Adams: In the first place, I think the importance of BPN is using critique to help photographers become better photographers, and it is very unlikely that an image doesn't have flaws. They may very well be minor, especially here at BPN, but it is important that a "critical eye" be utilized, even if it could be called nit-picking by others. I also think that a more thorough explanation is often in order. For example: "this would look better if you cropped some off the top" isn't nearly as useful as an explanation of why this would make the image look better. Only positive comments are not necessarily useful, although I sure like to see them!
Bearing this in mind, and that it is only my opinion, here is my take on your image.
I think the reflection and the technical aspects, including sharpness and DOF control are quite good, as well as a seamless foreground/background transition. However, in my opinion, there are problems with the image. 1) the position of the bird horizontally leads to an unbalanced image 2) the almost complete disappearance of the bill doesn't look right.
About the composition: I think that dividing the image in half vertically with the bird and the bird's reflection is compositionally correct. If the symmetry is both top/bottom and right/left, placing the element in the center is the most advantageous position. However, in this case we have no right/left symmetry. Another possibility is the "rule of thirds". According to that compositional idea the bird in question would occupy either 1/3 or 2/3 of the horizontal space, and since the bird is facing left, the most empty space would be to the left. You could try it either way. If you opt for the bird occupying only 1/3 of the space(on the left) there would be more of an emphasis on the foreground/background, which I feel is a very strong aspect of the image. 2/3 occupied by the bird would, of course, put the emphasis on the bird, and neglect the background/foreground elements somewhat.
About the position of the bill: I have been confronted by this quite often, especially with dowitchers, in which their sewing machine like feeding leads to half the time the bill being submerged. So why is having the bill hidden not such a good idea? I think it is because it is leaving out an important aspect of being a bird, just as if other parts of the bird, such as the eyes, were hidden you might think the image was lacking.
regards~Bill
Adams, your welcome. Actually I think my main point isn't about your image in particular, and I'm sure the my details are subject to debate. Basically I'm thinking about images you may take in the future, and the composition that would have taken place in the camera. In other words, I think it a good idea that compositional ideas are running through your head while analysing the scene through the viewfinder. This is much better than cropping for composition, which can be a pain. For example; a simple shore scene with a beach, a sky, and a bird. You could use the rule of thirds to help decide where to put the horizon, and the bird for that matter. Or you might notice a strong diagonal element and use the idea of diagonal composition, etc. (note: rule of thirds, diagonal, radial, and symmetry are the main compositional ideas that seem to work).
About the bill position in your photo. I agree, not much you can do about it, and it is possible that some people actually like it the way it is. I'm not saying that the complete bill needs to be visible in all images either. I guess it is another decision you need to make in the viewfinder, and it is possible it is just my personal preference to have more of the bill showing. regards~Bill
Sanderling
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote