What do you think of this composition

[John Chardine]

However noble the original intent of this poll was, in this case it is impossible to tease apart opinions both positive and negative, of the image itself, in isolation of its creator. The only effective way of doing this is to present an unknown image with no indication of photographer, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Danny J Brown]

Thank you Cliff Beittel (Pane #44) for eloquently describing just what I was thinking last night but never could have said so well. If you read the photographer's description of the swift fox you really get a complete sense of logic regarding the lightening speed of this animal. I don't see a near miss - I see a well-planned shot that tells a story, and every time I go back to look at the image again, I'm sorry but I'm a bit mesmerized.

[Fabs Forns]

My eyes like it, for no particular reason :)

[Desmond Chan]

However noble the original intent of this poll was, in this case it is impossible to tease apart opinions both positive and negative, of the image itself, in isolation of its creator. The only effective way of doing this is to present an unknown image with no indication of photographer, and let the chips fall where they may.

Exactly my point (See pane #4 above) !

And here's Sid's reply:

Desmond,

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

Thank you.
Sid

So it's not about a composition with a moving fox with less room in the direction of where it is moving, but specifically Thomas Mangelsen's use of that composition. Does that mean other people's use of the same composition would not have the same impact, evoke the same response/feeling from the viewers? That the effectiveness of the use of a certain composition depends on who uses it?

You be the judge :)

Glad to see that seemingly the association of the name Thomas Mangelsen to the composition in question does not seem to have any impact on the discussion. :D


Incidentally, I read somewhere that somebody posted an image of Henri Cartier-Bresson on a critique forum, without disclosing who took that photo, of course. That photo got trashed.

[Sid Garige]

Exactly my point (See pane #4 above) !

And here's Sid's reply:



So it's not about a composition with a moving fox with less room in the direction of where it is moving, but specifically Thomas Mangelsen's use of that composition. Does that mean other people's use of the same composition would not have the same impact, evoke the same response/feeling from the viewers? That the effectiveness of the use of a certain composition depends on who uses it?

You be the judge :)

Glad to see that seemingly the association of the name Thomas Mangelsen to the composition in question does not seem to have any impact on the discussion. :D

Thank you :)

[Sid Garige]

However noble the original intent of this poll was, in this case it is impossible to tease apart opinions both positive and negative, of the image itself, in isolation of its creator. The only effective way of doing this is to present an unknown image with no indication of photographer, and let the chips fall where they may.

John,

As I stated in #5. My intention is to know what others think of a famous photographer's composition. If i want to know about just a composition I would have done exactly what you suggested.

Thanks
Sid

[Harshad Barve]

My eyes like it, for no particular reason :)

+ 1 here Sid , May be beacuse I like fox , wolfs, and Big cats more than anything ;)

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

Uhhhmmm...
There's a ton to learn here! I voted ''I like it'' because it breaks the guidelines. And yes, in a perfect world the fox should be in the lower left corner but, that is what our brain wants to see, no tension, easy to understand.

I guess this have been a great exercise for many newbies like me. Thanks Sid.:)

[Alan Lillich]

I have mixed feelings. I'm a fan of empty space, so the smallish fox with lots of background is fine. I don't see the fox being chased, I see it going somewhere in a hurry, and the composition adds mystery to where. I think a lot of the reason it works for me is viewing it on the web with a lot of black on the right 1/2 of the page - reinforcing the mystery of what the fox is heading towards. It might not work on a wall, especially a light wall.

[paul leverington]

Arthur pretty much covered all that I was going to say--and did a very, very good job of it. Stephan's observation is why it doesn't work. Setting aside the perpetual go to POV that art is anything you deem it to be as an argument, then more so this does not work, than it does.

I feel it does work in one way however--and this is something totally worthy of note: Our minds get so used to seeing and relating to the world around us in very predictable patterns and conditioned viewpoints that when something like this comes along it shakes that up. A useful tool to use in a composition for sure but here as related in earlier posts--the fox does not have that being run down look. His attention is all forward and he just looks like he's traveling to me--and not in pursuit or anything either. The negative space behind him does not support the action so becomes a detractant. Over time, after the initial "refreshing" impact of this wears off, the shot will grow old fast because it doesn't make sense. Call it the "Brittany" effect if you will. Cliffs point is spot on, but isn't achieved to a high degree here--because of the lack of a fleeing or pursued look. Certainly though a great concept idea.

Big point for all to start being totally cognizant of--and Artie mentioned it already---There are no "rules". There are only guidelines. The rational that "rules are made to be broken--so break them" has no valid place in art because to start with there are no rules. Even Picasso continued to follow the guidelines--although most don't know it. Breaking with guidelines, for only the sake of breaking those guidelines, does not automatically qualify an image to be in the vangard or anything--anymore than a blurry pictures become art because it's blurry. Breaking a guideline only works if it has foundation in the purpose and goal of the composition. The snow leopard shot mentioned above sounds like a good example. Point is--is there a reason?

Another point ---many times in art history people jump on the bandwagon of some art trend simply because it's new, different, or shocking. It's hip--or the thing to do. Lot's of money gets spent and a lot of accolades are given--but it doesn't last and when the fad wears out people can actually be embarrased for their purchases. Hysteria I guess. More Brittany effect? Point is if an image doesn't sustain a communicative sense of the human expirience that we are all apart of, one which transcends time, culture, language, and other differences, it will not be as powerful and successful. Not saying this about Mangleson in particular or his picture here--just a point that people do want to be a part of "what's happening" and this is not art at all. Sales are not a good indicator always of great works is all.

One more thing--David made some very good points and I agree with all, but I totally disagree if something posted here on this site were very out of the ordinary, different, or avant guard --say from the next picasso--that it would be rejected. I think most here are looking for that exact thing that a new picasso would bring. It might take a minute to get used to it but I definitely belive there are a lot of very open minds here--minds that endeavor to be objective.

Paul

[Mike Moats]

I voted that I didn't like the comp. I tend to be a more traditional thinker and would rather see the fox on the left heading into the scene. I don't shoot much out of the box, like to stay in the guidelines more, its worked for me so far. As far as what sells and doesn't, I sell a lot of prints through the art show circuit and find that what photographers think are great images isn't what my customers buy. My most artistic images that photographers like are all at home on my computer as they didn't sell at the shows. the majority of the people at the shows like the simple stuff.

[paul leverington]

John,

As I stated in #5. My intention is to know what others think of a famous photographer's composition. If i want to know about just a composition I would have done exactly what you suggested.

Thanks
Sid

Sid---This seems incongruous from your original post where you said:

"
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."


Could you be specific about the purpose of the thread. None of your poll q's covered what I thought, so I was unable to select one.

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Paul, I enjoyed reading your comments. They brought up two things:

1-for those who don't know the details of the snow leopard image mentioned at least twice above, it was taken while the photographer was sleeping so I do not wish to hear about any compositional brilliance with regards to that image.

2-there are lots of open minds here. Even mine. I love the images in these two OOTBox threads:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=53699

and my very favorite: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=53088

If anyone had ever told me that I would like something created with a plug in called Fractalius I would have thought them nuts....

[paul leverington]

Oh wow! I loved those. The duck especially. Absolutely fantastic and totally never have seen anything like these before. Thanks for the heads up Artie. Way to go Denise!!

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

YAW. Denise has done some great stuff with that plug-in. Everyone should take a peek.

[Sid Garige]

Sid---This seems incongruous from your original post where you said:

"
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."


Could you be specific about the purpose of the thread. None of your poll q's covered what I thought, so I was unable to select one.

Paul

Paul,

First of all I provided complete details regarding the photograph. Intent of do this is to make sure all the viewers are aware of the maker of the image and makers popularity.

Secondly, I provided information regarding how a general composition would look like and posed a question why a famous photographer composed it in a different way. I also mentioned this image as a very successful image.

Finally, I said it would be interesting to know what others think of this composition and why it is successful.

By providing all these details I thought it was clear to viewers what my intentions were. My intent is to know what others think of this image and why it is successful.

I am aware there can be many opinions of this image but I listed only 4 which I thought will be more popular. Sorry if they don’t cover you thoughts. You are welcome to share your thoughts in our post.

I don’t have any hidden intentions of this thread other than what I stated in the original post and again in my post #5.
Thanks
Sid

[paul leverington]

Exactly my point (See pane #4 above) !

And here's Sid's reply:



So it's not about a composition with a moving fox with less room in the direction of where it is moving, but specifically Thomas Mangelsen's use of that composition. Does that mean other people's use of the same composition would not have the same impact, evoke the same response/feeling from the viewers? That the effectiveness of the use of a certain composition depends on who uses it?

You be the judge :)

Glad to see that seemingly the association of the name Thomas Mangelsen to the composition in question does not seem to have any impact on the discussion. :D


Incidentally, I read somewhere that somebody posted an image of Henri Cartier-Bresson on a critique forum, without disclosing who took that photo, of course. That photo got trashed.

Desmond--are you able to relate to us which Henri Cartier Bresson photo was this?

Paul

[paul leverington]

Sid--Pane no 14 threw me off a bit and I was not sure my thoughts on the comp were what you were looking for that's all. By saying in the same paragraph in no.14 that you wanted to know about a famous photographers composition and then in the next sentence you were not looking for input on composition, implied to me that maybe you were getting at the "influence" of the famous artists "name" on the comp as being the point of the thread.

Paul.

[Sid Garige]

Sid--Pane no 5 threw me off a bit and I was not sure my thoughts on the comp were what you were looking for that's all. By saying in the same paragraph in no.5 that you wanted to know about a famous photographers composition and then in the next sentence you were not looking for input on composition, implied to me that maybe you were getting at the "influence" of the famous artists "name" on the comp as being the point of the thread.

Paul.

Paul,

I should have stated that very clear. My apologies.

I also recomposed one of my images to see what general response will be. Here is the OOTB one http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=53838



and Here is the traditional one http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=31796

[paul leverington]

Definitely No 1. Pane no 14 is the one that threw me--I didn't get the edit on my post in fast enough before you reposted. No problemo.

Paul

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond--are you able to relate to us which Henri Cartier Bresson photo was this?

Paul

If I remember correctly, this is the one that was crtiqued:








And here's another one I'm sure many of you are familiar with:





See that the guy is also running into a..."wall" ? ;)

No crop. Cartier Bresson did not like to crop his photos or any suggestion to crop his photos.


A photograph is more than just about its composition :)

[paul leverington]

Sid--

But not simply because you moved the bird to the left by adding canvas to the right, thereby having him exiting the shot as in the mangleson shot. There are very significant differences between your 1rst heron, his shot of the fox and then agoain that much more from your second(original) heron shot.

To define those differences I should like to back up a second and take in a greater view of the subject matter for a second.

First is the definition of art--which I never could find an adequate definition for so I made up my own. "Art is the interface between the conscious and the subconscious mind". Through art one can communicate what's residing in his or her own subconscious, "bypass" in effect the conscious, and communicate to another persons subconscious,and vice versa. Simple enough.

So what is it that is going to get communicated? That's the issue. And how successful will it get communicated? That depends on how sucessful the comp is. Composition is the use of tools and technique to convey what's in the subconscious mind. How powerful that may be depends on how much the artist can get the eye to travel on a journey through the picture. This is accomplished by light, line, tone, color, frame, texture, and balance. Like a chinese menu the possibilities are endless. But the trick is to get the eye moving so as to maintain interest long enough to discover what the artist wants the viewer to see and feel. This is why diagonals work so well--on a hill we move!

OK -- so what's to get communicated then? In your Heron shots for example I think it would be fair to say it's not the heron's feather detail. Not the eye contact, hunting abilities, ungainliness of those long legs, courtship displays either. The purpose of the picture is the ZOOOOOOOOOMMMM. The SWOOOOOOSHHHHHH! It's 100 % made clear in the first shot. Less so but still in the second.

The things that work in no. 1 are

1) the long, streaked background has no detail to distract and implies loads of speed and feeling with the motion blur.
2) the horizontal format as opposed to the more square in number two also implies greater motion streaking from right to left in front of us by providing us with a panoramic view..
3) Number two has that extremely dark spot in the upper left hand corner which is way too commanding of a distraction robbing power big time from the overall comp. This is fairly much gone in no. 1.
4) The second shot has the bird almost centered which locks him into a state of greater stability. The second by placing the subject to one side--destablizes and creates dynamic balance---movement in other words. This could be accomplished if he was on the on the other side also. But the zoooming by feel is only accomplished with him on the left.

The point, purpose and intent of your no.1 shot is clear.

In the fox shot by Mangleson it's not so clear. Or better said--it could be made clearer. This is more correct. If he say had taken the shot with a bit less shutter speed and the bg was more blurred with streaks as your own 1rst heron shot--not necessarily as much--but more--I think that would be a more to the point what the shot was about. As is, you need a written explanation to accompany the image to understand something about what's happening--especially if your a viewer thats knows zip about foxes and wildlife. Which direction the fox is going doesn't in the slightest matter compositionally, only the conveyance of subject is the problem here. More streaky blurred bg, or something chasing him, or dark mysterious area for him to be emerging from are but a few ideas.

Your comp works better than his(but the head angle could be better in yours just a tad);)

Paul

Again--I don't say I don't like Mr. Mangelsons image--my thoughts are that it is missing a little and doesn't reach the power level that is possible. And what's it's missing is not that it doesn't have the negative space in front of the fox. It's not just clear enought what the subject of the shot is.

Again--no intent subjectively on my part to judge the shot--If one loves it than that's great. But I feel if composition discussion never gets away from the subjective view of the individual, than composition never gets discussed at all.

Paul

[paul leverington]

Hey you found them!! Nice!! It didn't sound like you had actually seen the pics from your earlier post. Great work Desmond.

Anyone who wants to get into the how's of composition would do well to study Bresson. When he was a boy he went to the art museums and spent all day. Sitting in front of ONE painting. Sometimes several days. He drank up everything he could on how that painting was created. He studied the work of those who came before him, had a fundamental understand of art composition and very often was able to catch moments in time that elude other photographers because they would/are to busy and befuddled trying to figure out the best comp for the shot to be taken with so they choked in the indicision. Bresson was riding on instinct. He thought in composition. Not subject matter but pure composition.

Not all his shots were totalwinners--how could journalistic photography ever give up choreographed comps like a painting where the artist has total control?. But he was able to capture the moment like no other--or very few others. And keep in mind the antiquated equipment of his day.1920's when he started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

If one puts those limitations aside, what is it that everyone objected too? I remember when I first picked up a book on him and was just enthralled. Some of the shots were so unbelievable as for him to catch the moment with such good comp it has served as one of my greater sources for inspiration since. I can only say people need to see more than these two shots. And take into context the time frame when they were shot a little.

****"A photograph is more than just about its composition;)"*****


Desmond --what other things are you refering to? Assuming we are sticking with the artistic type image and not the document where comp is not needed at all.

Paul

[Sid Garige]

Sid--

But not simply because you moved the bird to the left by adding canvas to the right, thereby having him exiting the shot as in the mangleson shot. There are very significant differences between your 1rst heron, his shot of the fox and then agoain that much more from your second(original) heron shot.
Paul

Agree with you on that.

Paul

To define those differences I should like to back up a second and take in a greater view of the subject matter for a second.

First is the definition of art--which I never could find an adequate definition for so I made up my own. "Art is the interface between the conscious and the subconscious mind". Through art one can communicate what's residing in his or her own subconscious, bypass the conscious, and communicate to another persons subconscious,and vice versa. Simple enough.
Paul

Paul, really well defined.

Paul

So what is it that is going to get communicated? That's the issue. And how successful will it get communicated? That depends on how sucessful the comp is. Composition is the use of tools and technique to convey what's in the subconscious mind. How powerful that may be depends on how much the artist can get the eye to travel on a journey through the picture. This is accomplished by light, line, tone, color, frame, texture, and balance. Like a chinese menu the possibilities are endless. But the trick is to get the eye moving so as to maintain interest long enough to discover what the artist wants the viewer to see and feel. This is why diagonals work so well--on a hill we move!
Paul

Very well said. Makes a lot of sense.

Paul

OK -- so what's to get communicated then? In your Heron shots for example I think it would be fair to say it's not the heron's feather detail. Not the eye contact, hunting abilities, ungainliness of those long legs, courtship displays either. The purpose of the picture is the ZOOOOOOOOOMMMM. The SWOOOOOOSHHHHHH! It's 100 % made clear in the first shot. Less so but still in the second.
Paul

Agree with you.

Paul

The things that work in no. 1 are

1) the long, streaked background has no detail to distract and implies loads of speed and feeling with the motion blur.
2) the horizontal format as opposed to the more square in number two also implies greater motion streaking from right to left in front of us by providing us with a panoramic view..
3) Number two has that extremely dark spot in the upper left hand corner which is way too commanding of a distraction robbing power big time from the overall comp. This is fairly much gone in no. 1.
4) The second shot has the bird almost centered which locks him into a state of greater stability. The second by placing the subject to one side--destablizes and creates dynamic balance---movement in other words. This could be accomplished if he was on the on the other side also. But the zoooming by feel is only accomplished with him on the left.

The point, purpose and intent of your no.1 shot is clear.
Paul

I sincerely appreciate you time and efforts on this. Excellent critic. I have to admit I did not think this deep while composing the image. Thanks again Paul.

Paul

In the fox shot by Mangleson it's not so clear. Or better said--it could be made clearer. This is more correct. If he say had taken the shot with a bit less shutter speed and the bg was more blurred with streaks as your own 1rst heron shot--not necessarily as much--but more--I think that would be a more to the point what the shot was about. As is, you need a written explanation to accompany the image to understand something about what's happening--especially if your a viewer thats knows zip about foxes and wildlife. Which direction the fox is going doesn't in the slightest matter compositionally, only the conveyance of subject is the problem here. More streaky blurred bg, or something, or dark mysterious area for him to be emerging from are but a few ideas.

Your comp works better than his(but the head angle could be better in yours just a tad);)

Paul

:)
Paul

Again--I don't say I don't like Mr. Mangelsons image--my thoughts are that it is missing a little and doesn't reach the power level that is possible. And what's it's missing is not that it doesn't have the negative space in front of the fox. It's not just clear enought what the subject of the shot is.

Again--no intent subjectively on my part to judge the shot--If one loves it than that's great. But I feel if composition discussion never gets away from the subjective view of the individual, than composition never gets discussed at all.

Paul

Thanks again Paul.

-Sid

[Desmond Chan]

Not all his shots were totalwinners--

Neither was Ansel Adam's. Those popular ones are just a few of all the Adam's photos.

****"A photograph is more than just about its composition;)"*****

Desmond --what other things are you refering to? Assuming we are sticking with the artistic type image and not the document where comp is not needed at all.

Actually, I'm not referring to a certain type of photograph in particular. Even documentary photos need composition (how can a photograph be without composition?) Even when you are taking a documentary photograph, how you arrange the elements in a photograph - by changing the perspective, selecting the lens to use, aperture, shutter speed and then deciding to crop or not afterwards - can make a difference in whether the viewers can see what you're trying to show. Then there is the content of a photograph, which is more important than composition sometimes.

[denise ippolito]

Paul, I enjoyed reading your comments. They brought up two things:

1-for those who don't know the details of the snow leopard image mentioned at least twice above, it was taken while the photographer was sleeping so I do not wish to hear about any compositional brilliance with regards to that image.

2-there are lots of open minds here. Even mine. I love the images in these two OOTBox threads:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=53699

and my very favorite: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=53088

If anyone had ever told me that I would like something created with a plug in called Fractalius I would have thought them nuts....

Thankyou Artie, I appreciate the kind words.:)

[Ian McHenry]

What matters to me is the feeling of speed and freedom, and the low camera angle raising the height above ground of the fox, together with plenty of space around it and the neat little animal itself all work for me.
I have an unposted image of a coot chasing off a duck, and both birds are towards right of frame if I leave full splash wake in edit which I was reluctant to do so far !!! Thanks for opening my eyes to other possibilities.
Ian Mc

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . I have an unposted image of a coot chasing off a duck, and both birds are towards right of frame if I leave full splash wake in edit which I was reluctant to do so far !!! . . .

That sounds similar to another situation the offcenter composition works for, which is a Skimmer most of the way through the frame with the track of its bill visible on the water behind it.

Arthur,

Re: "I do not wish to hear about any compositional brilliance." If loving what is includes even cancer and concentration camps, etc., does it not also include contrary positions on photos? ;) (which are, after all, just photos). As I alluded to with the Swift Fox, the composition works for me even if it was an accident, a failure of the composer/photographer to move fast enough to track the fox. Same thing with Steve Winter's Snow Leopards. Any one of them could be luck, but when I see his four or five strong images in WPOTY, I've got to think the guy knows what he's doing when he puts out cameras, flashes, and triggers. Those results don't seem random.

And about John Chardine's contention that opinions are influenced by the reputation of the photographer. Not the case for me, not the case I'm sure for Arthur, and not the case for many. There are photos by Mangelsen I consider technically weak, as well as many (especially his big landscapes with wildlife small in the frame) that I like far more than the Swift Fox. Similarly, I'd never heard of Steve Winter before he won WPOTY, but I instantly liked his Snow Leopards. Same for the first photos I saw from Galen Rowell or Arthur, neither of whom I'd heard of when I first saw their work (in Arthur's case, I think the first was a Black-crowned Night-Heron, in black and white, in Bird Watcher's Digest in 1987 or 1988).

[Ian McHenry]

Hi Sid
I prefer your 1st heron image to the more traditional.
More dynamic even though the 2nd looks like a cleaner image.
Ian Mc

[paul leverington]

Neither was Ansel Adam's. Those popular ones are just a few of all the Adam's photos.




Actually, I'm not referring to a certain type of photograph in particular. Even documentary photos need composition (how can a photograph be without composition?) Even when you are taking a documentary photograph, how you arrange the elements in a photograph - by changing the perspective, selecting the lens to use, aperture, shutter speed and then deciding to crop or not afterwords - can make a difference in whether the viewers can see what you're trying to show. Then there is the content of a photograph, which is more important than composition sometimes.

Desmond--

A document photo may or may not have artistic composition in it, but it's not a requirement. A document photograph by definition only states a fact and has no ambition to be anything else. A grab shot from a surveillance camera is a document photo for example. However it's not to say that a document photo can't have some or a lot of composition. But there is no need of composition. This is my understanding of it at any rate.

In an artistic photo, composition is the arrangement and use of units(elements) to achieve a working result that portrays the artists vision. The things you mention such as perspective(lens), aperture, shutter, and I'll add zoom ring, moving the camera, getting down on your belly(camera relative positon) certainly have a huge impact on the total composition. I couldn't agree with that more.

Content CAN be the most important thing about a photo--but most often it's not what the subject is that makes a great picture, it's the great composition. For the artistic image now is what I'm referring to.

If a person's goal was to get a very powerful image of a bird should that person go out looking to photograph a bird? Or should that person go out and look for a composition with a bird in it? I think this is the mistake made all to often with bird photographers. Not having beforehand intuitive knowledge of composition principles makes it almost by chance or luck that they will successfully capture a great artistic image. And that does happen sooner or later if your out there enough. And of course there are those that over a great length of time develop intuition about composition and never are able to articulate it but still can implement it.

My point is simply that if you go out to shoot a bird picture you'll get a picture of a bird. If you go out to shoot a composition your much more likely to get a picture of a bird in a great composition.

And if your composition is strong it doesn't matter so much whether the bird is a house sparrow or an eagle. Content as far as the main subject, in the artistic image, takes a back seat to a great composition. The main subject merely becomes one of the many players in the total overall composition.

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Re: "I do not wish to hear about any compositional brilliance." If loving what is includes even cancer and concentration camps, etc., does it not also include contrary positions on photos? ;) (which are, after all, just photos). As I alluded to with the Swift Fox, the composition works for me even if it was an accident, a failure of the composer/photographer to move fast enough to track the fox. Same thing with Steve Winter's Snow Leopards. Any one of them could be luck, but when I see his four or five strong images in WPOTY, I've got to think the guy knows what he's doing when he puts out cameras, flashes, and triggers. Those results don't seem random.

Part of loving what is is accepting what is and not beating the **** out of yourself as I did for so many decades and that includes beating myself up over Elaine's death (from breast cancer in 1994). I have come to understand that when someone you loves dies of cancer at least you have had quite a bit of time to tell them how much you love them. Much better than coming home and finding out that your loved one was hit by a bus and killed. I love that folks are trying different compositions even ones that do not do anything for me.

As for Steve Winters, my understanding is that locating the animals was done by the researchers over a period of years. My arguement is that setting up camera traps is a craft rather than an art. Awarding the title of Wildlife Photographer of the Year to someone who was: a- sleeping when the image was made. b-was not looking through the viewfinder when the image was made is totally bogus.

As somebody pointed out the rules state that the scene needs to accurately reflect what you saw when you looked through the viewfinder.....

[Van Hilliard]

I'm in the minority here but I like the composition even though I doubt I would have done it myself. The placement of the fox creates tension and for me it adds to the feeling of speed.

PS: I should have looked at the poll results before saying I was in the minority. The positive responses constitute a majority. As stated above, however, majority does not rule in matters of art -- except commercially, perhaps.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . As somebody pointed out the rules state that the scene needs to accurately reflect what you saw when you looked through the viewfinder. . . .

Yes, but that language appears in the section on permitted adjustments: "Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to minor cleaning work, levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work. The faithful representation of what you saw at the time of the shot being taken must be maintained." In context, they intend that to mean "no cloning," not that your eye must be at the viewfinder. In the same way, I don't think they'd disallow a shot of a swimming penguin made from a boat my holding a housed camera underwater and shooting blindly. Granted, they should change the language to say "no cloning" given that they've awarded the top prize to camera-trapped images two years in a row.

About "loving what is," I'm sorry to have mentioned cancer. I didn't think about Elaine's cancer until after I'd posted. I wasn't trying to be personal, only make the point that photo competitions are small stuff, not worth emotional stress, by comparison to much worse things Byron says we should accept. "Photographer of the Year" has always been a misnomer for "photo of the year," and subjective as that is, I think Winter's photo is worthy, though I have no intention of ever using a photo trap myself.

[Arthur Morris]

My point is that the guy did not see anything at the time that image was taken... It is obvious that we are not ever gonna agree on that one.

Maybe they should rename the contest as follows: BBC Sleeping Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.

As far as loving what is, even horrible things, perhaps this might explain her (rather Bhuddist as I am told) stance: if a woman's husband is beating the crap out of her she can love that situation as long as she sees the light and leaves (as Byron Katie would suggest that she do). And then be thankful for the beatings as they helped her see a clear course to a better life. Assuming that our ridiculously inept laws cannot protect here and she winds up getting killed by her husband when she leaves....

No sweat on the cancer. The work has helped me find peace with Elaine's death. She was a great lady. :)

[Stephen Feingold]

The success of an image has to do with its message and audience. This image when viewed in the context of the written message it appears with tells the story. This is a species on its way out. This placement is frequently used in journalistic portraiture to signal the later phase of life. The composition used makes you feel uncomfortable. Therefore it is a success.

[Desmond Chan]

The success of an image has to do with its message and audience. This image when viewed in the context of the written message it appears with tells the story.

The question is: can the viewers get the message without the caption?

I believe some photos do better with captions. Is this one of them?

[Stephen Feingold]

While nature photographers often quote the dictum ‘there are no rules of composition’, they often judge a nature image by the ‘rules of composition’. Just because the subject is a fox does not mean the image must be judged strictly as a nature image. When the content is editorial you judge the image by the message. Sometimes this means the image is not beautiful or requires knowledge of the subject not apparent in the image. And sometimes a caption is needed for education. You may not like the image for esthetic reasons, but like it for the message.
Fine art and advertising photographers are constantly abandoning compositional guidelines successfully to get the viewer to look at an image or direct you to look at the product in the image. When we look at such images we often blame the composition when we do not like them. I have often been to camera club photo competitions where the horizon of a landscape image is placed in the center. When the judge does not like the image it is called static; when he likes it then it is peaceful. The judge is interpreting the message. And sometimes he is blind to the reason for the composition. Sometimes the judge will say this is a beautiful landscape, too bad the horizon is in the center. We sometimes judge an image to be bad because it violates a guideline of composition despite its merits. And sometimes we do not even see the merits because of this prejudice.