Editing Quiz/Head Angle

[Arthur Morris]

I will post one image in this pane, and another image from the same series in Pane #2. Let me know which original capture you prefer, #1 or #2. Which one would you keep? And why?

I have been saving images for years and hope--if I live long enough--to create "The Editing Guide." There will be series of from two to ten images, each with the same questions: Which would you keep? And why?

I will post the final optimized image with my answer in a day or two. Please do comment on the role head angle played in your decision.

[Arthur Morris]

And here's number two!

Again, which one would you keep, and why? What role did head angle have in your decision?

[Arthur Morris]

I will hold this spot for the optimized image to be posted in a day or two :)

White-crowned Sparrow in snow. Morton NWR, Noyac, NY. Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens with a 24mm Extension tube and the EOS-1D MIII. ISO 320. Manual mode: 1/320 at f/13 was about one stop too dark; my thumbs must have inadvertently turned the thumb wheel while trying to get warm! Each image was lightened considerably during the DPP conversion.

ps: The bird is--of course--a White-throated Sparrow. Thanks to Aaron Lee (below) for the brain typo correction

[Desmond Chan]

I prefer the second one because of the head angle. Having the head angled more towards the camera, the bird and the viewers kind of connect better with each other. But the tail in the first photo has better sharpness and there's also more room behind the tail in the first photo.

[Dave Phillips]

I think the beak having a clean bg is most important. I find the eye contact
about equal regardless of head angle.
Noted the feet and tail room, but they could be easily remedied by adding canvas in #2.

The head profile in #1 also tends to minimize the effect of shooting downward on the subject

My preference is #1

[Arthur Morris]

I prefer the second one because of the head angle. Having the head angled more towards the camera, the bird and the viewers kind of connect better with each other. But the tail in the first photo has better sharpness and there's also more room behind the tail in the first photo.

So which one would you keep?

[Desmond Chan]

So which one would you keep?

If I have to submit one of them for competition/publicaton, then I think I have to submit the first one.

For myself, I'll keep both. Or make a composite out of them :)

[paul leverington]

Hmmm...Artie I would go with no. 1. For me I like it better for eye contact more directly at me, and the head angle is off a bit from the body angle, whereas in no 2 they are more aligned. This tends to put a twist in the body posture line and looks a bit more natural. The second looks to me a more rigid and stiff pose. The point about room for the feet is valid too, but I'm not thinking that's what your were looking for feedback on primarily. Maybe I'm wrong. Tail room is big deal too in favor of no. 1

paul

[Ilija Dukovski]

The tail on #2 is very close to the edge, but still I'd definitely keep this one,
and try to add space at RH edge(from #1, so technically speaking I'd need and keep both:);)).
The placement of the bird in the frame in #2 IMO is better. I'm not sure how much the HA
plays role here, but #2 has more "character" is more "interested" toward the camera than #1.
I would try to do something about the strong shadow in both images, not sure what though.

Cheers,

[Bill Dix]

My personal preference is for number 1. Head is angled a bit toward the camera, enough to establish some 'rapport' with the bird IMHO, but showing a better profile and BG for the beak. Tail also favors no. 1. Having the beak and eye roughly in the same plane as the sensor, with a bit of tilt toward the viewer, works for me and helps keep the entire head in focus.

[Arthur Morris]

Wow, lots of players. And I have figured out exactly why I love the one that I do! Keep em coming. This is fun.

[Peter Farrell]

I would choose #1. Although I like the head/body angle better in; #2 I like the crop in #1. I feel the head angle difference would carry less weight in my desicion than the crop would.

[Duane Noblick]

I'm going with #2. #1 is just another profile shot of a White-throated Sparrow where-as #2 shows more character the bird displays sometimes. This is an emotional choice not a technical one. ;)

[Jay Gould]

#1 and it is the beak that rules the day for me.

The beak in #2 is darker and appears, although it isn't, compressed.

The beak is #1 is brighter and "out there" along with the rest of the bird.

I also like the length of the yellow and white feather line on the side of the head on #1 - longer and more sweeping.

Finally, until you extend the right side canvass the tail is too close in #2 to the edge and there is no room for the virtual tail to flow under the snow.

Overall definitely #1 is the keeper and #2 (I should only be so lucky to have #2 as my capture!) gets to fly away.

Hello, Goodbye, and Happy Holidays from Ushuaia, Argentina - Fin Del Mundo - where we depart from on 29 December for 26 days to the Falklands, S. Georgia Islands, and Anarctica.

[Aaron Lee]

With so many qualified folks responding with differing opinions,I find it hard to believe that there is a definitive keeper in the pair.
Both files are keepers,with about the same exposure recipe,but the fact that any two people would choose one above the other proves that when it all boils down,it's personal preference-nothing more.
In a matter of days we will find out which one Arthur prefers,if it's not the one that is pleasing to our own eye does that make us wrong? Nope,just our own personal preference.

For me #1 would get the ax. #2 has much more personality and shows more of the bird's namesake. But there again,just MY personal preference.:)

Also,this is a White Throated Sparrow,not a White Crowned.

[Malcolm Benn]

Although I would prefer a slightly lower shooting angle and less disruption of the snow surface between these two I prefer #2. I prefer the head angle of #2 and to my eye it also appears that the beak is angled slightly higher. I also prefer the position of the bird within the frame although a bit more canvas on the right would be required to make it ideal.

[Susan Liddle]

#1. The bird is well centered, and appears to me more life-like. It fills more space in the frame. I like the color of the feathering better, the grays seem a bit darker, which I prefer, and the beak is well defined.
I prefer the appearance of the white stripe on the head in this image. I also prefer the amount of snow above and below the bird here.
#2. At first I liked this one better, as it engages the viewer with the head angle. The beak is somewhat lost against the body. The bird appears smaller, too far to the right, and a bit down in the corner. It would be possible to add canvas, to give room for the tail, but there is still the beak . . . . If I had never seen image #1, I'd think this was just fine.
This is great fun! I hope there will be more!! :):)

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Number 1 of course.

The head angle looks better than in pane 2, from my point of view.
Image #2 has the tail too close to the frame, yes I know, that can be easily fixed in PS, but for my understanding is better to stay with the original images when possible.
Image #1 shows better head profile, some may think that the bird looks too centered but I could live with that.
Just my two cents.

[Harshad Barve]

My vote for # 2 here Guruji but both images are keepers for me
TFS

[LouBuonomo]

#1, HA on 2 seem angled down slightly making him appear less relaxed for me...

Glad you are enjoying EM.. a great place to experiment.

[Luis Villablanca]

Given the choice I would keep the first one. The head angle and composition looks better.
I would have preferred a lower shooting angle though.

[Kurt Bowman]

For me, number 2 for a few reasons. First, the bird's HA in #2 is towards the camera and feels more connected to me than in #1. Second, #1 feels more two dimensional because of the direct side view. #2 seems to have better seperation from the shadow creating more of a three dimensional feel to it. Third, is because I would think 90% of the people would submit #1 and I want my work to be different than others and stand out, even if that means going out on a limb sometimes.

[Raymond Barlow]

#2 for me Artie, the head angle is more interactive with the viewer.

[Doug Brown]

For me it's the first image. I prefer the head angle; a nice profile. To me the second head angle is all wrong; the profile isn't good and the bird isn't really looking at you. The tail feathers are too close to the edge of the frame, and there's not enough room for the virtual feet. Also I find the bird a little too centered in frame 2.

[Kerry Perkins]

What Doug said! I like the nice profile of the first image, with the nice clean line from the crown of the head all the way down the back. The compression of the head in the second image does not show the profile as well and there is the hint of the second eye but not any of it shown. Also agree with Dave that the beak is much cleaner in the first. The second shot also compresses the beak, which makes it look shorter and allows less profile definition.

[RAM MALLYA]

Both images are good but i would stick to #1 as it has more space for the virtual feet and the tail and the proper eye contact of the bird.

[Gabi Sandu]

The first one. The tail has much room and the head angle is look much better for me.

[Paul Lagasi]

I've got to go with #1, I've always gone for side profiles, showing ID marks....Head angle, more canvas....

[Bill Jobes]

To my eye, #1 is the better 'textbook' image, as it shows more 'real estate' of each of the bird's colorful features.

But #2 shows a bird much more aware of you, and as a result is 'engaging' your presence.

That connection, for me, makes #2 my keeper.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Aaron, re your comments above:

With so many qualified folks responding with differing opinions,I find it hard to believe that there is a definitive keeper in the pair.

You might be right, or you might be surprised. And even qualified folks like myself can always learn something new if they come in with an open mind.

Both files are keepers,with about the same exposure recipe,but the fact that any two people would choose one above the other proves that when it all boils down,it's personal preference-nothing more.

If I believed that to be true, I would not have posted the two images. The purpose of the post was for folks to learn. I had--and still do--have a very strong preference for one of the two images, but when I posted them my feelings were gut feelings. But in reading all of the comments here, many of what touched upon what I was thinking/seeing/feeling, the reason for my great preference was uncovered. So I have already learned both a great lesson and something new, or at least realized something old that was revealed in with a twist.

In a matter of days we will find out which one Arthur prefers,if it's not the one that is pleasing to our own eye does that make us wrong? Nope,just our own personal preference.

Both of the images are of course fine images, but it is my belief that there is a best course of action here. It is not about right or wrong or one person be smarter than the other, it is about learning and if you keep an open mind you too might learn something.

For me #1 would get the ax.

That might be a big mistake....

#2 has much more personality and shows more of the bird's namesake. But there again,just MY personal preference.:)

I am loving it. ;)

Also,this is a White Throated Sparrow,not a White Crowned.

Thanks (as noted in Pane #3) for catching my brain typo.

BTW, to be perfectly correct that would be "Also, this is a White-throated Sparrow, not a white-crowned." Both are hyphenated. And for those who as I do choose to capitalize the proper names of birds (how else would you know if someone is talking about a yellow warbler--a warbler that is yellow--or a Yellow Warbler?), it is proper to use upper case when using the bird's full name as in "White-crowned Sparrow" but to use lower case when shortening the name as with "We saw a white-crowned too."

Wow, that last sentence is a long one...

Respectfully.

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

If I can only choose one then it will be #1 because of the space behind the tail, the second picture has the tail too close to the edge for comfort. HA wise I prefer the second one, I really like the black/white/black strip on head and the second one show more of that. If adding canvas is allow then I would go with the second picture, but that another story.

[Arthur Morris]

If I can only choose one then it will be #1 because of the space behind the tail, the second picture has the tail too close to the edge for comfort. HA wise I prefer the second one, I really like the black/white/black strip on head and the second one show more of that. If adding canvas is allow then I would go with the second picture, but that another story.

Thanks for playing Thanaboon. The idea is to create the best optimized image. The only thing that that would prevent folks from adding canvas would be their own personal ethics. As for me, I am fine with using the latest technologies and techniques to create a pleasing image. (I always strive to let folks know what I have done to an image and always abide by the rules of the various contests that I enter.

[Bob Decker]

While my "head" tells me I should prefer #2 because the subject is more engaged with the camera, my heart keeps voting for #1. I'm not really sure why.

[Mark Theriot]

#1 strikes me as more suitable for a technical presentation where I find the second one has more "engagement" or personality. (What a difference just a little turn of the head makes!!!)

The first image has more technical benefits from what I can see (sharper focus of tail and breast, not a tight crop on the tail, etc) But the second one is more "alive" and natural.

In my personal opinion (what I like) is the second one. I'll take it with a little canvas added to the right . . . um . . . yea, once I learn how to do that!!

Mark

[Kiran Poonacha]

Hi Guru, I too like the first one for most of the reasons above...

[Aaron Lee]

You might be right, or you might be surprised. And even qualified folks like myself can always learn something new if they come in with an open mind.

Thanks Art. My mind is always open-it has to be. Suprised? Never happen,and I mean never.:) After shooting 300+ weddings over the years,and watching folks pick images that I would personally delete as their own favorites,the only thing that would suprise me is if a rubber chicken boinked out of my lens mount.
When one ponders the decision of what makes an optimal image,they can use technical info,composition,etc. When a person decides to insert reasoning for choosing said image based on their preference of the tech aspects,they are unknowingly tapping into their own set of personal preferences. Others will share your preferences,they will agree with you. Everything surrounding us everyday is based on our preferences.
How many times do you have an image that 200 photogs inspect and all 200 agree 100%?:)

I can't resist commenting on what someone said about applying "virtual feet":D
This is where I would suggest maybe going out for another days shooting to try and capture an image with the bird's own feet intact and visible. I am both glad and relieved to say that my passion for photography has not waned enough in 30+ years to prevent me from pursuing the bird another day for a better shot as opposed to creating body parts on a bird.
I'm all for optimizing what you already have in PP or cloning out a branch,WB,sharpening,but adding feet?:confused: Everyone has their own line-and adding virtual parts to a bird would be pole vaulting over my own personal line.
To each his own.

Unfortunately,this may not be a site I can relate to.:(

Later,Aaron.

[Thanaboon Jearkjirm]

I think what most people mean by virtual feet is having enough space at the bottom of the frame, so the viewer feel that there are feet under the snow/grass and the feet are not clipped. I don't think they meant as to photoshop in actual feet. I might be wrong or missing something though, feel free to correct me.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Aaron,

re:

Thanks Art. My mind is always open-it has to be. Suprised?

Not at all. But you did try to throw me off by writing this: "With so many qualified folks responding with differing opinions,I find it hard to believe that there is a definitive keeper in the pair." :)

Never happen,and I mean never.:) After shooting 300+ weddings over the years,and watching folks pick images that I would personally delete as their own favorites,the only thing that would suprise me is if a rubber chicken boinked out of my lens mount.

You gotta love it. Your clients must have a lot in common with the photo editors of many magazines...

When one ponders the decision of what makes an optimal image,they can use technical info,composition,etc. When a person decides to insert reasoning for choosing said image based on their preference of the tech aspects,they are unknowingly tapping into their own set of personal preferences.

Agree.

Others will share your preferences,they will agree with you. Everything surrounding us everyday is based on our preferences.

Agree.

How many times do you have an image that 200 photogs inspect and all 200 agree 100%?:)

Never. But given a set of 20 images it is not uncommon to find 80% agreement on which is best....

I can't resist commenting on what someone said about applying "virtual feet":D
This is where I would suggest maybe going out for another days shooting to try and capture an image with the bird's own feet intact and visible.

I do not get your point there... I have lots of images showing the feet of this species (all taken with the past week!) but none of them with the bird standing on soft snow show the feet. ;) As for the virtual feet comments here I will say that sparrows have very short legs.

I am both glad and relieved to say that my passion for photography has not waned enough in 30+ years to prevent me from pursuing the bird another day for a better shot as opposed to creating body parts on a bird.

I'm with you on the passion part but am confused again by yoru body parts comment....

I'm all for optimizing what you already have in PP or cloning out a branch,WB,sharpening,but adding feet?:confused:

In this image I do not believe that anyone was suggesting adding feet. Are you clear on the meaning of "virtual feet." (I am pretty clear on that as I coined the phrase at least as far as it has to do with bird photography..."

Everyone has their own line-and adding virtual parts to a bird would be pole vaulting over my own personal line.
To each his own.

It seems obvious from that statement that you do not understand the term so here goes: when the legs and/or the feet of a bird are hidden by sand, snow, or water, I have long suggested that when framing or cropping their image folks leave room for the feet (plus a small border below them) as if they were visible." I do not believe that that advise applies to the image in Pane #2 here.

Unfortunately,this may not be a site I can relate to.:(

That is obviously your choice but in fact it seems that you are basing your thoughts on your total misunderstanding of the term "virtual feet."

That said, if I clip the feet or even the foot of a bird in an otherwise great flight image and I have source material available in another frame I would not hesitate to add canvas and replace the foot all the while letting folks know what I had done.

And as far as your being "open minded," your quit if I don't agree attitude seems quite strange.

[Arthur Morris]

I think what most people mean by virtual feet is having enough space at the bottom of the frame, so the viewer feel that there are feet under the snow/grass and the feet are not clipped. I don't think they meant as to photoshop in actual feet. I might be wrong or missing something though, feel free to correct me.

Thanaboon, You are 100% correct.

[Kim Rollins]

Just my opinion but
I would keep #1. Canvas behind is a factor (but it could be added to #2).
HA in one has the eye in better position to the plane of the sensor I think but...
it could use another degee of turn to its left (not an option here). Head angle in 2 looks to me to be to sharp to left.

[Aaron Lee]

My mistake,I thought they meant actually adding feet to the file.
There is indeed some beautiful work on this site-and other sites as well. Nowadays,determining if the file is what the photog actually saw,is a time consuming and messy business-if they aren't up front about it like you obviously are.
Moot points as the genie is long since out of the bottle,and there's no putting him back.

Regards and good luck in your pursuits.
Aaron

[RichardCurtin]

I would pick #1. I like the broader view of the beak, angle of the head, and better sharpness of the tail. Also slightly more room behind and below the bird. With either view, I had to put on a sweater after looking at them for a long time...

[Kurt Bowman]

I keep coming back to this quiz/debate because I find everyone's response and reasoning interesting. I think one thing we all have to remember is: people buy images because of something that connects them to the shot. Usually, that something is emotion....not whether something is technically correct. I don't mean people want blurry, out of focus images....I think most viewer's/audiences want an image in focus and displaying nice colors, etc....but it needs to say something to them. That is what art IS. Just one guy's opinin.:D

[David Thomasson]

Late to this party, but ...

#2 for the head angle but more for the back angle -- the upright, alert posture. It's easy enough to shorten the shadow a bit to
clean off the BG for the beak. Also would be easy to extend the canvas on the right or bottom if wanted.

[Arthur Morris]

Wow. This keeps getting better and better. Great stuff David. I shall have some questions for you about moving that shadow! Well done. I will post my thoughts on Sunday at 7pm eastern.

[Ilija Dukovski]

Late to this party, but ...

It's easy enough to shorten the shadow a bit to
clean off the BG for the beak.

Easy? Can't wait to see how.

[Attila Seprenyi]

I definitely prefer the #2 even though the tail almost touch (or does) the frame IMO head angle is more impressive and it was my first thought after took a look. I have already been thinking this question becouse i have some picture which i like much but miss a litle better head angle.

[Kris Mortensen]

I suppose many are right about the proper head angle in number 2, but I like number 1....and reading everyone's opinions makes it more confusing as to why I like the first one. I think I like number 1's profile, and I think its an emotional choice for me (as someone mentioned)....I just gravitate to it, it seems more pleasing to me...the head angle in number 2 is 'correct', I suppose, by standards...but for me, I like the profile and straightforwardness of number one. A slight head turn, for me personally, doesn't always make me feel that I'm connecting with the bird. In both images, I feel part of what makes it captivating, is what the bird is looking AT.

Great post!

[David Thomasson]

Moving the shadow ...

1. Select around the head, copy to a new layer (Ctrl/Cmd+J), and use a transform box (Ctrl/Cmd+T) to pull the top down and compress the shadow.



2. Put a mask on that layer and paint with black to restore the original bird, exposing only the top of the compressed shadow. A little bit of beak goes with that, so open a blank layer above that and clone out the beak (and clone in some new shadow.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks a ton David. I should have figured that one out... Especially now that I learned that you can add a Layer Mask to any QM in APATS II.