Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Paul, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am always doing my best. As you noted, when I see a mis-guided or mis-leading critique, I open my mouth. As for folks mis-construing what I say, I am not sure what I can do about that (refrain from commenting?), or what can be done to prevent it (reading comprehension skills courses mandatory?).

As for the"what's that grass doing around the bittern?" comment I will assume that you are either exaggerating to make a point or in a rare case, dealing with someone totally ignorant.

Beginner or not, you seem to have your ducks in a row. Open you mouth and become part of the solution. Contribute towards making this place even better.

As much as I would like to, I cannot comment even on every single image in Avian, much less on the whole site. If more folks who feel as you do would comment in a like manner, things can improve rapidly (at least where you see a need for improvement). The only way to get things done around here is one comment at a time :) I think that this will be 17,796 for me so I have been trying.

[Paul Guris]

As you noted, when I see a mis-guided or mis-leading critique, I open my mouth. As for folks mis-construing what I say, I am not sure either what I can do about that (refrain from commenting?), or what can be done to prevent it (reading comprehension skills courses mandatory?).

There's nothing you can do unless you see somebody misinterpret you. "Artie says the bird has to look at the camera or the picture sucks" would more than likely elicit a reaction from you if you saw the comment. This is where the group approach should help keep things under control when you're not looking.

Beginner or not, you seem to have your ducks in a row. Open you mouth and become part of the solution. Contribute towards making the place better.

I do, particularly on "Eager to Learn" where I feel more comfortable, but when I'm offline it's more an issue of time than willingness. BTW, creating an "Eager to Learn" forum was an excellent idea.

As much as I would like to, I cannot comment even on every single image in Avian, much less on the whole site.

Nor should you. The thing that makes this site what it is is not that it's the Artie Morris Show (tm), but rather that there's an incredibly deep bench of talent and experience here. In my five months here it has given me a much more critical eye, helped my technique, helped my post processing, and made me a better photographer.

Like Roger (but at a totally different level), I've found that I end up visiting very few other places for information on bird photography. There's really only one other, and I've found the general photography sites' nature or bird forums to be wanting. They can be fine for gear chats, but are not really great for nature photography techniques.

One thing I'd like to add, and that is that I do see lots of "if it were mine", "you might consider", "I think I'd probably" type of lead-ins which soften the critiques a little without neutering them. Expertise and good approach are the signs of good teachers. And to those willing to take the time to re-process a posted image for illustration purposes (not uncommon here), that is well above and beyond the call of duty and greatly appreciated.

[Arthur Morris]

All good :)

[Jay Gould]

The title of this thread is: Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

I think the title could have been/has evolved into: What is "Perfection" and when and how is it applied?

OR

What is a Flaw and when and how is it determined?

The stick, the whole stick, and nothing but the stick.......

Justice Stewart in another context said "I know it when I see it."

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Roger, since you do not consider the stick a flaw, is the image "perfect" by your definition?

Those of us that are here to learn from Roger, Artie, Daniel, and others, need to understand your respective definitions of the concepts being used.

Roger, if I said that from this discussion Artie has a higher standard of perfection and greatness than you, what would be your reaction?

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

Of course, that is part of the great learning experience provided by BPN.

I will conclude by adding my novice critique of the image:

It would be interesting to see this image in a large format. In the small format as presented your vision cannot exclude the stick no matter how much I try and "stare" at the lower birds eyes which, for me, is what the story is all about. The image may be called "The Kiss"; it could have been called "The Eyes".The lower bird's eyes looking up is where the emotion is centered; the upper bird's eye is not necessarily looking down.

In this small format the stick is troublesome. Yes, the light is spot on (no pun intended), the IQ is very high, the dark background beautifully sets off the birds, and the bloody stick is a "flaw" as presented in this format.

Roger, please post a larger format of this image for our viewing pleasure.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Jay,

I will comment on a few relevant points as I have an early flight tomorrow :)

re:

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

No, of course not.

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?
I will shock everyone here who has not read what I wrote carefully by saying yes.

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Because as you say below it draws the viewers eye from better stuff....

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

"What is" is usually imperfect.

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous.

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

No. Nor are any needed. If an image is good it is good. And therefore it is art.

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

That is always true definitions or not. Or just consider all of the comments and take away whatever you wish to.

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
Here is my response.
(Below, Jay = black text, Artie= purple, Roger= green)

Can an image be "perfect" and still have a "flaw"?

No, of course not. I agree with Artie.

Can an image be "great" and still have a "flaw"?
I will shock everyone here who has not read what I wrote carefully by saying yes.
I agree with Artie.

Why is the stick even considered a "flaw"?

Because as you say below it draws the viewers eye from better stuff....
I don't consider it a flaw.

Artie, if I said that the image is "perfect" because it is what is it is - the stick was there and to capture the eyes you needed to shoot from that exact location, what would be your reaction?

"What is" is usually imperfect. Perhaps

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.

Is it possible for you "teachers" to reach some agreed definitions of "Flaws", "Perfection" and "Greatness" for us "students"?

No. Nor are any needed. If an image is good it is good. And therefore it is art.
I agree with Artie. Because we are discussing subjective ideas we can each have a different view and that is OK.

If the answer in "no", and that is OK too, then us "students" are forced to choose image by image, critique by critique, whose critiques we accept.

That is always true definitions or not. Or just consider all of the comments and take away whatever you wish to.
I agree.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Rog, That is a lot of agreeing for us :) Good to see.

Byron Katie (www.thework.com) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.... I agree, except when speaking of photography!

[Jay Gould]

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.

Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

Artie said:

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.

Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

[Paul Guris]

Byron Katie (www.thework.com) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.

And Tom Lehrer (or his friend Hen3ry ... the 3 is silent) would say "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it all depends upon what you put into it."

Sorry. Zenesque quotes tend to lead me in the direction of philosophers like Tom Lehrer, Frank Zappa, Chris Rock, and Monty Python.

[Cody Covey]

Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

Artie said:

Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

I think what Artie is trying to say is that no image is perfect but there are many great images. An image doesn't have to be perfect to be great but from your quote you are calling the image perfect and asking if it can be great. While Artie is saying that an image can't be perfect but can still be great. It sounds like a miscommunication to me.

[Roger Clark]

Rogrer: Nobody says it directly

Art: 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 :)

Artie,
I can't find anywhere where I said people say an image must be perfect. People do not have to say something to prove their actions. Actions speak louder than words.

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

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

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

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

I'm OK with that. We can disagree. The stick need not be ignored. It adds dimensionality

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

Art: 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.

That may be true here on BPN. Like I said in my first response, in my opinion, the people on BPN are top relative to other forums. But that doesn't mean perfect!

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

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

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

Art: 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.

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

Art: 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 was not referring to you when I said "search out any little imperfection, often forgetting the greater picture" but this does happen on BPN by others.

Roger: 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.

Art: 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.

I think you are being inconsistent here. In your response to Jay you said an image does not have to be perfect to be great, but here you say it can't be great if it is not perfect. You say if you only had to post perfect images, you would have no images to post. The logical conclusion is that if an image is not perfect it can't be great, and if you have no perfect images, then you have no great images. I don't believe that is true. So now we get into what is perfection? Perhaps people have different definitions of perfection just as they might what is great.

Roger: I don't consider the stick a flaw.

Art: 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.

This is a very interesting question. The answer has to do with my evolving views of photography in the digital era.

Early on in the digital era (scanned film days before DSLRs) I did experiment with editing in/out components to an image. This continued into the first DSLRs and with DSLRs I started doing more wildlife photography (because no film costs; I was primarily a large format landscape photographer). In the early to mid 2000's my views started to change. My efforts began changing to get it (wildlife) right in camera (as I did with a view camera and landscapes) and not add/subtract any components after acquisition. I would take 30 to 45 minutes to compose and set up a 4x5 view camera landscape image. With wildlife action, as you know, decisions must sometimes be made in a fraction of a second. I look at those rapid decisions as a challenge. I do believe in cropping, contrast stretching, and dodge and burn to emphasize components (following from my darkroom work). As my wildlife image inventory grew, I considered it more a challenge to get the image in the field rather than clean/fix the image in post. So, when I obtained the GBH image in 2006, I knew when I acquired the image that the stick was in the way. This image was at the Venice Rookery toward the south end of the pond in late afternoon after all the other photographers had left. I would have moved to the right but there is a large bush by the water and on the other side of the bush, distracting elements were in the background. So, in the field I worked the position and acquired the cleanest image. If the bush by the bank was not there, yes, I would have moved over and the stick would not be in front of the bird's body. But after seeing the image, I like the stick! Like most images, a small web image does not deliver the impact. I have a 16x20-inch lightjet print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. The eyes and highlights in the bird's feathers simply glow on this print and people's eyes are not drawn to the stick. But the stick adds to the 3-dimensionality of the image in my view, and that is why I like the stick.

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?

Like I said above, in the field I tried to minimize the impact of the stick. But after seeing the impact of the stick, I prefer the stick! To me the stick has opened my eyes from the "imperfect perfection of perceived images to reality." It is OK to disagree.

I would not have liked the stick if it crossed in front of a neck or face. In fact if that were the case, I would not have taken then image.

Great debate!

Roger

[Roger Clark]

OK, another take on what has been discussed so far. We've touched on is BPN too formula?

I searched through the last month and a half (approx), back 13 pages to see if I could find a certain type of image. I could find few what I would call dramatic lighting. There are a few silhouettes, but few high phase angle images. Phase angle is the angle between the sun and the camera as seen by the subject. The mantra is "point your shadow at the subject." That is a low angle between the photographer and the sun as viewed by the subject.

A rare exception is:
Brown Fish Owl

by Ramesh Anantharaman posted on March 3. But check the critique of his image. People don't like the lighting. But in my view, going through pages of BPN bird images, people predominantly, in the images posted, "point their shadows at the subject," obtaining flat images.

Low phase angle has several properties:

1) the subject is brighter (shorter exposure times)
2) few shadows mean less contrast
3) low contrast enables colors to show nicely.

But very low phase angle (less than about 15 degrees) has other detrimental properties, including:

4) increased first surface reflection which actually reduces color intensity,
5) reduced perception of form,
6) reduced perception of texture. Thus, #5+6 = flat image.

High phase angle, e.g. 90 degrees (sun of to your left or right) greatly increases shadows and contrast and that high contrast plays havoc with color perception, unless there is fill light (reflected from clouds of other objects)

But there is an optimum in between these extremes in my experience. If the phase angle is about 30 degrees (give or take some tens) you get some shading which adds form to 3-dimensional subjects, both on the large scale (e.g. a bird's head) and on the fine scale (e.g. feathers) thus adding texture. At these intermediate phase angles, first surface reflections are actually lower so color is actually enhanced. So you gain color, form, and texture.

So I think there is evidence on BPN that a preponderance of posted bird images are made at too low a phase angle (point your shadow at the subject; e.g. too formula). More variety is needed in my opinion. Try pointing your shadow a little way from the subject, though still in the same general direction (30 degrees if you can estimate that). Try for more form and texture, as well as color. Of course, in all this the light is key, and other details are important, like head angle, connection with the subject, etc. And in some cases, try higher phase angles and the strong shadows.

Roger

[Desmond Chan]

So I think there is evidence on BPN that a preponderance of posted bird images are made at too low a phase angle (point your shadow at the subject; e.g. too formula).

It seems to me though other bird photogs would tell you the same thing. I don't know why it's the best way or may be they all learned from the same teacher. Some people think I'm joking when I ask:" how do you like your driver license photograph?" But, your driver license photo follows that very "formula", i.e., frontal lighting, clean background, subject fills the frame nicely (presumably ), no distracting element whatsoever. Great image?

Try pointing your shadow a little way from the subject, though still in the same general direction (30 degrees if you can estimate that). Try for more form and texture, as well as color.

That's pretty much what a basic photography book, lighting book will tell you if you want to show form and texture, and frontal lighting is the worst kind of lighting to do that.


If I may ask another question about light: why mixed lights (at least what I was told on ETL here) is not good for bird photograph?

[Jay Gould]

In your response to Jay you said an image does not have to be perfect to be great, but here you say it can't be great if it is not perfect. You say if you only had to post perfect images, you would have no images to post. The logical conclusion is that if an image is not perfect it can't be great, and if you have no perfect images, then you have no great images. I don't believe that is true. So now we get into what is perfection? Perhaps people have different definitions of perfection just as they might what is great.

Frankly, I think that summarizes this whole debate.

Roger, you have invited a whole different debate for what should be a different thread: Where Should The Light Come From?

And, isn't it different for different types of photography, e.g., birds/wildlife and landscape, and isn't it different for different types of stories, e.g., frontal lighting will tell a very different story than lighting at 45 or 90 degrees.

Are you seeking even illumination or are you seeking contrasts and shading?

[Jay Gould]

OK, as an aside, how are you taking a single line from a long post and including the author of the post in the quotation brackets?

[Harshad Barve]

Wow , Some great photog sharing thoughts here , I looking forward to learn more and more which I am doing since I joined BPN

[Arthur Morris]

Jay,

re

Artie, Roger, anyone: If I said the image was "perfect"; however, it because of the stick it did not rise to the level of "greatness", is that an acceptable distinction?

No, it is ridiculous. I agree with Artie.
Sorry, but I must ask why is it ridiculous?

I have already stated that for me the stick is a (serious) flaw....

Artie said:

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.
Artie you produce a substantial number, in my amateur opinion, of images that rise to the level of "greatness".

Yet, I am interpreting your "ridiculous" comment to mean that a "flawed" image cannot also be a "great" image.

Images with small flaws (if you will) can still be great.

Artie, there are currently three "great" images (in my amateur opinion) on your online Fine Art Canvass Prints BAA page. By your own admission that if you only posted perfect images you would not have a single image to post, ergo, these three images are not "perfect". Are you also saying they are not "Great" with a capital "G"?

I said "I do not think..." If may have been wrong :) [/COLOR]

I think they are Great images (if I lived in a home with walls they would hang on my walls), and I also think that what you, at your exceptionally high level, would consider imperfect, others would consider perfect.

Could be.

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

It is what it is.

[Arthur Morris]

I think what Artie is trying to say is that no image is perfect but there are many great images. An image doesn't have to be perfect to be great but from your quote you are calling the image perfect and asking if it can be great. While Artie is saying that an image can't be perfect but can still be great. It sounds like a miscommunication to me.

Well said Cody. There is a lot of semantical hair-splitting going on here :)

[Harshad Barve]

Guruji
I have one question,

As a nature photog , which should be important for us , Better picture with everything perfect or may be lesser techs but great moment

This may sound idiotic question but to whom else I can ask

[Arthur Morris]

Though I regret it, I simply do not have time to respond to many relevant comments above as I gotta get on a plane soon :) And then I will be quite busy with 12 non-stop days of teaching on the Homer Bald Eagle IPTs :)

I do need to comment on the light issue. I am fine working 10-15 degrees off of sun angle, especially when the light is soft. In backlit situations, I like working with the sun, the subject, and me on the same line; doing so produces the most intense backlighting/silhouetting.

With beginning folks making images like this --please do take the time to check it out, I need to simplify things by telling/teaching them to "point there shadow at the subject."

To all those(Roger and Desmond in particular) taking pot-shots at the teaching I have been doing here for 2+ years and elsewhere for more than two decades (do know that I am fine with that and loving it for reasons that I shall keep to myself), I say, "You disagree with what I am teaching/saying, take the lead, start posting more and disagree with what I have to say." That way all of the sheep might quit following me blindly :)

[Jay Gould]

To you the stick is a flaw and results in an imperfect image; to Roger the stick is not a flaw and does not detract from whether or not the image is perfect.

It is what it is.

No way Jose are you getting away with "it is what it is" in this context!

Apparently, you and I share a common philosophy approached from different avenues. You, Byron Katie; Me, Landmark Education (http://www.landmarkeducation.com/).

Byron Katie (www.thework.com) would say that everything that "is," is perfect as is.... I agree, except when speaking of photography!

If the stick "is what it is", then the stick is not a "flaw" in a photograph, it is a stick in a photograph, and your story is that the location of this stick makes it a flaw in the photograph and takes away from perfection.

It is not "it is what it is"; it is "your story of what is" and your story equates to a flawed photograph.

For Roger, the stick "is what it is" and he does not choose to create a story that the stick is a flaw in his photograph.

There is a lot of semantical hair-splitting going on here :)

At this juncture, this is not semantical hair-splitting; it is a discussion of the application of different philosophies in the determination of flaws and perfection in photography.

Thank you very much for starting and participating in this debate/discussion. I think we are all learning significantly from you and from Roger how we might - there is no "should" - view our own images.

[Arthur Morris]

Guruji
I have one question,

As a nature photog , which should be important for us , Better picture with everything perfect or may be lesser techs but great moment

This may sound idiotic question but to whom else I can ask

Easy question. Trying to capture the great moment should be #1 as long as the resulting image is good enough to make us smile. For example, if a Tiger is ripping apart some helpless prey behind a wall of vegetation is in the clear but 90 degrees off of bright sun angle I will not waste my time pushing the shutter button knowing that the resulting images would not make me happy. I try to make very good or great images every time that I push the button. I do not try to create perfect images. There are very, very few of them around :)

[Jay Gould]

Mate, have a great and safe trip!

[Harshad Barve]

. I do not try to create perfect images. There are very, very few of them around :)

Thanks for this and have a great trip

[Roger Clark]

Though I regret it, I simply do not have time to respond to many relevant comments above as I gotta get on a plane soon :) And then I will be quite busy with 12 non-stop days of teaching on the Homer Bald Eagle IPTs :)

I do need to comment on the light issue. I am fine working 10-15 degrees off of sun angle, especially when the light is soft. In backlit situations, I like working with the sun, the subject, and me on the same line; doing so produces the most intense backlighting/silhouetting.

With beginning folks making images like this --please do take the time to check it out, I need to simplify things by telling/teaching them to "point there shadow at the subject."

To all those(Roger and Desmond in particular) taking pot-shots at the teaching I have been doing here for 2+ years and elsewhere for more than two decades (do know that I am fine with that and loving it for reasons that I shall keep to myself), I say, "You disagree with what I am teaching/saying, take the lead, start posting more and disagree with what I have to say." That way all of the sheep might quit following me blindly :)

Artie,
No problem on the trip. Please feel no pressure here. Have a great trip and we can pick up when ypu get back.

I'm really not trying to take potshots. When I was going through he 13 pages of bird images, I would scan down the thumbails looking for what may be great images and without looking at the author. What I found interesting is that I was pulling up a lot of your images, probably more than everyone else combined. So you are doing something the others are not. Then I started looking at the other images and find them too flat. Perhaps there are other issues I missed in a quick review. So perhaps in your simplification of explanation, people are taking you literally and to the extreme, resulting in very flat images. And because there are so many of them, it actually gets boring in my opinion. Maybe its time to raise the complexity and push people to the next level. Or maybe you have observations/ideas of what separates your images.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

OK, as an aside, how are you taking a single line from a long post and including the author of the post in the quotation brackets?

Jay,
For example, the above quote begins with "QUOTE=Jay Gould;648697" in square brackets. Then at the end, a "/QUOTE" in square brackets. I simply copy the start quote and end quote to the lines I want to quote.

Artie does colors, but I see no way to do that here on BPN. So I copy the text to another editor (e.g my email compose a subject) and do the colors there, then paste it back into my reply.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Frankly, I think that summarizes this whole debate.

Roger, you have invited a whole different debate for what should be a different thread: Where Should The Light Come From?

And, isn't it different for different types of photography, e.g., birds/wildlife and landscape, and isn't it different for different types of stories, e.g., frontal lighting will tell a very different story than lighting at 45 or 90 degrees.

Are you seeking even illumination or are you seeking contrasts and shading?

Jay,
It could certainly be a different thread, although the subject line includes photographic style.

Where does the light come from in different types of photography? I'm not sure it is different for different types of photography. I think each type depends on what you want to convey in each case. There is a preponderance in wildlife photography to be front lit. But I'm beginning to think this has been taken to an extreme. One would rarely, if ever, point your shadow at a landscape scene, for example. Or if you do, the result will be a very flat image. Same with wildlife. Are you trying to make the image appear flat? How flat? There are degrees.

Then we get into positive and negative phase angles. To show form, you need negative phase angles so you see the shadows. Positive and negative phase angles are defined here (figure 3):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ition.subject/

If you want even light but still show some form (not really flat) being a few degrees off of point your shadow at the subject will begin to add form and texture while still maintaining mostly even light. It is a different photographic style.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Here is an example of what I have been talking about. This is a portrait of a sandhill crane with a phase angle of 20 to 30 degrees by Troy Lin. The image shows wonderful form, texture, and color with great light.
Sandhill Crane Close Up


Note also all the nice comments by others.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

A few things while on-line during a 4 hour layover at MINN/St. Paul with my pal Jim Heupel.

Thanks for understanding my comments Roger, and thanks for the kind words about my images.

Relevant to your comments in Pane #75, I have often said but rarely written that there is something that goes into a good bird photograph that is not easily defined or described that sets one image or a set of images aside and above others of the same bird.... I have theorized that perhaps it has something to do with the connection of the photographer to the subject. I am not sure what it is but I know that I have it :) (he said modestly).

Most times when there are ten folks with the same lens and camera all photographing the same bird for 30 minutes a single image will stand out as best from the entire collection. Nine times out of ten it will be one of mine.... If I could figure out what it is, I would bottle it and sell it :)

I am fine with the thread going off on various tangents. In fact I enjoy them as much as those that stay right on target.

As for the potshots, they are often not intentional :) I am used to those and to the intentional ones and to far worse however so no hard feelings at all :) I never take them personally and I see them as compliments.

[Paul Guris]

Sandhill Crane Close Up

Roger, I can't see an image or link.

[William Malacarne]

Roger, I can't see an image or link.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...Crane-Close-Up

Bill

[Jay Gould]

Then we get into positive and negative phase angles. To show form, you need negative phase angles so you see the shadows. Positive and negative phase angles are defined here (figure 3):
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ition.subject/

Roger, I have read this article a couple of times; just read it again.

Everyone, do not be put off, if you are, by Roger's understated reference that you can find some definitions in the linked article.

This is a wonderful article on Light, Composition, and Subject approached both from a gentle scientific perspective and from a photographer's perspective. Absolutely take the time to read this article.

And, while you are at it, take the time to browse Roger's website. It is, for my money, the best website available for both information, and spectacular images to prick your creative imagination.

[Desmond Chan]

To all those(Roger and Desmond in particular) taking pot-shots at the teaching I have been doing...

Ooops ! Yikes

Sorry that my responses came across that way, Artie, but I had no intention of taking pot-shots at your style or teaching. As you said, you've been doing it for years with great results, it's certainly a style that works and works well. However, I do wonder, question and analyze. Just my way of learning.

And I still don't know why mixed lights is not good for bird photograph

[Jay Gould]

Most times when there are ten folks with the same lens and camera all photographing the same bird for 30 minutes a single image will stand out as best from the entire collection. Nine times out of ten it will be one of mine.... If I could figure out what it is, I would bottle it and sell it :)

Answer: Magnetism and Mana; the birds sense that you are there to capture and present them to the World in their best light!

FYI, "Mana is an indigenous Pacific islander concept of an impersonal force or quality that resides in people, animals, and (debatably) inanimate objects. The word is a cognate in many Oceanic languages, including Melanesian, Polynesian, and Micronesian.

In anthropological discourse, mana as a generalized concept is often understood as a precursor to formal religion. It has commonly been interpreted as "the stuff of which magic is formed," as well as the substance of which souls are made" https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mana

[Mark Young]

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.

I've noticed somethings that really confuse me about professional avian images.

Case in point; We have a bloke over here by the name of Steve Parish. A well known landscape and animal photographer. But I've noticed his images of birds are not what I would classify as being up to the level of photographers on this site. I find his images are over-saturated, the HA is such that the bird is looking away from the camera, the bird is more often than not in amongst vegetation and not displayed in what you would call a visually pleasing or clean manner. I rarely see an image of a bird that's in a book or a calender that he has taken that I like. Yet he's probably our most famous wildlife photographer.

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

[Jay Gould]

Hi Mate,

I think it is both. Lots of Australians are stuck on "Buy Australia"; right or wrong, such limitation is the subject of another debate. Tourists all want to "Buy Australia".

Now, how many Australian photographers are producing the enormous amount of material that Steve is producing? A quick of Steve's website reveals hundreds of items with his photographs; a catalog of "almost half a million" images.

The other side of the coin: the average buyer isn't overly fussed about the things that buyers and producers of fine art photographs of any subject are concerned about as we are on BPN.

Yet, his images are priced the same as Artie's price list.

[Desmond Chan]

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

The way I see it, it is just different way of photographing, presenting the same subjects, just like there're different ways to shoot human portraits, landscapes, sport photos, etc., etc.

I do think there're things that nobody cares about but are obsessed by photographers. Not saying that there's something wrong with the photographers or the rest of the world but just think that's true.

I also think that artist should have an open mind, is willing to explore different ideas, and not afraid to think out-of-the-box.

[Mark Young]

The way I see it, it is just different way of photographing, presenting the same subjects, just like there're different ways to shoot human portraits, landscapes, sport photos, etc., etc.

I do think there're things that nobody cares about but are obsessed by photographers. Not saying that there's something wrong with the photographers or the rest of the world but just think that's true.

I also think that artist should have an open mind, is willing to explore different ideas, and not afraid to think out-of-the-box.

True, otherwise we would all arrive at a place in our photography where it would become routine and monotonous.
But aren't we also redefining the box and then saying to others, 'Here's my box, I like it and I think your box would be better if your box looked more like my box'?

What I like about this site is the high quality of images posted here. I like that people are freely willing to share their experience and knowledge. I like that my images have improved hugely since I started posting here as a result. But they've improved because I've looked at other peoples' boxes and reshaped my box to look more like their box.
I've taken onboard elements like HA, correct exposure, being mindful of distracting elements, clean bg's etc etc and it's been really satisfying for me to produce a better quality of image than I previously could manage.

But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously? Or is it a case of 'You can only break the rules once you know the rules and when and how to break them'? But first the rules must be first learnt and understood before that can happen?

[Mark Young]

Hi Mate,

I think it is both. Lots of Australians are stuck on "Buy Australia"; right or wrong, such limitation is the subject of another debate. Tourists all want to "Buy Australia".

Now, how many Australian photographers are producing the enormous amount of material that Steve is producing? A quick of Steve's website reveals hundreds of items with his photographs; a catalog of "almost half a million" images.

The other side of the coin: the average buyer isn't overly fussed about the things that buyers and producers of fine art photographs of any subject are concerned about as we are on BPN.

Yet, his images are priced the same as Artie's price list.

Yeh, I think we have a different mentality over here to the US way of thinking. There are pros and con's to both, but I sometimes feel like we've thrown out the baby with the bath water in our reaction sometimes.

I should start my own Calendar! A shorebird a month!

[Hilary Hann]

Mark, with Steve Parrish it is all about the marketing. He has a publishing business and gets his stuff out there. How many of us can possibly manage that I wonder. If you want an Aussie souvenir involving photos, his images will be the first you see.

Marketing, marketing.

[Desmond Chan]

But aren't we also redefining the box and then saying to others, 'Here's my box, I like it and I think your box would be better if your box looked more like my box'?

Well, I definitely know people who do not like most that is shown here. Why? Not natural, to them, as stunning and amazing as some photos here appear to be. Perhaps it's like some people like soccer and while other like ruby. Some fans like both while other you'd have a hard time to get them to watch the other guy's game

But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously?

Would it be backward only if you think what you were is inferior? Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out thee, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

[Mark Young]

Mark, with Steve Parrish it is all about the marketing. He has a publishing business and gets his stuff out there. How many of us can possibly manage that I wonder. If you want an Aussie souvenir involving photos, his images will be the first you see.

Marketing, marketing.

Sorry if I sounded like I was beating on Steve, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I guess he worked hard to get where he is, and good on him for doing it. It's just that in comparison to the images seen here and other sites, there is a notable difference.

Well, I definitely know people who do not like most that is shown here. Why? Not natural, to them, as stunning and amazing as some photos here appear to be. Perhaps it's like some people like soccer and while other like ruby. Some fans like both while other you'd have a hard time to get them to watch the other guy's game

I've had similar conversations, and I sometimes agree with that point of view, but I'ld have to say that what is natural is all a matter of the perspective of the person viewing the image.
Case in point, I took this image 11 months ago with my 400D and 70-300mm lens on a cheap $70 tripod. At the time I was super stoked as it was THE best shorebird image I had taken to date. But when I posted it on a forum, not this one, I got some negative comments about how unnatural it looked. I was flabbergasted because it looked exactly like how I saw it lying down in the mud! I later reflected that people probably thought it looked un-natural because they haven't been in the mud looking at it from my point of view.

Would it be backward only if you think what you were is inferior? Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out thee, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

I think that what I am learning here is THE way for me now, but whether that stays that way I don't know. I reckon there is still lots more to learn whether it's here or there or somewhere else I wont know until I push the boundaries of what I already know and seek out newer options.

[Doug Herr]

I've noticed somethings that really confuse me about professional avian images.

Case in point; We have a bloke over here by the name of Steve Parish. A well known landscape and animal photographer. But I've noticed his images of birds are not what I would classify as being up to the level of photographers on this site. I find his images are over-saturated, the HA is such that the bird is looking away from the camera, the bird is more often than not in amongst vegetation and not displayed in what you would call a visually pleasing or clean manner. I rarely see an image of a bird that's in a book or a calender that he has taken that I like. Yet he's probably our most famous wildlife photographer.

So while we are putting in so much time and effort to learn to create pleasing and wonderful images that have great BG's, HA's, the exposure is correct, the bird is presented in such a pleasing manner, it seems that the public don't seem to care about this and will buy the Steve Parish Bird Calendar with it's over saturated Lorikeets and the like.
Is it because there isn't that much competition over here and he has the market cornered, or is it because the public isn't overly fussed about the things we obsess about?

IMHO selling photographs is as much about selling as it is about photographs.

[Arthur Morris]

Are you sure what you're learning here is THE way and there's nothing more to learn out there, not now, not in the future? If you think that way, would you not be trapping yourself inside a box?

Desmond, After reading what I have written here, encouraging folks to develop their own style, asking which is best, wide or tight, I am puzzled as to why you would infer that we are teaching only one way to photograph nature.

[Arthur Morris]

On the matter of becoming a famous professional and selling images. I explain that by way of something that I call the Wizard of Oz syndrome. The Wizard sat behind the curtain and told folks that he was this powerful wizard. He was so sure of himself that soon everyone believed him. There are some pros here and elsewhere who have done the same thing. I am this great and talented and all-knowing professional photographer. They keep saying it loud and often. Until it is accepted as fact. When you look at the body of work of any professional, ask yourself, "What is their style? Can I think of a single image or two or three that stick in my mind as timelessly beautiful, dramatic, or exciting?

If the answer is "No," then you are probably dealing with a Wizard of Oz professional.

Lastly, as I wrote as early as in the original ABP, the quality of your images is about #6 on the list of factors that determines the success of those wanting to market their work. The first and second being the willingness to work hard and the person's determination to succeed.

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, After reading what I have written here, encouraging folks to develop their own style, asking which is best, wide or tight, I am puzzled as to why you would infer that we are teaching only one way to photograph nature.

Artie, I was only responding to Mark Young's

"But if I think outside of that box that defines to me the elements I've come to see as being critical for making nice pleasing images (and I wish I could do it on a regular basis), if I ignore those important components am I then taking a step backwards to where I was previously?"

I was simply suggesting that he was right only if what he's learning here and now is the only way(s) that work(s). I'm not saying that he's only learning one particular way and no more here.

And BPN does have an outside-the-box forum here

Hope this clarifies, Artie.

[Arthur Morris]

Desmond, Okie dokie :)

[Arthur Morris]

Which is the better image: wide (here) or tight (see next Pane)?

[Arthur Morris]

Which is the better image: wide (previous Pane) or tight (here)?

[Charles Glatzer]

Artie,

Below is from an article I wrote 10 years ago... it continues to define my photographic approach.

My success as a commercial photographer has been characterized by my ability to see and understand light. Wildlife photography is the same without exception.
Light quantity, quality and direction should be assessed independently, although together they render the image. The amount of illumination determines the exposure, while the quality and direction of the light source relative to my position renders the scene and subject as viewed.
Being aware of the lighting direction relative to the subject will allow you to choose a camera position that will enhance your unique vision, as well as the subject. "Light Illuminates, Shadow Defines"

I always make a point of saying...there is no right or wrong, it is simply a matter of different strokes for different folks. And, certainly nothing anyone says should be taken as Gospel. Myself included!

Your Av/Eval, point your shadow at the subject, get low methodology has provided a solid foundation for thousands of bird photographers over the course of many years. And, is responsible for countless thousands of stunning images to boot!!!! I have seen a transition in your methods over the last few years as you incorporate new technologies and techniques to the betterment of both teacher and student.

Best Amigo, and Continued Success

Chas