Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Woeller]

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

[Andrew Merwin]

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

[John Chardine]

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

[Arthur Morris]

Clean: having an uncluttered background and foreground

Graphic: having strongly defined compositional elements

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

[Hilary Hann]

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

When folks post an image of a bird perched in a jumble of sticks where you can barely see the subject and defend their work by saying that they were only "photographing what was there," I do try to make the point that what is there in nature does not always make a good photograph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This may be true for the amateur photographer but surely won't get you very far as a professional where selling your vision and product is quite an important part of financial success.

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

[Hilary Hann]

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

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

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Hillary,

re:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This is the only forum

Which fourm???

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

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

[Hilary Hann]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't see that I was blaming anyone at all, and feel rather offended that you would think my comments were 'blaming'. Please point me to the exact phrase that blames other members?

But no matter which one you are referring to I will disagree pretty strongly :)

Great, go for it!

[Arthur Morris]

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

So thanks for the compliment!

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

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

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

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

[Hilary Hann]

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

Just one point and not to be argumentative at all but

You are saying that if folks do not appreciate a given image or if others state that an image would be better off in OOTB that the posters will re-assess and perhaps send it straight to OOTB. From where I sit you are clearly blaming the folks who are offering their opinions.

I disagree with this assertion. I think the folks offering their opinions are doing what they should do. I am more inclined to think that the other photographers are trying to learn where best to place their image for the most feed back. So I would say that they are learning from what happens to other images and make an educated decision on where to post their photos. Is that good or bad? Neither. Just that it may (not necessarily will) result in a narrower field of view. I'm probably quite wrong … it happens.

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

[Desmond Chan]

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

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

[Steven Kersting]

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

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

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

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

My 2c

[Hilary Hann]

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

You are quite correct, my comment was an unnecessary throw away line which I shouldn't have made. My apologies.

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

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

My 2c

What question?

[Desmond Chan]

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

[Steven Kersting]

What question?

"Tight or Wide?"

[Roger Clark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger

[Andrew Merwin]

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

[Steven Kersting]

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Merwin]

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

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

[Desmond Chan]

"No, the critiques are too formulated so everything is the same and there is little room for new vision."

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

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

Sometimes an image has impact even if it has a "flaw" that was real in nature. But these days an image must be "perfect." I won't clone out the stick, but that is me.

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

[Desmond Chan]

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

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

[Steven Kersting]

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

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

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

[Steven Kersting]

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

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

[Desmond Chan]

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

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

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



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

[Arthur Morris]

"Tight or Wide?"

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

Says who? Must be perfect why?

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

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

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

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

[Daniel Cadieux]

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

What makes a great natural history image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roger Clark]

What makes a great natural history image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Roger. So I forgot light

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

ps: thanks for including the quote.

[Roger Clark]

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

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

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

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

Roger

[Charles Scheffold]

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

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

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

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

thanks
Charles

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

Roger

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

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

[Daniel Cadieux]

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

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

[Roger Clark]

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

Says who? Must be perfect why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger

[Roger Clark]

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

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

Roger

[Daniel Cadieux]

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

Nobody says it directly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images are about lots of things.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree.

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

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

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

Among other things.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Roger[/QUOTE]

[Arthur Morris]

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

Thanks Dan. My thoughts exactly. You just use fewer words than I do :)

[Arthur Morris]

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

:) I figgered that.

[Paul Guris]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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