What do you think of this composition

I visited Thomas Mangelsen's gallery with Al and Fabs during my recent trip Jackson, WY. We had a very interesting discussion on the following Swift Fox image.
http://www.mangelsen.com/store/Limit...ift_Fox___2908

Mainly, the discussion is on the composition. A popular composition would be to place the fox in left hand corner and provide virtual space on the right.
But Mangelsen's composition is exactly opposite. Based on the print number on the print and availability in multiple sizes I assume this is a very popular image.

Just though it would be interesting to know what other think of this composition and why it is so successful. I added 4 choices in poll for you to vote.



thanks
Sid

It creates more tension in the image with the fox about to leap out of the frame. The negative space behind the fox, rather than the more traditional space in front of the fox, also makes the viewer feel the fox is being chased. This again creates more tension in the viewer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Donald

It creates more tension in the image with the fox about to leap out of the frame. The negative space behind the fox, rather than the more traditional space in front of the fox, also makes the viewer feel the fox is being chased. This again creates more tension in the viewer.

---

Thanks Jeff. I got a similar opinion too. If it was not a blur image indicating motion, it would not have worked.

I think a better way to find out how the participants here like a composition such as that one is to go make a photo similar to that and post it to the critique forum :)

By the way, Nicki has something like that in her portfolio :

http://www.abirdseyeview.co.uk/#/portfolio/4537282933

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

I think a better way to find out how the participants here like a composition such as that one is to go make a photo similar to that and post it to the critique forum :)

By the way, Nicki has something like that in her portfolio :

http://www.abirdseyeview.co.uk/#/portfolio/4537282933

---

Desmond,

My intention is to know BPN community opinion on Thomas Mangelsen's composition.

Thank you.
Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sid Garige

My intention is to know BPN community opinion on Thomas Mangelsen's composition.

Sid

---

I suspect the opinions are predictable.

Sid,
I like this image. It gives an impression of speed. I think in this case, having the fox at the top left corner might have been static in comparison. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

I suspect the opinions are predictable.

---

Thank you.

I agree with Jeff, gives it a feeling of it hurrying away

after being to his gallery in Jackson Hole I realized that he had quite a few out of the box images and some worked and some didn't for me. Very impressive gallery though if anyone ever gets to stop by one, just the sheer size of some of the prints was amazing.

PS go big or go home ;)

As you know, it is one of my favorites of his. The placement of the fox tells a story and you don't have to be conventional all the time. It is a breath of fresh air.

BTW, Desmond, results will be predictable not only here but in every forum. Most people are more comfortable with the conventional way.

I like it too; it gives a real feeling of speed and I agree with Fabs, it is a breath of fresh air.

I like the idea and sense of speed and would prefer a tad more canvas on the right, but that is just me. :)

If you make your photographs like everyone else's photographs, they will be everyone else's photographs. What would be the point? The same "rule" was broken by Steve Winter's WPOTY-winning Snow Leopard. In both cases, having a declining or endangered species about to exit the frame suggests the emptiness that would result from its extinction.

For me it is the perfect illustration of why rules should be broken, the placement of the fox adds tension and gives the illusion that he has races across the frame.

I agree, if the background were not blurred and fox's legs were sharp, it would not be as good. I love the legs together, indicating speed. His intense look, ears pointed up and the glare looking forward add drama. A very nice image.

I love the photo and agree with Fabs that it is a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, I find that unorthodox photos that are posted on BPN aren't typically accepted as a "breath of fresh air" but more typically are flagged for correction, usually in a gentle manner, which would take them back to the "box." Maybe we should all take a deep breath and remember that photography is an art form, not a hard science.

I notice that there are 10 votes in the do not like camp yet not one reply as to why they do not like it, if you do not like the comp I would be interested in reading your reasons:)

I travel a lot out of Denver, and there is a Mangelsen gallery in the main terminal (DIA). I walk through the gallery on almost every trip. This fox image has been in the gallery for a fair time. From the first time I saw it, I wondered how it would play on BPN. He has many other images (sometimes very big enlargements) that are not tack sharp, but the subject is the key. And like the fox image, do not always follow the rules. One time I was talking with one of the sales people in the gallery and they pointed out their top seller. It was not what I expected--it was a relative close up of some red leaves with no particular focus. Obviously he knows what he is doing and his images sell, and I think many would not do well in the BPN critique forums. Perhaps this is because his buyers are average people and not photographer critics.

Roger

Well, I voted that I didn't like it, but wish there were another choice. I like the idea and appreciate the feeling of speed and being chased. I agree that placement to the left is not necessary. However, I agree with Axel in that a bit more canvas on the right or have the fox centered just a bit more so there were some additional space for the fox to leap into would be better. So, my real vote is I like it with modifications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Sid,
I like this image. It gives an impression of speed. I think in this case, having the fox at the top left corner might have been static in comparison. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

---

Sabayasachi,

thanks for the response. Agree with you here on the impression of speed. In my opinion, this composition works because of motion blur. If there was no motion blur this composition might not work for me.

-Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Strickland

PS go big or go home ;)

---

Thats was the motto of our trip.. Well said Jamie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabs Forns

As you know, it is one of my favorites of his. The placement of the fox tells a story and you don't have to be conventional all the time. It is a breath of fresh air.

BTW, Desmond, results will be predictable not only here but in every forum. Most people are more comfortable with the conventional way.

---

Thanks Fabs. great time at the gallery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Beittel

If you make your photographs like everyone else's photographs, they will be everyone else's photographs. What would be the point? The same "rule" was broken by Steve Winter's WPOTY-winning Snow Leopard. In both cases, having a declining or endangered species about to exit the frame suggests the emptiness that would result from its extinction.

---

Cliff,

good info on Steve Winter's image.

Thanks
Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grady Weed

I agree, if the background were not blurred and fox's legs were sharp, it would not be as good.

---

Grady,

Could not agree with your more on this. I feel exactly the same.

-Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny J Brown

I love the photo and agree with Fabs that it is a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, I find that unorthodox photos that are posted on BPN aren't typically accepted as a "breath of fresh air" but more typically are flagged for correction, usually in a gentle manner, which would take them back to the "box." Maybe we should all take a deep breath and remember that photography is an art form, not a hard science.

---

Danny,
Well said Dan.

-Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

I travel a lot out of Denver, and there is a Mangelsen gallery in the main terminal (DIA). I walk through the gallery on almost every trip. This fox image has been in the gallery for a fair time. From the first time I saw it, I wondered how it would play on BPN.

Roger

---

Roger,

I felt the same and had a big discussion with Fabs and Al on the composition. We walked out how it would be received on BPN. If i remember right, print number says around 200 out of 1500. Looks like very popular image.

Thanks for the response.

-Sid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sid Garige

Sabayasachi,

thanks for the response. Agree with you here on the impression of speed. In my opinion, this composition works because of motion blur. If there was no motion blur this composition might not work for me.

-Sid

---

Sid,
I feel blur gives an impression of speed, so I had not explicitly mentioned it earlier.

One of my humble attempts at creating an impression of speed by blurring static objects:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=43659

I agree that in forums, we often tend to think alike. And the people who think differently, most of the times don't voice their opinion. We all should remember that rule of thirds is a compositional guideline and not a Law. Forums like these can raise the standard to a certain level say 80-90%. I think that is huge. But I am not sure, if beyond that, someone can be taught creativity. May be we have to be child like again. Remember the Little Professor in the Child ego state in Transaction Analysis? We have to wake up that highly creative genius that resides in kids but mostly goes into hibernation, by the time the kid turns into man.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

I'm a noob here and have posted a few things in the "Eager To Learn" forum.

I think it's important for students to never take their teachers' critiques as gospel. I'm now 62 and long ago went through university. I've met and dined with congressmen and senators and even a recent past president. I'm deeply involved in a couple of other avocational pursuits where I've dealt with and been given much "expert" advice. Much of what I've been told and even "preached" (in ALL senses of that word) have been flat-assed wrong. Yet, the sources were often of extremely high repute, deserving of respect, but maybe not much more.

Some opinions gain great power and become what I call "factoids". To me a factoid is something that many or most people believe that is, in fact, wrong. Maybe my years of experience as a financial auditor or being a corporate executive or being a professional risk manager, color my opinions, but I see lots of people believing in things that just don't make sense. "The Madness of Crowds", the classic book, comes to mind. These kinds of things happen over and over.

I'm not saying that the advice given here on BPN isn't generally very good. I'm saying that if the next Picaso of nature photography came in here, we'd probably be critical of much of his or her work. If he or she is really the next Picaso they'll give us the finger and go about doing their own thing, perhaps gleaning just a little bit from our advice.

I've noticed that the advice here all seems sincere and given with full intent to be helpful. I try to always respond graciously and try the suggested techniques and then judge for myself whether the changes were an "improvement" or just a change.

So the thought here is, almost every "rule" is meant to be broken. I look at the "power" of an image and it's overall impact. When I see a powerful image and it's breaking a "rule" I don't let the broken rule ruin the impact of the image on me. I'm a serious trumpeter and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest. As such I get to hear many world class trumpeters. In a recital or concert, even with the very best, I can always pick out "errors" or cliches or interpretations that are different from what I expect, etc. That's an interesting academic exercise, BUT the key to any performance is "was it musical?" and, if there was a flat out mistake (not unusual) did the performer not let it bother him and deliver a beautiful, enjoyable piece of art?

Flickr can be very interesting to analyze. Many, many images there are really very weak technically (many are actually very strong also). Yet, amongst the weak technical images you'll occasionally see an image where the untrained photographer has captured something really beautiful or unusual or emotional. The peanut gallery will literally go wild over such things. Deservedly so, IMHO.

There's a display in my little church that brings home the issue of power vs. technical prowess in our images. There is a gallery which features the "art" of church members. Right now there are about eight photo images, taken by a couple during there travels around the world, including London, coastal Maine and around here in Colorado. I'd be embarrassed to post any, but one, on my Flickr site. There are noise issues, tilted horizons, horizons splitting the middle of the frame in two, totally OOF, over-saturation, tilting buildings, rule of thirds never observed, etc., etc. As I stand there, ripping them apart in my mind, a lady comes up to me and says something like, "Oh my, isn't that gorgeous, it makes me feel like I'm there." And I say, "Yes, they're nice." The audience has spoken...

Should we then stop striving and ignore all "rules" and not work to please each other here. I think not. Many of us are learning a craft. We must learn the rules before we can break them... intelligently. Cubism wasn't Picasso's first "stage." Miles Davis didn't creat fusion in 1950, etc., etc.

Dave

Dave - Thanks for some interesting words of wisdom. I liked the part about "learning the rules before we break them intelligently." As I thought about that, it makes a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny J Brown

Dave - Thanks for some interesting words of wisdom. I liked the part about "learning the rules before we break them intelligently." As I thought about that, it makes a lot of sense.

---

Very well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

I notice that there are 10 votes in the do not like camp yet not one reply as to why they do not like it, if you do not like the comp I would be interested in reading your reasons:)

---

I do not like it because it makes no sense to me. No firm reasons I just do not like it. And I feel that the blur has nothing to do with the COMP. Motion blur is motion blur. And I do not understand the "the fox is being chased" comment. If it were being chased we would see the chasee. As for prints selling proving that they are good or great their is no correlation. I have been to Manglesen's gallery in La Jolla many times. Some of the stuff takes my breath away, some of it I would have deleted and many here would have done the same. It all goes to the Wizard of Oz syndrome...

Went back and looked at the larger version and liked it a bit more....

I should have mentioned that I have no problem with breaking the "rules." I have done it more than a few times myself, always when I have a reason. With the fox image, I can see no reason for the COMP other than the fact that the fox was too swift for the photographer.

In your image Sid I stated clearly why I felt that the traditional COMP would have worked much better than the non-traditional one. It seems here that your reason for creating the non-traditional composition was to create a non-traditional composition (rather then to get the viewer to think, to include another element in the image, or to sell an idea or concept).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

... As for prints selling proving that they are good or great their is no correlation. ..

---

Is Brittney Spears a great singer? Probably not in many respects, but that doesn't invalidate her approach to her "art." Many of us may find her "music" disgusting and a waste of effort, but many millions feel exactly the opposite.

If a photographer sells lots and lots of "inferior" images at high prices, it might not be high art, but the photographer is connecting with some audience.

We need to realize that there's more than one audience for wildlife photography. Some of us may claim a classically defined high road, but that does not diminish the work of the photographer that choses to make their own rules and connect at a different level.

Brittney has a larger audience than a soprano at the Met, but that doesn't make her "better." OTOH, the soprano isn't "better" just because she's classically trained. I think it's the same way with any art, including photography.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

As for prints selling proving that they are good or great their is no correlation.

---

Artie,
If your were referring to my post about his prints selling, I said nothing about quality, nor did I intend to imply it. I simply stated: "Obviously he knows what he is doing and his images sell,..." and meant nothing more.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Is Brittney Spears a great singer? Probably not in many respects, but that doesn't invalidate her approach to her "art." Many of us may find her "music" disgusting and a waste of effort, but many millions feel exactly the opposite.

If a photographer sells lots and lots of "inferior" images at high prices, it might not be high art, but the photographer is connecting with some audience.

We need to realize that there's more than one audience for wildlife photography. Some of us may claim a classically defined high road, but that does not diminish the work of the photographer that choses to make their own rules and connect at a different level.

Brittney has a larger audience than a soprano at the Met, but that doesn't make her "better." OTOH, the soprano isn't "better" just because she's classically trained. I think it's the same way with any art, including photography.
Dave

---

I've never (knowingly) heard Britney Spears sing so I cannot comment there. When folks sell bad music or bad images I simply tip my hat to them. In a list of factors that determine whether someone will make it as a professional photographer the artistic and technical qualities of their images ranks somewhere between 5 and 10.

I pretty much agree with everything that you have said but what you said does not make a bad image good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

Artie, If your were referring to my post about his prints selling, I said nothing about quality, nor did I intend to imply it. I simply stated: "Obviously he knows what he is doing and his images sell,..." and meant nothing more. Roger

---

Your statement just prompted my comments. Nothing more was inferred. Many folks think that if an image sells (whether as a print or for editorial or advertising use) that it is a good image.

I like the image! Judging photography is very subjective, so, in a sense... majority rules. No one opinion is necessarily more valid than another. Just because one person (no matter who he or she is) thinks it is a bad image does not make it a bad image. Mangleson's work is, on the whole, highly regarded in the photography community, by photography art critics, and by the general population as a whole. I have his book, Images of Nature, and it is an impressive collection of his images. Tom Mangleson is one of an elite class highly regarded artistic nature photographers. Others that immediately come to my mind are Jim Brandenburg, Frans Lanting, the late Galen Rowell, and Robert Glenn Ketchum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I pretty much agree with everything that you have said but what you said does not make a bad image good.

---

Exactly.

But, you and I, for instance, will disagree about the subject image. I think it's great and emotional and not contrived at all. I DO think of the fox as fleeing rather than chasing, but I don't know why and I don't care. You can point to techinical "flaws", yet I don't care.

I suspect that neither of us feels any need to change the other. We just have two differing adult views of the same thing. I think this is the real bottom line here.

My point to young photographers that might view this discussion is that rules can be broken. It might not please everyone and it may seem contrived at first. People that explore and go beyond the bounderies often do it in a contrived way at first. Breaking the rules just to break them doesn't make you more of an artist, but if you're compelled to test a boundery then that may be something that you should investigate. Still, those that successfully break new ground usually do so after mastery of the fundementals.

I voted "I don't Like" for the following reason. The fox seems to have an inquisitive, alert posture and appears to be focused on something in front of him and is running towards whatever it is. He doesn't appear to be running away from anything as if it he were fearful. If he had the appearance of running away from something, this comp might work for me as there would be a sense of tension as to what might be just out of frame chasing him (although I'd rather see what it is). With this posture, I'd rather have the tension (and open space) in front of him leaving me wondering what's just out of frame that has him so interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

You can point to techinical "flaws", yet I don't care..... My point to young photographers that might view this discussion is that rules can be broken. It might not please everyone and it may seem contrived at first. People that explore and go beyond the bounderies often do it in a contrived way at first. Breaking the rules just to break them doesn't make you more of an artist, but if you're compelled to test a boundery then that may be something that you should investigate. Still, those that successfully break new ground usually do so after mastery of the fundementals.

---

I did not mention any technical flaws in the fox image so am not sure what you are not caring about.

I agree 100% that rules (I prefer to call them guidelines) can be broken. I have been breaking them for 28 years and have been teaching folks to do the same. I do encourage folks to have a reason for going non-traditional.

And yes, whether you choose to stay in or out of the box, you need to have the fundamentals down pat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Erkes

... Judging photography is very subjective, so, in a sense... majority rules. No one opinion is necessarily more valid than another. Just because one person (no matter who he or she is) thinks it is a bad image does not make it a bad image. Mangleson's work is, on the whole, highly regarded in the photography community, by photography art critics, and by the general population as a whole. I have his book, Images of Nature, and it is an impressive collection of his images.

---

Hi Ed, I disagree about the "majority rules" comment. All that matters is the opinion of the individual opinion (or in a contest, the opinion or opinions of the judge or the judges). I do agree that nobody's opinion but your own matters. I too have a copy of Tom's "Images of Nature" signed by Tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Canuel

I voted "I don't Like" for the following reason. The fox seems to have an inquisitive, alert posture and appears to be focused on something in front of him and is running towards whatever it is. He doesn't appear to be running away from anything as if it he were fearful. If he had the appearance of running away from something, this comp might work for me as there would be a sense of tension as to what might be just out of frame chasing him (although I'd rather see what it is). With this posture, I'd rather have the tension (and open space) in front of him leaving me wondering what's just out of frame that has him so interested.

---

Thanks Steve for verbalizing what was lost somewhere in my brain. :) Sort of what I was inferring when I said that the image makes no sense to me.

This image got me to think ( no small endeavor). I still haven't decided if I like it but anytime a work of art thats different causes you to pause and contemplate it has achieved the artists objectives.

The "great" artists of the past didn't enter into their profession to create works to sell or to garner acclaim. They started painting, sculpturing and wrote music as an expression of themselves and to satisfy no one but themselves.

For me once a artist starts to pen tunes, paint on commission or photograph to appeal to a wider audience he usually has lost his edge and creativity as well as quality will be stifled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

. . . With the fox image, I can see no reason for the COMP other than the fact that the fox was too swift for the photographer. . . .

---

Arthur,

It makes sense that a Swift Fox would be too swift for the photographer. The composition, even if unintended, succeeds in expressing speed and wildness. The fox is so fast, wild, and uncontrolled it has outrun any attempt to force it into the position demanded by traditional composition. The usual placement would show the opposite, that the animal wasn't so fast that it couldn't be tracked and placed in the traditional position. Mangelsen's sales pitch for the photo picks up both on the speed of the fox and the threat it is fleeing: "The blazing fast and aptly named swift fox uses speed to cover the land it was evolved to thrive on: wide open prairies and rolling plains. It has not, however, been fast enough to outrun the threats of its lost grassland habitat . . ." Whether someone likes the composition or not is completely a matter of individual taste, but there is logic to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I did not mention any technical flaws in the fox image so am not sure what you are not caring about. .

---

Sorry, I included comments re COMP in my usage of the word "technical". I know that the usage here on BNP is different than general usage and should have considered that.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Beittel

Arthur,

It makes sense that a Swift Fox would be too swift for the photographer. The composition, even if unintended, succeeds in expressing speed and wildness. The fox is so fast, wild, and uncontrolled it has outrun any attempt to force it into the position demanded by traditional composition. The usual placement would show the opposite, that the animal wasn't so fast that it couldn't be tracked and placed in the traditional position. Mangelsen's sales pitch for the photo picks up both on the speed of the fox and the threat it is fleeing: "The blazing fast and aptly named swift fox uses speed to cover the land it was evolved to thrive on: wide open prairies and rolling plains. It has not, however, been fast enough to outrun the threats of its lost grassland habitat . . ." Whether someone likes the composition or not is completely a matter of individual taste, but there is logic to it.

---

Thanks for the explanation Cliff. It is a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Sorry, I included comments re COMP in my usage of the word "technical". I know that the usage here on BNP is different than general usage and should have considered that. Dave

---

No problema. The word technical is gonna refer to exposure, sharpness, etc. here or anywhere else. Compositional and image design issues are artistic issues. Here or anywhere else. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Tracy

...

The "great" artists of the past didn't enter into their profession to create works to sell or to garner acclaim. They started painting, sculpturing and wrote music as an expression of themselves and to satisfy no one but themselves. ..

---

Mike, I don't think that is a very accurate statement.

For instance, biographers of two of the greatest artists of the 20th century, Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso, indicate that early in their careers they wanted "success" in there arts and the ability to support themselves comfortably solely from their art. The both achieved "fame" quickly and clearly basked in their wealth and fame late in life. People grumbled about their directions in art while they lived, yet today they are both recognized as icons of the 20th century.

Some "great" artists may be egoless, but many are indeed driven by the need for fame and fortune, not to mention sexual drive.

Dave

Personally I find the image to be solid in an editorial sense, as explained by Cliff. From a fine art perspective I'm not too crazy about it, but I don't stronly dislike it either. While compositionally the fox is looking out of and moving off of the RH frame, I suspect its placed fairly close to the RH and Upper Horiz. thrids intersect... making possible to argue that it broke one rule, but not another. There is almost a 3d quality to it... as if the fox is going to jump out of the frame. I wonder if there would be as much dislike for it if the subject were placed along the lower horiz/RH thrids intersect instead? In that position the fox would be more "grounded."

I have to agree with Artie here. The comp bothers me a lot. I agree that guidelines should be broken but I am afraid it does not work here for me.