

What matters to me is that an image has a strong subject/says something.

A subject that might otherwise be strong is weakened by clutter, distractions, composition etc.

A "story" cannot be "read" with too much noise.

My 2c

Hilary Hann

03-14-2011, 08:41 PM

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 08:51 PM

But, I'd say it's no excuse, and it has nothing to do with technique or foresight. It could very well be the way the photographer wants his/her photograph to be. You may not appreciate the photograph the way that he/she does, but I don't think you can then conclude that it has something to do with their (poor) technique, or that it's their excuse to say "that's what it's like out there". I think you have to know and understand the intention of the photographer first before you can make the judgment.

I think that when folks post horribly cluttered images it is because such images are often the best that they have. When folks give an honest critique, they feel the need to defend their work. After 28 years I know what a bad image looks like.... Some folks simply hate to be that critical....

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 08:52 PM

Desmond Chan

03-14-2011, 09:08 PM

After 28 years I know what a bad image looks like...

Not disputing that but, if I may ask, is bad image means an image that is not eye-pleasing?

Arthur Morris

03-14-2011, 09:16 PM

Steven Kersting

03-14-2011, 09:31 PM

What question?

"Tight or Wide?"

Roger Clark

03-14-2011, 09:41 PM

Good topic and I think good for BPN and growth of its members.

Hillary, I agree with much of what you said. There is a danger in formula by the rules images and image critiques. Before I go further, I think BPN is the best group of people and interactions on the net for wildlife photography. That's a pretty high standard. Occasionally I check out other web sites/forums, and am still a member of others (but I rarely go to them now). I am also on several list serves, but now only two related to photography.

When I encounter other nature photographers, I often ask if they are on BPN. Sometimes the response has surprised me (and this has happened several times): "No, the critiques are too formulated so everything is the same and there is little room for new vision."

Let's step back and do an illustration. A famous and extremely good and talented landscape photographer was David Muench. One aspect of his style was to photograph a small object in the close foreground against a large background object. Technically this is very challenging. For example, a dandelion with the Grand Teton mountain in the background where the dandelion appears larger than the mountain (this was one of Muench's images). Many try and emulate that style. I hate it (but I really love other Muench's images where he does not use that style). But imagine a forum of landscape photographers where a submitted photo would be critiqued heavily unless it fit that one style and formula. I'm not trying to suggest BPN is anywhere near this, but just illustrating that if a formula is taken to an extreme, it can be boring.

But there is perception by some outsiders (deserved or not) that BPN is too formula. We need to be alert and open to make sure that is not true and remains not true.

There is a preponderance on BPN of photographers to critique a stick in the way or if the image does not adhere to rule of thirds. Now I agree that in general these are good rules. But I also think it becomes too much of a formula and should be broken more often. I'll submit one image to illustrate my point.

I have never posted this image on BPN for critique, so think of what your critique would be. The image is titled "The Kiss" and below are the reactions I've gotten. The reactions were getting so consistent, I started asking people specifics as you'll see below:

Photographer critic: Nice image. Too bad about the stick.

Everyone else: Wow! fantastic image!!!
I ask: what about the stick?
Response: What stick?

Sometimes an image has impact even if it has a "flaw" that was real in nature. But these days an image must be "perfect." I won't clone out the stick, but that is me. I like to push limits and get out of the formula (as some of my recent image postings illustrate).

Roger

Andrew Merwin

03-14-2011, 09:47 PM

Photography is, after all, an art form. Every one has their own vision. I think that once technical & compositional mastery have been achieved, great images come when photographers step outside the "box" & follow their own creative insights.
For me, photography is a creative process that satisfies my psyche regardless of whether or not it is purchased or appreciated by others. I create images for myself. If people like the images, that is simply "icing on the cake."
When a magazine has purchased one of my images, I am usually surprised by the choice. In my experience, photo purchasers usually have their own agenda when selecting an image. Consequently, I have learned to create images that please me rather than attempt to read a buyers' mind.
BPN is instrumental in helping me improve my technical & compositional competence. This allows me to pursue photographic topics that interest & delight me & present them in the best possible light.

Steven Kersting

03-14-2011, 10:02 PM

Photography is, after all, an art form. Every one has their own vision.

I often say photography is a skill, a talent, and an art form....

Skill can be learned, talent can be developed, art is in the eye of the beholder.

(or..."auto program mode, scene select, ahhhh")

Andrew Merwin

03-14-2011, 10:04 PM

I agree with Roger. I completely missed "the stick." I frequently miss "flaws" in images that others on BPN see & comment on.

With Roger's image, I experienced the emotive moment that is so artistically captured with this image. Without anthropomorphizing wildlife, the image captures a very tender moment & demonstrates that there is much more to the universe than homo sapiens.
I think Shakespeare said it best:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

Desmond Chan

03-14-2011, 10:16 PM

Desmond Chan

03-14-2011, 10:21 PM

In part, most bad images are not pleasing to the eye to a majority of folks. If an image is cluttered and has obvious technical problems but the person who created it loves it , that does not make it a good image. I may be glad that they like it, but that does not make it a good image.

I'm still trying to find out, understand what a good photograph is. From what I've read so far, it seems to me different categories of photography could have different criteria on what constitutes a good photograph. I suppose your answer, Artie, fits the kind of image we're looking for here.

Steven Kersting

03-14-2011, 11:11 PM

I've been wondering about those "distracting" comments myself. I wonder: what does it mean by distracting? You go out on the streets, there's a lot of things around you, in front of you, within your field of view. But, I doubt you will run into a lamp post (unless you're drunk or have your eyes closed), have difficulty finding your way, or recognize the face of your friend across the street. So distracting meaning, you can't see the subject matter? It can't be, right? :S3: Guess Roger is right that everything has to be perfect these days :bg3:

In a dynamic environment the human mind/eyes do all sorts of crazy things...it turns blue/yellow light white, correctly exposes huge dynamic range, perceives known people at a fixed distance of around 10ft (you don't "notice" perspective distortions), skips large bits of irrelevant data (kind of like reading..many words are actually just "recognized" and not read), etc etc.

(almost) None of this occurs when viewing a static image.....so all of the things that are usually "fixed" or "ignored" become problematic in a photo.

Steven Kersting

03-14-2011, 11:16 PM

I'm still trying to find out, understand what a good photograph is. From what I've read so far, it seems to me different categories of photography could have different criteria on what constitutes a good photograph. I suppose your answer, Artie, fits the kind of image we're looking for here.

There's no answer to that..there's technically good and artistically good and they don't really have to have much in common. Artistically good is more about "emotional connection" and that's going to be different for every individual. There are accepted norms for what is "good art", but great art is not about "accepted norms".

Desmond Chan

03-15-2011, 01:44 AM

There's no answer to that..there's technically good and artistically good and they don't really have to have much in common. Artistically good is more about "emotional connection" and that's going to be different for every individual. There are accepted norms for what is "good art", but great art is not about "accepted norms".

And more. Joe Elbert, a former managing editor for photography of Washington Post, divides photographs into four hierarchical categories:
1. Informational.
2. Graphically appealing.
3. Emotional
4. Intimate.

Photographs of category 1 is the least challenging and 4 is the most. And most people do 1 and 2. So, to me, I tend to think that a good photograph, generally speaking, does not have to be one that is eye-pleasing as it depends on what the photograph or specifically what the photographer wants to say (story) with his photograph. I'd say here most if not all of the photographs belong to category 2 and so, look is important :S3::cheers:

There was one time I was sitting in a doctor office, waiting. Across the office on a wall was a large bird photograph. Essentially it was a bird-on-a-stick type of photograph. Unfortunately, the color of it had already faded. While I was looking at it, I started to wonder: wouldn't it be better if it had something else in the photograph? Would it still be appealing to me if it were an action photograph, a photograph of a rarely seen moment of a bird, or even a photograph of a rare bird? I was thinking, the reason I didn't like that photograph was because what had made it an appealing image sometime ago was no longer there. Then it hit me: you need something more than a bird and a stick to make a long lasting good image :S3:

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 05:12 AM

"Tight or Wide?"

Then I guess that my only possible response is that I don't care that you don't care :) And I don't.

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 05:25 AM

Wow, went to sleep and this thread took off as expected. I gotta pack for Homer and will be back at the earliest to comment on lots of stuff above. I could not, however, get in the shower before commenting on Roger's statement:

"Sometimes an image has impact even if it has a "flaw" that was real in nature. But these days an image must be "perfect." I won't clone out the stick, but that is me. I like to push limits and get out of the formula (as some of my recent image postings illustrate)."

I agree that lots of images have impact along with flaws that were real in nature. You go on to state "But these days an image must be "perfect."

Says who? Must be perfect why?

If I were to critique your GBH image above I would surely mention that stick and suggest that it be removed. I would usually add, "If that fits with your personal ethics." I would have no problem with your eliminating the stick or with your removing the stick (and letting folks know what you did).

If folks want to hear that every image of a bird or animal is great, then they should only be showing their images to the general public, folks who are ignorant of what makes a contest-winning images.

One can make the clear inference that you feel that the stick is a "flaw." For someone here not to mention it would be doing you and the site, the purpose of the site, a disservice.

Please do answer the two questions in blue above :) Thanks!

Daniel Cadieux

03-15-2011, 05:35 AM

Interesting discussion for sure. There are so many images that I was proud of at the moment I took them and that I now squirm at the sight of them. Funny thing is that many people oohed and aahed when seeing them, only making me prouder and feeling like the king of the world. I've kept them as many recall past good times and serve as a comparision of my growth as a photographer. Having not browsed and participated in such communities as BPN I would have likely remained "stuck" at what I thought was a high standard for me...I'm glad I have an open mind when it comes to learning, pushing myself, and seeing things I wouldn't before. Ironically, for many of those images I told myself at the time "that is where the bird lives" or "that is where it was". Now I still do take time to take images of "where the bird lives", but only if it is truly a beautiful scene and not just because I need to take a photo of every bird I encounter.

As for Roger's image, it is indeed a great one and I for sure would have taken it in a heartbeat!...but what if the stick were intersecting the neck or face, or larger and cutting straight across the whole frame? Would it still not be distracting? Everybody has their "tolerance" level for distractions, but everyone also has their limit in how far to accept those.

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 07:42 AM

But, I'd say it's no excuse, and it has nothing to do with technique or foresight. It could very well be the way the photographer wants his/her photograph to be. You may not appreciate the photograph the way that he/she does, but I don't think you can then conclude that it has something to do with their (poor) technique, or that it's their excuse to say "that's what it's like out there". I think you have to know and understand the intention of the photographer first before you can make the judgment.

It is often used as an excuse. In addition, it is often stated out of ignorance by beginning photographers who come to understand what makes a good image after a few years, months, or decades.

I guess though if the photographers intention is to make bad images that are not at all pleasing to the eye then I guess I could buy your line of reasoning....

It often does have to do not only with poor technique but (has to do) with a lack of understanding (of what makes a good image).

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 07:49 AM

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 08:04 AM

What makes a great natural history image?

Lots of factors come into play, and obviously not all of them need to be or are ever present in a single great image. Here are some(in no particular order) that come to mind;

drama
impact
a story or lesson (often implied)
artistic or graphic design
simplicity
clarity
a unique perspective
action
implied motion
intimacy
the quality and direction of the light
the emotion an image invokes

Feel free to agree or disagree or to add to the list :)

An interesting exercise would be to consider the list above while asking the following questions:

What makes a great snapshot?
What makes a great news photo?
What makes a great sports image?
What makes a great pet photo?
What makes a great documentary photo?
What makes a great architectural photo?
What makes a great stock photo?

I am thinking that most everything on the list would apply to most if not all types of photography.

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 08:36 AM

What makes a great natural history image?

drama
impact
a story or lesson (often implied)
artistic or graphic design
simplicity
clarity
a unique perspective
action
implied motion
intimacy
emotion invoking

Great list. I think you forgot the most important factors: The Light. The light must be great. I'll also add texture and form.

drama in great light
impact in great light
a story or lesson (often implied) in great light
artistic or graphic design in great light
simplicity in great light
clarity in great light
a unique perspective in great light
action in great light
implied motion in great light
intimacy in great light
emotion invoking in great light
texture and/or form in great light.

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it.
But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography."
- George Eastman

Artie, I know you know these things, just trying to be complete and expand for everyone.

An interesting exercise would be to consider the list above while asking the following questions:

What makes a great snapshot?
What makes a great news photo?
What makes a great sports image?
What makes a great pet photo?
What makes a great documentary photo?
What makes a great architectural photo?
What makes a great stock photo?

I am thinking that most everything on the list would apply to most if not all types of photography.

I agree.

Roger

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 08:46 AM

Thanks Roger. So I forgot light :e3

I have added it to the list. Please see my questions in blue for you in Pane #33. Thank you sir :)

ps: thanks for including the quote.

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 08:50 AM

More for Roger. :) I never suggest that folks create their images "by the rules." I suggest that they study and learn about composition and image design, learn the so called rules and guidelines, apply them when they wish to, and break them at will when they have a reason to.

I often applaud folks for stepping outside the constraints of the compositional rules and guidelines but am quick to bust folks who do so only for the sake of breaking the rules.... When I ask why they did this or that they sometimes respond "just to be different." 99% of the time that simply does not work for me. When you have a reason to get away from the norm outstanding and different images are often the result.

While I agree, your statements are true, but you are in a unique position here. You have strong opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that. But as the senior, accomplished, respected photographer and founder of the group, you opinion will count more to most people. In the words of a recent poster "Thank God, for Art Morris !"

Thus, an unintended effect is that many emulate you, which in itself is not necessarily bad. But taken to an extreme could stifle thinking outside the box you have defined.

Roger

Charles Scheffold

03-15-2011, 08:58 AM

This is a great thread. To me, it seems like a difficult task to describe what exactly makes a good picture. I'm glad to see that Artie and others have been able to do just that.

By far the hardest thing about photography (for me) is learning to handle criticism of my work - and learning to recognize what is good or bad and why. I guess (hope) I'm evolving? :)

The information here is the kind of thing that helps me be a better photographer, and I appreciate it.

BTW I credit John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide as the book that opened my eyes to the world of nature photography. It helped me to explore my creativity in an entirely new way.

thanks
Charles

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 09:04 AM

While I agree, your statements are true, but you are in a unique position here. You have strong opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that. But as the senior, accomplished, respected photographer and founder of the group, you opinion will count more to most people. In the words of a recent poster "Thank God, for Art Morris !"

Thus, an unintended effect is that many emulate you, which in itself is not necessarily bad. But taken to an extreme could stifle thinking outside the box you have defined.

Roger

As I have said, "It is nice that so many have embraced my style." But I have always encouraged folks to develop their own styles. And I never tell anyone what they should do :) I simply say, "Here's what I have done. Here is the gear that I have used. And here's how."

And that's co-founder :) And be careful about those senior references :) I will be "only" 65 in June so there are many here senior to me.

Daniel Cadieux

03-15-2011, 09:08 AM

Light is so important...but many people don't "see" all of that either or have difficulty doing so. Only the sweet early morning or late evening light counts for many, especially beginers who read all the good stuff about that (and I love that light too!). My favorite type of light, however, is overcast (especially light overcast), but I don't know how many times I've heard "too bad the light isn't so good today" on such days.

Which brings to mind, someone once said "When bright, go tight"...and the results are often (but not always) great like that too:S3:

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 09:26 AM

I agree that lots of images have impact along with flaws that were real in nature. You go on to state "But these days an image must be "perfect."

Says who? Must be perfect why?

Nobody says it directly, but I see it in judging and critiques. I have had the opportunity to hear judges comment on images while judging. Very interesting to see the thought process (very similar to the critiques on BPN) and to see what one judge misses. Kind of like the critiques where one does not necessarily see others comments. Perfection rules the thought process. Often at the expense of the key factor (The Light).

If I were to critique your GBH image above I would surely mention that stick and suggest that it be removed. I would usually add, "If that fits with your personal ethics." I would have no problem with your eliminating the stick or with your removing the stick (and letting folks know what you did).

I think Daniel's statements are key: "but what if the stick were intersecting the neck or face, or larger and cutting straight across the whole frame? Would it still not be distracting? Everybody has their "tolerance" level for distractions, but everyone also has their limit in how far to accept those."

The key here is you and Daniel focused your comments on the stick. I agree with Daniel that if the stick were across the neck or head or across the whole image, it would be too distracting. But the image is about 1) THE LIGHT 2) the emotional interaction. I have yet to have a photographer critic comment about the light or the interaction. They get so focused on the stick. The image isn't "perfect" by this modern definition so focus is on any little imperfection. That drives the "system" (of judging and critique forums) to only accept perfection, and search out any little imperfection, often forgetting the greater picture (pun intended).

If folks want to hear that every image of a bird or animal is great, then they should only be showing their images to the general public, folks who are ignorant of what makes a contest-winning images.

I think this is another extreme, but I believe there is an optimum in between. A great image does not, in my opinion, have to be technically perfect. Sometimes the light, expression, emotion, interaction of the subjects trump small imperfections. Consider the same interactions (same GBH image) but in unflattering light, like high noon with a clear sky. The image would have little impact, a snapshot. It is all about (1) the light, then (2) the connection with the subject(s) and their interaction.

One can make the clear inference that you feel that the stick is a "flaw." For someone here not to mention it would be doing you and the site, the purpose of the site, a disservice.

That is where I'll disagree. I don't consider the stick a flaw. If the image were not mine and I crtiqued it, I would not mention the stick. To me it does not matter, as the light is dramatic and the interaction superb. The eyes of both birds are in clear view giving that connection. If someone brought up that stick, I would counter that the stick 1) is not in a position to distract, and adds to the 3-dimensionality of the scene. I think the stick adds to the scene and makes it more powerful. But it doesn't conform to the the "modern" idea of perfection.
Just my opinion.

Roger

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 09:29 AM

And that's co-founder :) And be careful about those senior references :) I will be "only" 65 in June so there are many here senior to me.

Artie,
I meant senior in terms of your status and experience as a pro photographer.

Roger

Daniel Cadieux

03-15-2011, 09:52 AM

But in another way, if the scene presented to you was without that stick and someone mentioned the need for a stick I'm sure no one would agree adding one there would be best...but we do have the ability (within one's ethics) to remove it if so desired. Not sure if that makes sense or not. Suggesting that the stick is a minor distraction does not mean the image is a bad one...we can all agree the light has great mood to it and the interaction is superb...but I for one would have preferred it not there if given the choice. I don't think any extra sticks makes any image "more powerful" IMO (respectfully).

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 09:59 AM

Howdy, Thanks for getting back to me. I can see that we will need to agree to disagree on bunch of stuff :)

Nobody says it directly

Either they say it or they don't. Your original statement was ""But these days an image must be "perfect."" and that is what I took issue with :)

but I see it in judging and critiques. I have had the opportunity to hear judges comment on images while judging. Very interesting to see the thought process (very similar to the critiques on BPN) and to see what one judge misses. Kind of like the critiques where one does not necessarily see others comments. Perfection rules the thought process. Often at the expense of the key factor (The Light).
The standards today for contest winning images are quite high these days, so high that in contests like BBC in recent years many of the major honors go to images that are pure set-ups or involve a great deal of technical expertise and gear. But heck, that is another can of worms that I will be opening soon :)

I think Daniel's statements are key: "but what if the stick were intersecting the neck or face, or larger and cutting straight across the whole frame? Would it still not be distracting? Everybody has their "tolerance" level for distractions, but everyone also has their limit in how far to accept those."

The key here is you and Daniel focused your comments on the stick.

Well, the stick is there.... And as I said, it cannot be ignored.

I agree with Daniel that if the stick were across the neck or head or across the whole image, it would be too distracting.

I agree with that but the key word it "too." Sorry, but for me the stick is distracting right where it is.

But the image is about 1) THE LIGHT 2) the emotional interaction.

Images are about lots of things.

I have yet to have a photographer critic comment about the light or the interaction. They get so focused on the stick.

That seems a bit ridiculous. I can guarantee that if you posted the image here that folks would have commented on the strong elements of the image, for me, that would be mainly the interaction.

The image isn't "perfect" by this modern definition

Few are, even contest winning and hugely honored images are usually not.

so focus is on any little imperfection. That drives the "system" (of judging and critique forums) to only accept perfection,

I can only speak for myself but if I only posted perfect images I do not think that I would have a single image to post.

and search out any little imperfection, often forgetting the greater picture (pun intended).

This is one place we will need to agree to disagree. I often feel like the executioner when I mention a flaw in an image that has received numerous positive raves. But to do otherwise for any reason would mean that I was not being true to myself and not doing my best to help others.

I think this is another extreme, but I believe there is an optimum in between.

Agree.

A great image does not, in my opinion, have to be technically perfect. Sometimes the light, expression, emotion, interaction of the subjects trump small imperfections.

I would disagree there. Today, if an image has technical problems that are easily seen, soft focus, over-exposure, etc., it cannot be a great image. Can it be moving and dramatic and wonderful? Yes. But not great.

Consider the same interactions (same GBH image) but in unflattering light, like high noon with a clear sky. The image would have little impact, a snapshot. It is all about (1) the light, then (2) the connection with the subject(s) and their interaction.

Among other things.

That is where I'll disagree. I don't consider the stick a flaw.

As I said somewhere, you clearly implied that it is a flaw in the image. For me it is a flaw. It detracts the viewer's eye. That's why folks mention it. Answer this question: would you have preferred that that stick were simply not there in nature? Hint: if you say "no" I would not believe you. If you say it does not matter, it's a great images I would say that were avoiding the question.

If the image were not mine and I crtiqued it, I would not mention the stick.

That is obviously your choice. And I obviously would mention it.

To me it does not matter, as the light is dramatic and the interaction superb. The eyes of both birds are in clear view giving that connection. If someone brought up that stick, I would counter that the stick 1) is not in a position to distract,

I disagree strongly. Would folks be mentioning it if they were not seeing it????/COLOR]

and adds to the 3-dimensionality of the scene. I think the stick adds to the scene and makes it more powerful. But it doesn't conform to the the "modern" idea of perfection. Just my opinion.

[COLOR="blue"]Which you are surely entitled to but again, if you can honestly state that if you had your druthers that you would not like the image better had the stick not been there in the first place then I would be both baffled and disbelieving. Gotta go pack for Homer in search of that perfect image :) Ain't a good debate grand?

Roger[/QUOTE]

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 10:02 AM

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 11:48 AM

Artie, I meant senior in terms of your status and experience as a pro photographer. Roger

:) I figgered that.

Paul Guris

03-15-2011, 02:22 PM

As a very new photographer who has really enjoyed using the expertise at BPN to help improve my images, I'd like to chime in with a beginner's perspective on this very excellent conversation.

Roger said: "But there is perception by some outsiders (deserved or not) that BPN is too formula. We need to be alert and open to make sure that is not true and remains not true."

This strikes right to my heart because I've said it to myself more than once when reading some of these critiques over the relatively short period of time of my membership.

Shorebird and reflection with a reed peeking up off to the side or some natural pond scum? "You need to clean that up." I see that a lot. Sometimes the suggestion feels OK to me, but other times it feels like it goes way too far and people are suggesting you should have nature photographs with the nature removed. When I view multiple cleaned images like this in short order, a feeling of sterility crops up very quickly.

Bittern in the grass being ... well, a bittern? "Shame about the grass. Better luck next time." There are times I've wanted to wanted to ask people if they have any idea what this bird is and if they have a clue about it's natural history. Other than as a lark (no pun intended), I'm not really thrilled to see photo of a bittern in some sterile environment any more than I want to see one perched in a flowering shrub or on a sidewalk. I want to see it where it belongs.

Roger said: "Thus, an unintended effect is that many emulate you, which in itself is not necessarily bad. But taken to an extreme could stifle thinking outside the box you have defined."

Artie, I think Roger has nailed part of the issue very squarely here, and I'll give you the perfect "fer instance". I've read multiple comments on eye contact, including more than a few that I've strongly disagreed with. I've also read several defenses by you that have said that you've never said there needed to be direct eye contact. Recently you explained your perspective on eyes perfectly to me, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people misconstruing what you meant and applying it improperly. As a newbie, my reaction to an eye "contact" comment on a hunting raptor looking down was "what the @#$% are they talking about?" Recently I saw you have a reaction that was pretty much the same, though much more gently put.

So in the above case the attempt to emulate your knowledge failed with some people. It happens. But if a new photographer shows up and gets hit with several of these comments on an image that actually has the eye position quite well done, what's a person to think? They have a gorgeous shot of a hovering raptor looking down to seek its prey, but several people tell them that it's a shame the bird isn't looking right at the camera? It makes no sense, so they leave. I stuck it out for the good stuff and have since figured out what I want to embrace and what I prefer to ignore, but others might not last that long.

Back when I joined, a quick peek into BPN might very well have scared me off with the impression that it was all about formula. For us newbies trying to learn, I think it is important for the more senior (please don't hit me, Artie) members to sometimes gently guide the misguided critiques. Or at least point out that there is more than one view on the proper approach for that image. I've watched this kind of thing happen with cropping discussions and it's been an incredible learning experience.

Sorry for the long post, but I do like this site and I'd hate to see people scared off.

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 02:34 PM

Hey Paul, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am always doing my best. As you noted, when I see a mis-guided or mis-leading critique, I open my mouth. As for folks mis-construing what I say, I am not sure what I can do about that (refrain from commenting?), or what can be done to prevent it (reading comprehension skills courses mandatory?).

As for the"what's that grass doing around the bittern?" comment I will assume that you are either exaggerating to make a point or in a rare case, dealing with someone totally ignorant.

Beginner or not, you seem to have your ducks in a row. Open you mouth and become part of the solution. Contribute towards making this place even better.

As much as I would like to, I cannot comment even on every single image in Avian, much less on the whole site. If more folks who feel as you do would comment in a like manner, things can improve rapidly (at least where you see a need for improvement). The only way to get things done around here is one comment at a time :) I think that this will be 17,796 for me so I have been trying.

Paul Guris

03-15-2011, 03:27 PM

As you noted, when I see a mis-guided or mis-leading critique, I open my mouth. As for folks mis-construing what I say, I am not sure either what I can do about that (refrain from commenting?), or what can be done to prevent it (reading comprehension skills courses mandatory?). There's nothing you can do unless you see somebody misinterpret you. "Artie says the bird has to look at the camera or the picture sucks" would more than likely elicit a reaction from you if you saw the comment. This is where the group approach should help keep things under control when you're not looking.

Beginner or not, you seem to have your ducks in a row. Open you mouth and become part of the solution. Contribute towards making the place better. I do, particularly on "Eager to Learn" where I feel more comfortable, but when I'm offline it's more an issue of time than willingness. BTW, creating an "Eager to Learn" forum was an excellent idea.

As much as I would like to, I cannot comment even on every single image in Avian, much less on the whole site.Nor should you. The thing that makes this site what it is is not that it's the Artie Morris Show (tm), but rather that there's an incredibly deep bench of talent and experience here. In my five months here it has given me a much more critical eye, helped my technique, helped my post processing, and made me a better photographer.

Like Roger (but at a totally different level), I've found that I end up visiting very few other places for information on bird photography. There's really only one other, and I've found the general photography sites' nature or bird forums to be wanting. They can be fine for gear chats, but are not really great for nature photography techniques.

One thing I'd like to add, and that is that I do see lots of "if it were mine", "you might consider", "I think I'd probably" type of lead-ins which soften the critiques a little without neutering them. Expertise and good approach are the signs of good teachers. And to those willing to take the time to re-process a posted image for illustration purposes (not uncommon here), that is well above and beyond the call of duty and greatly appreciated.

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 05:41 PM

All good :)

Jay Gould

03-15-2011, 06:21 PM

The title of this thread is: Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

I think the title could have been/has evolved into: What is "Perfection" and when and how is it applied?

OR

What is a Flaw and when and how is it determined?

The stick, the whole stick, and nothing but the stick.......

Justice Stewart in another context said "I know it when I see it."

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Roger, since you do not consider the stick a flaw, is the image "perfect" by your definition?

Those of us that are here to learn from Roger, Artie, Daniel, and others, need to understand your respective definitions of the concepts being used.

Roger, if I said that from this discussion Artie has a higher standard of perfection and greatness than you, what would be your reaction?

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

Of course, that is part of the great learning experience provided by BPN.

I will conclude by adding my novice critique of the image:

It would be interesting to see this image in a large format. In the small format as presented your vision cannot exclude the stick no matter how much I try and "stare" at the lower birds eyes which, for me, is what the story is all about. The image may be called "The Kiss"; it could have been called "The Eyes".The lower bird's eyes looking up is where the emotion is centered; the upper bird's eye is not necessarily looking down.

In this small format the stick is troublesome. Yes, the light is spot on (no pun intended), the IQ is very high, the dark background beautifully sets off the birds, and the bloody stick is a "flaw" as presented in this format.

Roger, please post a larger format of this image for our viewing pleasure.

(http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/81343-Tight-or-Wide-My-Thoughts-on-Photographic-Style-and-More)

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 06:42 PM

Hi Jay,

I will comment on a few relevant points as I have an early flight tomorrow :)

re:

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

No, of course not.

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?
I will shock everyone here who has not read what I wrote carefully by saying yes.

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Because as you say below it draws the viewers eye from better stuff....

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

"What is" is usually imperfect.

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous.

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

No. Nor are any needed. If an image is good it is good. And therefore it is art.

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

That is always true definitions or not. Or just consider all of the comments and take away whatever you wish to.

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 06:54 PM

Jay,
Here is my response.
(Below, Jay = black text, Artie= purple, Roger= green)

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

No, of course not. I agree with Artie.

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?
I will shock everyone here who has not read what I wrote carefully by saying yes.
I agree with Artie.

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Because as you say below it draws the viewers eye from better stuff....
I don't consider it a flaw.

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

"What is" is usually imperfect. Perhaps

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

No. Nor are any needed. If an image is good it is good. And therefore it is art.
I agree with Artie. Because we are discussing subjective ideas we can each have a different view and that is OK.

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

That is always true definitions or not. Or just consider all of the comments and take away whatever you wish to.
I agree.

Arthur Morris

03-15-2011, 07:01 PM

Hey Rog, That is a lot of agreeing for us :) Good to see.

Byron Katie (www.thework.com) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.... I agree, except when speaking of photography!

Jay Gould

03-15-2011, 07:21 PM

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

Artie said:

I can only speak for myself but if I only posted perfect images I do not think that I would have a single image to post. Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

Paul Guris

03-15-2011, 07:28 PM

Byron Katie (www.thework.com (http://www.thework.com)) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.

And Tom Lehrer (http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/evening.html#go) (or his friend Hen3ry ... the 3 is silent) would say "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it all depends upon what you put into it."

Sorry. Zenesque quotes tend to lead me in the direction of philosophers like Tom Lehrer, Frank Zappa, Chris Rock, and Monty Python.

Cody Covey

03-15-2011, 07:43 PM

Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

Artie said:

Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.
I think what Artie is trying to say is that no image is perfect but there are many great images. An image doesn't have to be perfect to be great but from your quote you are calling the image perfect and asking if it can be great. While Artie is saying that an image can't be perfect but can still be great. It sounds like a miscommunication to me.

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 09:55 PM

Rogrer: Nobody says it directly

Art: Either they say it or they don't. Your original statement was ""But these days an image must be "perfect."" and that is what I took issue with :)

Artie,
I can't find anywhere where I said people say an image must be perfect. People do not have to say something to prove their actions. Actions speak louder than words.

Roger: The key here is you and Daniel focused your comments on the stick.

Art: Well, the stick is there.... And as I said, it cannot be ignored.

Roger: I agree with Daniel that if the stick were across the neck or head or across the whole image, it would be too distracting.

Art: I agree with that but the key word it "too." Sorry, but for me the stick is distracting right where it is.

I'm OK with that. We can disagree. The stick need not be ignored. It adds dimensionality

Roger: I have yet to have a photographer critic comment about the light or the interaction. They get so focused on the stick.

Art: That seems a bit ridiculous. I can guarantee that if you posted the image here that folks would have commented on the strong elements of the image, for me, that would be mainly the interaction.

That may be true here on BPN. Like I said in my first response, in my opinion, the people on BPN are top relative to other forums. But that doesn't mean perfect! :e3

Roger: The image isn't "perfect" by this modern definition

Art: Few are, even contest winning and hugely honored images are usually not.

Roger: so focus is on any little imperfection. That drives the "system" (of judging and critique forums) to only accept perfection,

Art: I can only speak for myself but if I only posted perfect images I do not think that I would have a single image to post.

Roger: and search out any little imperfection, often forgetting the greater picture (pun intended).

Art: This is one place we will need to agree to disagree. I often feel like the executioner when I mention a flaw in an image that has received numerous positive raves. But to do otherwise for any reason would mean that I was not being true to myself and not doing my best to help others.

I was not referring to you when I said "search out any little imperfection, often forgetting the greater picture" but this does happen on BPN by others.

Roger: A great image does not, in my opinion, have to be technically perfect. Sometimes the light, expression, emotion, interaction of the subjects trump small imperfections.

Art: I would disagree there. Today, if an image has technical problems that are easily seen, soft focus, over-exposure, etc., it cannot be a great image. Can it be moving and dramatic and wonderful? Yes. But not great.

I think you are being inconsistent here. In your response to Jay you said an image does not have to be perfect to be great, but here you say it can't be great if it is not perfect. You say if you only had to post perfect images, you would have no images to post. The logical conclusion is that if an image is not perfect it can't be great, and if you have no perfect images, then you have no great images. I don't believe that is true. So now we get into what is perfection? Perhaps people have different definitions of perfection just as they might what is great.

Roger: I don't consider the stick a flaw.

Art: As I said somewhere, you clearly implied that it is a flaw in the image. For me it is a flaw. It detracts the viewer's eye. That's why folks mention it. Answer this question: would you have preferred that that stick were simply not there in nature? Hint: if you say "no" I would not believe you. If you say it does not matter, it's a great images I would say that were avoiding the question.

This is a very interesting question. The answer has to do with my evolving views of photography in the digital era.

Early on in the digital era (scanned film days before DSLRs) I did experiment with editing in/out components to an image. This continued into the first DSLRs and with DSLRs I started doing more wildlife photography (because no film costs; I was primarily a large format landscape photographer). In the early to mid 2000's my views started to change. My efforts began changing to get it (wildlife) right in camera (as I did with a view camera and landscapes) and not add/subtract any components after acquisition. I would take 30 to 45 minutes to compose and set up a 4x5 view camera landscape image. With wildlife action, as you know, decisions must sometimes be made in a fraction of a second. I look at those rapid decisions as a challenge. I do believe in cropping, contrast stretching, and dodge and burn to emphasize components (following from my darkroom work). As my wildlife image inventory grew, I considered it more a challenge to get the image in the field rather than clean/fix the image in post. So, when I obtained the GBH image in 2006, I knew when I acquired the image that the stick was in the way. This image was at the Venice Rookery toward the south end of the pond in late afternoon after all the other photographers had left. I would have moved to the right but there is a large bush by the water and on the other side of the bush, distracting elements were in the background. So, in the field I worked the position and acquired the cleanest image. If the bush by the bank was not there, yes, I would have moved over and the stick would not be in front of the bird's body. But after seeing the image, I like the stick! Like most images, a small web image does not deliver the impact. I have a 16x20-inch lightjet print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The eyes and highlights in the bird's feathers simply glow on this print and people's eyes are not drawn to the stick. But the stick adds to the 3-dimensionality of the image in my view, and that is why I like the stick.

Which you are surely entitled to but again, if you can honestly state that if you had your druthers that you would not like the image better had the stick not been there in the first place then I would be both baffled and disbelieving. Gotta go pack for Homer in search of that perfect image :) Ain't a good debate grand?

Like I said above, in the field I tried to minimize the impact of the stick. But after seeing the impact of the stick, I prefer the stick! To me the stick has opened my eyes from the "imperfect perfection of perceived images to reality." It is OK to disagree.

I would not have liked the stick if it crossed in front of a neck or face. In fact if that were the case, I would not have taken then image.

Great debate!

Roger

Roger Clark

03-15-2011, 11:05 PM

OK, another take on what has been discussed so far. We've touched on is BPN too formula?

I searched through the last month and a half (approx), back 13 pages to see if I could find a certain type of image. I could find few what I would call dramatic lighting. There are a few silhouettes, but few high phase angle images. Phase angle is the angle between the sun and the camera as seen by the subject. The mantra is "point your shadow at the subject." That is a low angle between the photographer and the sun as viewed by the subject.

A rare exception is:
Brown Fish Owl (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/80810-Brown-Fish-Owl)

by Ramesh Anantharaman posted on March 3. But check the critique of his image. People don't like the lighting. But in my view, going through pages of BPN bird images, people predominantly, in the images posted, "point their shadows at the subject," obtaining flat images.

Low phase angle has several properties:

1) the subject is brighter (shorter exposure times)
2) few shadows mean less contrast
3) low contrast enables colors to show nicely.

But very low phase angle (less than about 15 degrees) has other detrimental properties, including:

4) increased first surface reflection which actually reduces color intensity,
5) reduced perception of form,
6) reduced perception of texture. Thus, #5+6 = flat image.

High phase angle, e.g. 90 degrees (sun of to your left or right) greatly increases shadows and contrast and that high contrast plays havoc with color perception, unless there is fill light (reflected from clouds of other objects)

But there is an optimum in between these extremes in my experience. If the phase angle is about 30 degrees (give or take some tens) you get some shading which adds form to 3-dimensional subjects, both on the large scale (e.g. a bird's head) and on the fine scale (e.g. feathers) thus adding texture. At these intermediate phase angles, first surface reflections are actually lower so color is actually enhanced. So you gain color, form, and texture.

So I think there is evidence on BPN that a preponderance of posted bird images are made at too low a phase angle (point your shadow at the subject; e.g. too formula). More variety is needed in my opinion. Try pointing your shadow a little way from the subject, though still in the same general direction (30 degrees if you can estimate that). Try for more form and texture, as well as color. Of course, in all this the light is key, and other details are important, like head angle, connection with the subject, etc. And in some cases, try higher phase angles and the strong shadows.

Roger

Desmond Chan

03-16-2011, 12:12 AM

So I think there is evidence on BPN that a preponderance of posted bird images are made at too low a phase angle (point your shadow at the subject; e.g. too formula).

It seems to me though other bird photogs would tell you the same thing. I don't know why it's the best way or may be they all learned from the same teacher. Some people think I'm joking when I ask:" how do you like your driver license photograph?" But, your driver license photo follows that very "formula", i.e., frontal lighting, clean background, subject fills the frame nicely (presumably :t3), no distracting element whatsoever. Great image? :w3:cheers:

Try pointing your shadow a little way from the subject, though still in the same general direction (30 degrees if you can estimate that). Try for more form and texture, as well as color. That's pretty much what a basic photography book, lighting book will tell you if you want to show form and texture, and frontal lighting is the worst kind of lighting to do that.

If I may ask another question about light: why mixed lights (at least what I was told on ETL here) is not good for bird photograph?

Jay Gould

03-16-2011, 12:35 AM

In your response to Jay you said an image does not have to be perfect to be great, but here you say it can't be great if it is not perfect. You say if you only had to post perfect images, you would have no images to post. The logical conclusion is that if an image is not perfect it can't be great, and if you have no perfect images, then you have no great images. I don't believe that is true. So now we get into what is perfection? Perhaps people have different definitions of perfection just as they might what is great.

Frankly, I think that summarizes this whole debate.

Roger, you have invited a whole different debate for what should be a different thread: Where Should The Light Come From?

And, isn't it different for different types of photography, e.g., birds/wildlife and landscape, and isn't it different for different types of stories, e.g., frontal lighting will tell a very different story than lighting at 45 or 90 degrees.

Are you seeking even illumination or are you seeking contrasts and shading?

Jay Gould

03-16-2011, 12:37 AM

OK, as an aside, how are you taking a single line from a long post and including the author of the post in the quotation brackets?

Harshad Barve

03-16-2011, 01:55 AM

Wow , Some great photog sharing thoughts here , I looking forward to learn more and more which I am doing since I joined BPN :S3:

Arthur Morris

03-16-2011, 02:16 AM

Jay,

re

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.
Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

I have already stated that for me the stick is a (serious) flaw....

Artie said:

I can only speak for myself but if I only posted perfect images I do not think that I would have a single image to post.
Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Images with small flaws (if you will) can still be great.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I said "I do not think..." If may have been wrong :) [/COLOR]

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

Could be.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

It is what it is.

Arthur Morris

03-16-2011, 02:18 AM

I think what Artie is trying to say is that no image is perfect but there are many great images. An image doesn't have to be perfect to be great but from your quote you are calling the image perfect and asking if it can be great. While Artie is saying that an image can't be perfect but can still be great. It sounds like a miscommunication to me.

Well said Cody. There is a lot of semantical hair-splitting going on here :)

Harshad Barve

03-16-2011, 02:21 AM

Arthur Morris

03-16-2011, 02:35 AM

Jay Gould

03-16-2011, 02:38 AM

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

It is what it is.

No way Jose are you getting away with "it is what it is" in this context!

Apparently, you and I share a common philosophy approached from different avenues. You, Byron Katie; Me, Landmark Education (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/).

Byron Katie (www.thework.com (http://www.thework.com/)) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.... I agree, except when speaking of photography!

If the stick "is what it is", then the stick is not a "flaw" in a photograph, it is a stick in a photograph, and your story is that the location of this stick makes it a flaw in the photograph and takes away from perfection.

It is not "it is what it is"; it is "your story of what is" and your story equates to a flawed photograph.

For Roger, the stick "is what it is" and he does not choose to create a story that the stick is a flaw in his photograph.

There is a lot of semantical hair-splitting going on here :)

At this juncture, this is not semantical hair-splitting; it is a discussion of the application of different philosophies in the determination of flaws and perfection in photography.

Thank you very much for starting and participating in this debate/discussion. I think we are all learning significantly from you and from Roger how we might - there is no "should" - view our own images.

Arthur Morris

03-16-2011, 02:39 AM

Guruji
I have one question,

As a nature photog , which should be important for us , Better picture with everything perfect or may be lesser techs but great moment

This may sound idiotic question but to whom else I can ask :S3:

Easy question. Trying to capture the great moment should be #1 as long as the resulting image is good enough to make us smile. For example, if a Tiger is ripping apart some helpless prey behind a wall of vegetation is in the clear but 90 degrees off of bright sun angle I will not waste my time pushing the shutter button knowing that the resulting images would not make me happy. I try to make very good or great images every time that I push the button. I do not try to create perfect images. There are very, very few of them around :)

Jay Gould

03-16-2011, 02:40 AM

Mate, have a great and safe trip!

Harshad Barve

03-16-2011, 02:43 AM

. I do not try to create perfect images. There are very, very few of them around :)

Thanks for this and have a great trip :S3:

Roger Clark

03-16-2011, 08:03 AM

Though I regret it, I simply do not have time to respond to many relevant comments above as I gotta get on a plane soon :) And then I will be quite busy with 12 non-stop days of teaching on the Homer Bald Eagle IPTs :)

I do need to comment on the light issue. I am fine working 10-15 degrees off of sun angle, especially when the light is soft. In backlit situations, I like working with the sun, the subject, and me on the same line; doing so produces the most intense backlighting/silhouetting.

With beginning folks making images like this (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/81305-Great-Kiskdee?p=648556#post648556) --please do take the time to check it out, I need to simplify things by telling/teaching them to "point there shadow at the subject."

To all those(Roger and Desmond in particular) taking pot-shots at the teaching I have been doing here for 2+ years and elsewhere for more than two decades (do know that I am fine with that and loving it for reasons that I shall keep to myself), I say, "You disagree with what I am teaching/saying, take the lead, start posting more and disagree with what I have to say." That way all of the sheep might quit following me blindly :)

Artie,
No problem on the trip. Please feel no pressure here. Have a great trip and we can pick up when ypu get back.

I'm really not trying to take potshots. When I was going through he 13 pages of bird images, I would scan down the thumbails looking for what may be great images and without looking at the author. What I found interesting is that I was pulling up a lot of your images, probably more than everyone else combined. So you are doing something the others are not. Then I started looking at the other images and find them too flat. Perhaps there are other issues I missed in a quick review. So perhaps in your simplification of explanation, people are taking you literally and to the extreme, resulting in very flat images. And because there are so many of them, it actually gets boring in my opinion. Maybe its time to raise the complexity and push people to the next level. Or maybe you have observations/ideas of what separates your images.

Roger

Roger Clark

03-16-2011, 08:08 AM

OK, as an aside, how are you taking a single line from a long post and including the author of the post in the quotation brackets?

Jay,
For example, the above quote begins with "QUOTE=Jay Gould;648697" in square brackets. Then at the end, a "/QUOTE" in square brackets. I simply copy the start quote and end quote to the lines I want to quote.

Artie does colors, but I see no way to do that here on BPN. So I copy the text to another editor (e.g my email compose a subject) and do the colors there, then paste it back into my reply.

Roger

Roger Clark

03-16-2011, 08:29 AM

Frankly, I think that summarizes this whole debate.

Roger, you have invited a whole different debate for what should be a different thread: Where Should The Light Come From?

And, isn't it different for different types of photography, e.g., birds/wildlife and landscape, and isn't it different for different types of stories, e.g., frontal lighting will tell a very different story than lighting at 45 or 90 degrees.

Are you seeking even illumination or are you seeking contrasts and shading?

Jay,
It could certainly be a different thread, although the subject line includes photographic style.

Where does the light come from in different types of photography? I'm not sure it is different for different types of photography. I think each type depends on what you want to convey in each case. There is a preponderance in wildlife photography to be front lit. But I'm beginning to think this has been taken to an extreme. One would rarely, if ever, point your shadow at a landscape scene, for example. Or if you do, the result will be a very flat image. Same with wildlife. Are you trying to make the image appear flat? How flat? There are degrees.

Then we get into positive and negative phase angles. To show form, you need negative phase angles so you see the shadows. Positive and negative phase angles are defined here (figure 3):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/lighting.composition.subject/

If you want even light but still show some form (not really flat) being a few degrees off of point your shadow at the subject will begin to add form and texture while still maintaining mostly even light. It is a different photographic style.

Roger

Roger Clark

03-16-2011, 11:13 AM

Here is an example of what I have been talking about. This is a portrait of a sandhill crane with a phase angle of 20 to 30 degrees by Troy Lin. The image shows wonderful form, texture, and color with great light.
Sandhill Crane Close Up

Note also all the nice comments by others.

Roger

Arthur Morris

03-16-2011, 11:29 AM

A few things while on-line during a 4 hour layover at MINN/St. Paul with my pal Jim Heupel.

Thanks for understanding my comments Roger, and thanks for the kind words about my images.

Relevant to your comments in Pane #75, I have often said but rarely written that there is something that goes into a good bird photograph that is not easily defined or described that sets one image or a set of images aside and above others of the same bird.... I have theorized that perhaps it has something to do with the connection of the photographer to the subject. I am not sure what it is but I know that I have it :) (he said modestly).

Most times when there are ten folks with the same lens and camera all photographing the same bird for 30 minutes a single image will stand out as best from the entire collection. Nine times out of ten it will be one of mine.... If I could figure out what it is, I would bottle it and sell it :)

I am fine with the thread going off on various tangents. In fact I enjoy them as much as those that stay right on target.

As for the potshots, they are often not intentional :) I am used to those and to the intentional ones and to far worse however so no hard feelings at all :) I never take them personally and I see them as compliments.

Paul Guris

03-16-2011, 12:03 PM

Sandhill Crane Close Up

Roger, I can't see an image or link.

William Malacarne

03-16-2011, 12:19 PM

Roger, I can't see an image or link.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/81409-Sandhill-Crane-Close-Up

Bill

Jay Gould

03-16-2011, 05:29 PM

Then we get into positive and negative phase angles. To show form, you need negative phase angles so you see the shadows. Positive and negative phase angles are defined here (figure 3):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ition.subject/ (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/lighting.composition.subject/)

Roger, I have read this article a couple of times; just read it again.

Everyone, do not be put off, if you are, by Roger's understated reference that you can find some definitions in the linked article.

This is a wonderful article on Light, Composition, and Subject approached both from a gentle scientific perspective and from a photographer's perspective. Absolutely take the time to read this article.

And, while you are at it, take the time to browse Roger's website. It is, for my money, the best website available for both information, and spectacular images to prick your creative imagination.

Desmond Chan

03-16-2011, 09:29 PM

To all those(Roger and Desmond in particular) taking pot-shots at the teaching I have been doing...

Ooops ! Yikes :e3:e3

Sorry that my responses came across that way, Artie, but I had no intention of taking pot-shots at your style or teaching. As you said, you've been doing it for years with great results, it's certainly a style that works and works well. However, I do wonder, question and analyze. Just my way of learning.

And I still don't know why mixed lights is not good for bird photograph :S3:

Jay Gould

03-17-2011, 03:42 PM

Most times when there are ten folks with the same lens and camera all photographing the same bird for 30 minutes a single image will stand out as best from the entire collection. Nine times out of ten it will be one of mine.... If I could figure out what it is, I would bottle it and sell it :)

Answer: Magnetism and Mana; the birds sense that you are there to capture and present them to the World in their best light!

FYI, "Mana is an indigenous Pacific islander concept of an impersonal force or quality that resides in people, animals, and (debatably) inanimate objects. The word is a cognate in many Oceanic languages, including Melanesian, Polynesian, and Micronesian.

In anthropological discourse, mana as a generalized concept is often understood as a precursor to formal religion. It has commonly been interpreted as "the stuff of which magic is formed," as well as the substance of which souls are made" https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mana

Mark Young

03-17-2011, 07:53 PM

Don't get me wrong, I do love images that include lots of habitat. And I love environmental-type portraits with small-in-the frame birds and animals. But for me, the the surroundings need to be pleasing, even beautiful. When they are not, or when they are distracting, I do my best to eliminate the distractions usually by using longs lenses and trying to work clean, tight, and graphic.

When folks post an image of a bird perched in a jumble of sticks where you can barely see the subject and defend their work by saying that they were only "photographing what was there," I do try to make the point that what is there in nature does not always make a good photograph. As John Shaw has written, "The job of the nature photographer is to make order out of chaos." When I find something in an image that is distracting and draws my eye from the subject, I simply state just that.

I've noticed somethings that really confuse me about professional avian images.

Case in point; We have a bloke over here by the name of Steve Parish. A well known landscape and animal photographer. But I've noticed his images of birds are not what I would classify as being up to the level of photographers on this site. I find his images are over-saturated, the HA is such that the bird is looking away from the camera, the bird is more often than not in amongst vegetation and not displayed in what you would call a visually pleasing or clean manner. I rarely see an image of a bird that's in a book or a calender that he has taken that I like. Yet he's probably our most famous wildlife photographer.

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

Jay Gould

03-17-2011, 08:12 PM

Hi Mate,

I think it is both. Lots of Australians are stuck on "Buy Australia"; right or wrong, such limitation is the subject of another debate. Tourists all want to "Buy Australia".

Now, how many Australian photographers are producing the enormous amount of material that Steve is producing? A quick of Steve's website reveals hundreds of items with his photographs; a catalog of "almost half a million" images.

The other side of the coin: the average buyer isn't overly fussed about the things that buyers and producers of fine art photographs of any subject are concerned about as we are on BPN.

Yet, his images are priced the same as Artie's price list.

Desmond Chan

03-17-2011, 08:53 PM

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

The way I see it, it is just different way of photographing, presenting the same subjects, just like there're different ways to shoot human portraits, landscapes, sport photos, etc., etc.

I do think there're things that nobody cares about but are obsessed by photographers. Not saying that there's something wrong with the photographers or the rest of the world but just think that's true.

I also think that artist should have an open mind, is willing to explore different ideas, and not afraid to think out-of-the-box.

Mark Young

03-17-2011, 09:17 PM

The way I see it, it is just different way of photographing, presenting the same subjects, just like there're different ways to shoot human portraits, landscapes, sport photos, etc., etc.

I do think there're things that nobody cares about but are obsessed by photographers. Not saying that there's something wrong with the photographers or the rest of the world but just think that's true.

I also think that artist should have an open mind, is willing to explore different ideas, and not afraid to think out-of-the-box.

True, otherwise we would all arrive at a place in our photography where it would become routine and monotonous.
But aren't we also redefining the box and then saying to others, 'Here's my box, I like it and I think your box would be better if your box looked more like my box'?

What I like about this site is the high quality of images posted here. I like that people are freely willing to share their experience and knowledge. I like that my images have improved hugely since I started posting here as a result. But they've improved because I've looked at other peoples' boxes and reshaped my box to look more like their box.
I've taken onboard elements like HA, correct exposure, being mindful of distracting elements, clean bg's etc etc and it's been really satisfying for me to produce a better quality of image than I previously could manage.

But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously? Or is it a case of 'You can only break the rules once you know the rules and when and how to break them'? But first the rules must be first learnt and understood before that can happen?

Mark Young

03-17-2011, 09:21 PM

Hilary Hann

03-17-2011, 11:43 PM

Desmond Chan

03-18-2011, 01:10 AM

But aren't we also redefining the box and then saying to others, 'Here's my box, I like it and I think your box would be better if your box looked more like my box'?

Well, I definitely know people who do not like most that is shown here. Why? Not natural, to them, as stunning and amazing as some photos here appear to be. Perhaps it's like some people like soccer and while other like ruby. Some fans like both while other you'd have a hard time to get them to watch the other guy's game :S3:

But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously? Would it be backward only if you think what you were is inferior? Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out thee, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

Mark Young

03-18-2011, 03:57 AM

Mark, with Steve Parrish it is all about the marketing. He has a publishing business and gets his stuff out there. How many of us can possibly manage that I wonder. If you want an Aussie souvenir involving photos, his images will be the first you see.

Marketing, marketing.

Sorry if I sounded like I was beating on Steve, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I guess he worked hard to get where he is, and good on him for doing it. It's just that in comparison to the images seen here and other sites, there is a notable difference.

Well, I definitely know people who do not like most that is shown here. Why? Not natural, to them, as stunning and amazing as some photos here appear to be. Perhaps it's like some people like soccer and while other like ruby. Some fans like both while other you'd have a hard time to get them to watch the other guy's game :S3:

I've had similar conversations, and I sometimes agree with that point of view, but I'ld have to say that what is natural is all a matter of the perspective of the person viewing the image.
Case in point, I took this (http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj177/MTY400/Birds/Birds%20of%20Australia/Red-cappedPlover1000IMG_0042.jpg) image 11 months ago with my 400D and 70-300mm lens on a cheap $70 tripod. At the time I was super stoked as it was THE best shorebird image I had taken to date. But when I posted it on a forum, not this one, I got some negative comments about how unnatural it looked. I was flabbergasted because it looked exactly like how I saw it lying down in the mud! I later reflected that people probably thought it looked un-natural because they haven't been in the mud looking at it from my point of view.

Would it be backward only if you think what you were is inferior? Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out thee, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

I think that what I am learning here is THE way for me now, but whether that stays that way I don't know. I reckon there is still lots more to learn whether it's here or there or somewhere else I wont know until I push the boundaries of what I already know and seek out newer options.

Doug Herr

03-20-2011, 07:51 PM

I've noticed somethings that really confuse me about professional avian images.

Case in point; We have a bloke over here by the name of Steve Parish. A well known landscape and animal photographer. But I've noticed his images of birds are not what I would classify as being up to the level of photographers on this site. I find his images are over-saturated, the HA is such that the bird is looking away from the camera, the bird is more often than not in amongst vegetation and not displayed in what you would call a visually pleasing or clean manner. I rarely see an image of a bird that's in a book or a calender that he has taken that I like. Yet he's probably our most famous wildlife photographer.

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

IMHO selling photographs is as much about selling as it is about photographs.

Arthur Morris

03-20-2011, 10:06 PM

Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out there, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

Desmond, After reading what I have written here, encouraging folks to develop their own style, asking which is best, wide or tight, I am puzzled as to why you would infer that we are teaching only one way to photograph nature.

Arthur Morris

03-20-2011, 10:15 PM

On the matter of becoming a famous professional and selling images. I explain that by way of something that I call the Wizard of Oz syndrome. The Wizard sat behind the curtain and told folks that he was this powerful wizard. He was so sure of himself that soon everyone believed him. There are some pros here and elsewhere who have done the same thing. I am this great and talented and all-knowing professional photographer. They keep saying it loud and often. Until it is accepted as fact. When you look at the body of work of any professional, ask yourself, "What is their style? Can I think of a single image or two or three that stick in my mind as timelessly beautiful, dramatic, or exciting?

If the answer is "No," then you are probably dealing with a Wizard of Oz professional.

Lastly, as I wrote as early as in the original ABP, (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=16) the quality of your images is about #6 on the list of factors that determines the success of those wanting to market their work. The first and second being the willingness to work hard and the person's determination to succeed.

Desmond Chan

03-20-2011, 11:23 PM

Desmond, After reading what I have written here, encouraging folks to develop their own style, asking which is best, wide or tight, I am puzzled as to why you would infer that we are teaching only one way to photograph nature.

Artie, I was only responding to Mark Young's

"But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously?"

I was simply suggesting that he was right only if what he's learning here and now is the only way(s) that work(s). I'm not saying that he's only learning one particular way and no more here.

And BPN does have an outside-the-box forum here :w3

Hope this clarifies, Artie. :S3:

Arthur Morris

03-20-2011, 11:39 PM

Desmond, Okie dokie :)

Arthur Morris

03-20-2011, 11:44 PM

Which is the better image: wide (here) or tight (see next Pane)?

Arthur Morris

03-20-2011, 11:47 PM

Which is the better image: wide (previous Pane) or tight (here)?

Charles Glatzer

03-20-2011, 11:52 PM

Artie,

Below is from an article I wrote 10 years ago... it continues to define my photographic approach.

My success as a commercial photographer has been characterized by my ability to see and understand light. Wildlife photography is the same without exception.
Light quantity, quality and direction should be assessed independently, although together they render the image. The amount of illumination determines the exposure, while the quality and direction of the light source relative to my position renders the scene and subject as viewed.
Being aware of the lighting direction relative to the subject will allow you to choose a camera position that will enhance your unique vision, as well as the subject. "Light Illuminates, Shadow Defines"

I always make a point of saying...there is no right or wrong, it is simply a matter of different strokes for different folks. And, certainly nothing anyone says should be taken as Gospel. Myself included!

Your Av/Eval, point your shadow at the subject, get low methodology has provided a solid foundation for thousands of bird photographers over the course of many years. And, is responsible for countless thousands of stunning images to boot!!!! I have seen a transition in your methods over the last few years as you incorporate new technologies and techniques to the betterment of both teacher and student.

Best Amigo, and Continued Success

Chas

Charles Glatzer

03-21-2011, 05:26 AM

Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

To answer your original question... I say shoot both, and more. If the subject is cooperative I always suggest photog's shoot at least 4 images, vert, horz, close-up, and environmental. I think it is prudent to try to make the most of each encounter, walking away from said encounter with as much diversity as possible. Especially, if your goal is to sell images!

Regards,

Chas

Roger Clark

03-21-2011, 07:31 AM

Artie,
My answer is both. For me it is not either/or, as each image has its own merits. They are also very different, one a high key landscape image; the other a bird portrait.

I'll add: the bird portrait is taken at a low phase angle. A little higher phase angle (10 more degrees) would have shown better feather detail, especially in the whites.

Roger

Arthur Morris

03-21-2011, 04:46 PM

Chas. We are of course on the same page on call counts. Thanks for sharing your missive above; it fits right in here. :)

Hilary Hann

03-21-2011, 05:13 PM

Allen Hirsch

03-21-2011, 05:32 PM

This is a simple piece of advice which I wish I could remember more when I'm in the field instead of letting the excitement of the moment sometimes take hold. :e3

Same here. Gotta remember some discipline and capture as many of those choices as possible, instead of getting excited about just one version....

Michael Lloyd

03-21-2011, 05:36 PM

Good thread. When I started reading it I had a couple of comments but I decided to wait until the end. Now I'm at the end and I don't remember what the comments were.

Too bad about the stick :c3:

PS- Shoot both if you can. Most of the time, with wildlife, especially birds... tight trumps wide.

I can't count the times that I've posted "the most awesome image ever" here only to have the wind let out of my sails. When we own it... we often don't want to know that our perfection isn't... but if one listens and applies what he reads to his (or her) next image then there is progress.

Jay Gould

03-21-2011, 05:38 PM

Good thread. When I started reeding it I had a couple of comments but I decided to wait until the end. Now I'm at the end and I don't remember what the comments were.

Too bad about the stick :c3:

Michael, that is a major comment in this discussion!

What stick? :t3 :c3:

Michael Lloyd

03-21-2011, 05:42 PM

Desmond Chan

03-21-2011, 07:25 PM

For me it is not either/or, as each image has its own merits. They are also very different, one a high key landscape image; the other a bird portrait.

My thought exactly.

But if I have to pick one and hang it on the wall, I'd pick the landscape one :S3:

Charles Glatzer

03-21-2011, 08:16 PM

Chas. We are of course on the same page on call counts. Thanks for sharing your missive above; it fits right in here. :)

I remember when we were at the Washington DC zoo and you half heartedly told me to go back to commercial photography. :S3:

That seems a world ago :~)

And, the time at Bosque you came over and said to me ....HOW LUCKY ARE WE! [B]

NO KIDDING! :~)

BTW-I have always appreciated you giving credit where credit is due. You even went so far as to do this during your NANPA Keynote, and it blew me away.

Best,

Chas

Arthur Morris

03-21-2011, 11:47 PM

Hey Chas. We are blessed. As far as giving credit, I make it a habit. Lots of folks have helped me along the way and I make it a point to remember each and every one of them :)

Arthur Morris

03-21-2011, 11:49 PM

On the two images. They are of course both wonderful images. Both images of the same species. The tight head portrait is surely more in my style. Yet only one of them is in tile behind my kitchen sink.... My point was not to show off but to show that what I always say is true: give me some beautiful habitat and I will be glad to include it in my images :)

Don Thompson

03-30-2011, 12:09 PM

I am late in commenting but I have been busy, and I was waiting somewhat to see what others had to say before commenting myself.

While I have learned much here to make my photography, particularly my bird photography, better, and I rarely go to other sites to learn, I do think there is much pressure here to conform to a set formula. Even to the point that if you fail to capture the great shot, you are encouraged to modify the photo to fit the formula, always with the caveat "if your ethics allows". I sometimes wonder how many here were able to get satisfactory shots with film before they could be so easliy modified in PP.

I imagine I will be told how I am encouraged to develop my own style, but if my style doesn't match the formula, my style isn't well received.

I think Roger's photo of the GBH is a great photo and I would be proud to have it as my own. Do I see the issue of the stick? I suppose I do and all things being equal, IF I could move to the right and eliminate it I might, but it doesn't ruin the photo for me. Many here would take the same photo and simply remove the stick. Does removing the stick make it better, I don't think it does. I would rather have Roger's photos intact than to have the same photo with the stick removed in PP.

Arthur Morris

03-30-2011, 05:59 PM

Don, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Better late than never. I often comment favorably on strong images created in a style other than my own.

As I said in Pane 1, "There are different strokes (and different styles) for different folks. Though I have strong opinions and often voice them I try my best to respect the opinions of others even when they are different from mine. I have put a lot of time and effort into doing critiques on BPN and have tried to lead by example. But I can only call things as I see them If I did otherwise I would not be being true to either myself, or to our mantra, "Honest critiques done gently."

And yes, I would encourage you to develop your own style, to post as many images as possible, and to comment on at least five images for each one that you post.

If you choose not to eliminate distracting elements from your images, that is your choice and I am always fine with that. Distracting elements are just that, distracting elements. And BTW, I did make a few good images with film for about 19 years.

Don Thompson

03-30-2011, 07:12 PM

I appreciate your comments. I was not implying that you did not capture many great images using film. Your success speaks for itself. While you have said that the greatest key to success is effort, it cannot be done with an inferior product. The product must be good or you can't sell it. Not to the extent that you have succeeded.

I still hold that if my style does not match the formula, which for the most part is the style you have perfected, then it is not well received.

No need to beat on it much, but I guess as in the case of Roger's photo, we disagree on what is distracting. I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

I choose to rarely post or comment. I don't feel my level of experience qualifies me to tell you or anyone else what I think is wrong or right with their photos and I am strongly discouraged from simply stating that "I like the photo", so I don't. Since I don't feel qualified to critique and posting without commenting is also discouraged, I do neither.

I still think this is one of the best places to learn so I return often to do just that.

Arthur Morris

03-30-2011, 08:05 PM

Hi Don,

re:

I appreciate your comments. I was not implying that you did not capture many great images using film.

Since I have become a leading digital/Photoshop criminal in the eyes of some many have forgotten that....

Your success speaks for itself. While you have said that the greatest key to success is effort, it cannot be done with an inferior product. The product must be good or you can't sell it. Not to the extent that you have succeeded.

I disagree 100% and have said so often. Selling images has very little to do with the quality of one's work. All that you need to do to prove me 100% correct is to look at all the bad images in magazines and books.

I still hold that if my style does not match the formula, which for the most part is the style you have perfected, then it is not well received.

Again I disagree 100%. Show me a well done, environmental portrait of a bird or an animal that I trashed because it did not match my style. Heck, show me a well done, environmental portrait of a bird or an animal that anyone here has trashed because it did not match my style. The pressure that you are feeling is your choice.

No need to beat on it much, but I guess as in the case of Roger's photo, we disagree on what is distracting. I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice. Even Roger admitted that the stick was a distraction though he later recanted (sort of, at least to the best of my understanding.

I choose to rarely post or comment. I don't feel my level of experience qualifies me to tell you or anyone else what I think is wrong or right with their photos and I am strongly discouraged from simply stating that "I like the photo", so I don't. Since I don't feel qualified to critique and posting without commenting is also discouraged, I do neither.

Again that is your choice. As I have said 100 times before, all that we ask is that if you like an image that you tell us what you like about it. Most 5 years would have no trouble doing that and neither would you. There are no qualifications needed. I like this image because..... Or I don't like this image because....

I still think this is one of the best places to learn so I return often to do just that.

Well,we can agree on that. You would get a ton more out of the site if you chose to post and critique. Same as anyone else.

Roger Clark

03-30-2011, 09:33 PM

If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice. Even Roger admitted that the stick was a distraction though he later recanted (sort of, at least to the best of my understanding.

Artie,
Just to be clear of my position. In the field I saw the stick and positioned myself to minimize the distraction, as I always do. I did see it as a distraction in the camera. A bush prevented me from moving further to the right to get the stick out of the way, otherwise I would have moved. The lone bird was moving around so sometimes the stick was not in the way. Then when the second bird came in, the activity moved them slightly behind the stick. Often if there is a significant distraction, I will not take the image. But this time the light and interaction was spectacular so I obtained several frames. But after seeing the images (and I will say one can't tell this from small web images), the stick for me adds 3-dimensionality that I think improves the image. So the stick has given me a new perspective. Certainly if the stick protruded onto the necks or heads, it would be a distraction I would not like and probably would not have taken the image. Note too that there are other sticks at the bird's feet and no one seems distracted by them. So it's all relative.

As I said in Pane 1, "There are different strokes (and different styles) for different folks. Though I have strong opinions and often voice them I try my best to respect the opinions of others even when they are different from mine. I have put a lot of time and effort into doing critiques on BPN and have tried to lead by example. But I can only call things as I see them If I did otherwise I would not be being true to either myself, or to our mantra, "Honest critiques done gently."

Yes, you have strong opinions, and I respect that. Keep it up. No hard feelings.

Roger

Desmond Chan

03-30-2011, 09:55 PM

the stick for me adds 3-dimensionality

As I've learned somewhere, having something in the foreground - even if it is blocking some part of the main subject - is a way to add a sense of 3-dimensionality to an image that is 2-dimensional in reality. I think we see this used quite a lot in landscape shots.

Anyhow, I have a question: what if that stick is a small, dull color flower, or a blade of grass? Would that make any difference in terms of distraction-ness (?) or anything else ?

Roger Clark

03-30-2011, 11:01 PM

As I've learned somewhere, having something in the foreground - even if it is blocking some part of the main subject - is a way to add a sense of 3-dimensionality to an image that is 2-dimensional in reality. I think we see this used quite a lot in landscape shots.

Desmond,
That is a good point. And I came from a landscape photography background (large format view camera photography--I still have several 4x5 and one 8x10 camera). That is probably a factor in my liking "the stick."

Anyhow, I have a question: what if that stick is a small, dull color flower, or a blade of grass? Would that make any difference in terms of distraction-ness (?) or anything else ?

Flowers, leaves and grass are less objectionable to me.

Roger

Arthur Morris

03-31-2011, 04:59 AM

Roger, No hard feelings at all. I never take things personally :)

As for the stick, I will say to you what I said to Don, "If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice."

For me a stick in the side is and always will be a distraction :)

Roger Clark

03-31-2011, 08:26 AM

Artie,

On a different subject (than sticks), I started a new thread while you were gone called:
The angle of light and image impact

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/81471-The-angle-of-light-and-image-impact

I would be interested in your views.

Roger

paul leverington

04-05-2011, 09:37 PM

Just got through the whole thread here.

It's true it got way off topic but I actually love threads when they do that. Learning anything is all good. But doesn't hurt to get back sooner or later to the original topic.

They say the mark of a great teacher is when his students begin to teach him(or her). This is one of the GREAT things to be found on this site.

Would I be out of bounds by making the statement that we all emulated and copied the photographers we most admired when we all started out?? I mean what they heck did any of us know at that point?? So as we progress and got knowledgeable and skilled at it, we start to explore and try our wings at new and personal visions until we are in fact doing our own thing. It's an evolution like everything else in life and the universe--one thing leads to another-then another-and another--and so on. It's all a personal eclectic work in progress if you will.

So I see no problem with a certain way of seeing things that goes along with a trend, site, teacher, or other, because at least i believe sooner or later, if the artist is serious and commited passionately for the long haul. they will most certainly make the break down a road of their own.

There has been some "stepping on our own toes" in the articulation(semantics) of this artistic discussion and maybe the biggest point I would like to make about it all would be to not use some of the words commonly used in such discussions.
Why not replace-

RULES
PERFECTION
BAD LIGHT

with

TOOLS
PERCEPTION
EFFECTIVE LIGHT

Or some words similar.

Cause there really are no rules, no such thing as perfection when applied to the subjective, and how can light be "bad"??? It can't. I mean can't one photograph any time there is any light of any kind? I know what people are trying to say when they say "bad light" and I agree in those contexts, but the idea that picture taking during the hot sun afternoon is a waste of time, and one should take a nap or something is misleading. Grab a diffuser and do macro, or shoot images where a strong shadow becomes a greater part of the composition are a couple of examples.

I don't know, I just think these terms lead us astray. Funny --I have pretty much agreed with everyone here when I fully considered the contexts in which they made their comments.

Thanks for the little tip Jay about Mana. I am an amateur and casual student of mythology and history and love hearing about these tidbits of info that help me put all the pieces together that explain the why and how and when of who we all are now.

Thanks Artie for being a great teacher and one who shares his many passions freely and openly with others. Like I told you before I litearally used to walk around with a camera in one hand and your first book in the other. Not so much any more though--ya did a good job!:bg3:

Paul

ChrisBeveridge

10-26-2012, 09:37 AM

Wow... there has been so much covered in these past three pages it's a mental overload of good information.

In terms of the title question: I think both serve their purpose when executed properly. Wide shots can show the environment or even the entirety of the bird while tight shots get you up close and personal showing details that can really make the subject pop and stand out or tell a whole different story from the wide shot. Both have their place and when executed properly can produce great images... As represented by the two examples Mr. Morris posted on the 2nd page. I personally favor the wide one over the tight just because it's a more dramatic scene, however my taste is not in high key and so for me neither would be hanging from my wall.

My thoughts is regards to Mr. Clark's image:The Kiss; I agree with Mr. Morris about the stick is a distracting element in the photograph as it catches the viewers eye. However, I personally do not feel that it makes or breaks the images as my eye always returned to the subject quickly and never really returned to the stick after the initial, oh look there's a stick. Would I clone it out or keep it in; this I am not sure about as it would depend on my mood and what else I was feeling when I took the picture. Either way to me it's a great picture.

I don't believe in perfection. To me reaching a state of perfection mean I no longer have anything to learn in that subject and I personally do not find that ever possible as the world is constantly changing and evolving thus making perfection impossible to me.

I do have a question for Mr. Morris or any anyone really here and that pertains to ones 'style'. When it comes to discovering ones own 'style' (I understand it's a process that could take decades) I still come short of understanding or even seeing what my style is or could be. Does anyone have any guidance or thoughts or even ah-ha moments when they discovered said style?