Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

[Charles Glatzer]

Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

To answer your original question... I say shoot both, and more. If the subject is cooperative I always suggest photog's shoot at least 4 images, vert, horz, close-up, and environmental. I think it is prudent to try to make the most of each encounter, walking away from said encounter with as much diversity as possible. Especially, if your goal is to sell images!

Regards,

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Artie,
My answer is both. For me it is not either/or, as each image has its own merits. They are also very different, one a high key landscape image; the other a bird portrait.

I'll add: the bird portrait is taken at a low phase angle. A little higher phase angle (10 more degrees) would have shown better feather detail, especially in the whites.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Chas. We are of course on the same page on call counts. Thanks for sharing your missive above; it fits right in here. :)

[Hilary Hann]

Tight or Wide? My Thoughts on Photographic Style and More

To answer your original question... I say shoot both, and more. If the subject is cooperative I always suggest photog's shoot at least 4 images, vert, horz, close-up, and environmental. I think it is prudent to try to make the most of each encounter, walking away from said encounter with as much diversity as possible. Especially, if your goal is to sell images!

Regards,

Chas

This is a simple piece of advice which I wish I could remember more when I'm in the field instead of letting the excitement of the moment sometimes take hold.

[Allen Hirsch]

This is a simple piece of advice which I wish I could remember more when I'm in the field instead of letting the excitement of the moment sometimes take hold.

Same here. Gotta remember some discipline and capture as many of those choices as possible, instead of getting excited about just one version....

[Michael Lloyd]

Good thread. When I started reading it I had a couple of comments but I decided to wait until the end. Now I'm at the end and I don't remember what the comments were.

Too bad about the stick

PS- Shoot both if you can. Most of the time, with wildlife, especially birds... tight trumps wide.

I can't count the times that I've posted "the most awesome image ever" here only to have the wind let out of my sails. When we own it... we often don't want to know that our perfection isn't... but if one listens and applies what he reads to his (or her) next image then there is progress.

[Jay Gould]

Good thread. When I started reeding it I had a couple of comments but I decided to wait until the end. Now I'm at the end and I don't remember what the comments were.

Too bad about the stick

Michael, that is a major comment in this discussion!

What stick?

[Michael Lloyd]

Good thread. When I started reading it I had a couple of comments but I decided to wait until the end. Now I'm at the end and I don't remember what the comments were.

Too bad about the stick

PS- Shoot both if you can. Most of the time, with wildlife, especially birds... tight trumps wide.

I can't count the times that I've posted "the most awesome image ever" here only to have the wind let out of my sails. When we own it... we often don't want to know that our perfection isn't... but if one listens and applies what he reads to his (or her) next image then there is progress.

I need one of those little angel halo smiley faces

If I got nothing else out of this thread it's that sticks that appear to be impaling a bird where the eggs come out are not good for the image

[Desmond Chan]

For me it is not either/or, as each image has its own merits. They are also very different, one a high key landscape image; the other a bird portrait.

My thought exactly.

But if I have to pick one and hang it on the wall, I'd pick the landscape one

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas. We are of course on the same page on call counts. Thanks for sharing your missive above; it fits right in here. :)

I remember when we were at the Washington DC zoo and you half heartedly told me to go back to commercial photography.

That seems a world ago :~)

And, the time at Bosque you came over and said to me ....HOW LUCKY ARE WE! [B]

NO KIDDING! :~)

BTW-I have always appreciated you giving credit where credit is due. You even went so far as to do this during your NANPA Keynote, and it blew me away.

Best,

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Chas. We are blessed. As far as giving credit, I make it a habit. Lots of folks have helped me along the way and I make it a point to remember each and every one of them :)

[Arthur Morris]

On the two images. They are of course both wonderful images. Both images of the same species. The tight head portrait is surely more in my style. Yet only one of them is in tile behind my kitchen sink.... My point was not to show off but to show that what I always say is true: give me some beautiful habitat and I will be glad to include it in my images :)

[Don Thompson]

I am late in commenting but I have been busy, and I was waiting somewhat to see what others had to say before commenting myself.

While I have learned much here to make my photography, particularly my bird photography, better, and I rarely go to other sites to learn, I do think there is much pressure here to conform to a set formula. Even to the point that if you fail to capture the great shot, you are encouraged to modify the photo to fit the formula, always with the caveat "if your ethics allows". I sometimes wonder how many here were able to get satisfactory shots with film before they could be so easliy modified in PP.

I imagine I will be told how I am encouraged to develop my own style, but if my style doesn't match the formula, my style isn't well received.

I think Roger's photo of the GBH is a great photo and I would be proud to have it as my own. Do I see the issue of the stick? I suppose I do and all things being equal, IF I could move to the right and eliminate it I might, but it doesn't ruin the photo for me. Many here would take the same photo and simply remove the stick. Does removing the stick make it better, I don't think it does. I would rather have Roger's photos intact than to have the same photo with the stick removed in PP.

[Arthur Morris]

Don, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Better late than never. I often comment favorably on strong images created in a style other than my own.

As I said in Pane 1, "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."

And yes, I would encourage you to develop your own style, to post as many images as possible, and to comment on at least five images for each one that you post.

If you choose not to eliminate distracting elements from your images, that is your choice and I am always fine with that. Distracting elements are just that, distracting elements. And BTW, I did make a few good images with film for about 19 years.

[Don Thompson]

I appreciate your comments. I was not implying that you did not capture many great images using film. Your success speaks for itself. While you have said that the greatest key to success is effort, it cannot be done with an inferior product. The product must be good or you can't sell it. Not to the extent that you have succeeded.

I still hold that if my style does not match the formula, which for the most part is the style you have perfected, then it is not well received.

No need to beat on it much, but I guess as in the case of Roger's photo, we disagree on what is distracting. I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

I choose to rarely post or comment. I don't feel my level of experience qualifies me to tell you or anyone else what I think is wrong or right with their photos and I am strongly discouraged from simply stating that "I like the photo", so I don't. Since I don't feel qualified to critique and posting without commenting is also discouraged, I do neither.

I still think this is one of the best places to learn so I return often to do just that.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Don,

re:

I appreciate your comments. I was not implying that you did not capture many great images using film.

Since I have become a leading digital/Photoshop criminal in the eyes of some many have forgotten that....

Your success speaks for itself. While you have said that the greatest key to success is effort, it cannot be done with an inferior product. The product must be good or you can't sell it. Not to the extent that you have succeeded.

I disagree 100% and have said so often. Selling images has very little to do with the quality of one's work. All that you need to do to prove me 100% correct is to look at all the bad images in magazines and books.

I still hold that if my style does not match the formula, which for the most part is the style you have perfected, then it is not well received.

Again I disagree 100%. Show me a well done, environmental portrait of a bird or an animal that I trashed because it did not match my style. Heck, show me a well done, environmental portrait of a bird or an animal that anyone here has trashed because it did not match my style. The pressure that you are feeling is your choice.

No need to beat on it much, but I guess as in the case of Roger's photo, we disagree on what is distracting. I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice. Even Roger admitted that the stick was a distraction though he later recanted (sort of, at least to the best of my understanding.

I choose to rarely post or comment. I don't feel my level of experience qualifies me to tell you or anyone else what I think is wrong or right with their photos and I am strongly discouraged from simply stating that "I like the photo", so I don't. Since I don't feel qualified to critique and posting without commenting is also discouraged, I do neither.

Again that is your choice. As I have said 100 times before, all that we ask is that if you like an image that you tell us what you like about it. Most 5 years would have no trouble doing that and neither would you. There are no qualifications needed. I like this image because..... Or I don't like this image because....

I still think this is one of the best places to learn so I return often to do just that.

Well,we can agree on that. You would get a ton more out of the site if you chose to post and critique. Same as anyone else.

[Roger Clark]

If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice. Even Roger admitted that the stick was a distraction though he later recanted (sort of, at least to the best of my understanding.

Artie,
Just to be clear of my position. In the field I saw the stick and positioned myself to minimize the distraction, as I always do. I did see it as a distraction in the camera. A bush prevented me from moving further to the right to get the stick out of the way, otherwise I would have moved. The lone bird was moving around so sometimes the stick was not in the way. Then when the second bird came in, the activity moved them slightly behind the stick. Often if there is a significant distraction, I will not take the image. But this time the light and interaction was spectacular so I obtained several frames. But after seeing the images (and I will say one can't tell this from small web images), the stick for me adds 3-dimensionality that I think improves the image. So the stick has given me a new perspective. Certainly if the stick protruded onto the necks or heads, it would be a distraction I would not like and probably would not have taken the image. Note too that there are other sticks at the bird's feet and no one seems distracted by them. So it's all relative.

As I said in Pane 1, "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."

Yes, you have strong opinions, and I respect that. Keep it up. No hard feelings.

Roger

[Desmond Chan]

the stick for me adds 3-dimensionality

As I've learned somewhere, having something in the foreground - even if it is blocking some part of the main subject - is a way to add a sense of 3-dimensionality to an image that is 2-dimensional in reality. I think we see this used quite a lot in landscape shots.


Anyhow, I have a question: what if that stick is a small, dull color flower, or a blade of grass? Would that make any difference in terms of distraction-ness (?) or anything else ?

[Roger Clark]

As I've learned somewhere, having something in the foreground - even if it is blocking some part of the main subject - is a way to add a sense of 3-dimensionality to an image that is 2-dimensional in reality. I think we see this used quite a lot in landscape shots.

Desmond,
That is a good point. And I came from a landscape photography background (large format view camera photography--I still have several 4x5 and one 8x10 camera). That is probably a factor in my liking "the stick."

Anyhow, I have a question: what if that stick is a small, dull color flower, or a blade of grass? Would that make any difference in terms of distraction-ness (?) or anything else ?

Flowers, leaves and grass are less objectionable to me.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Roger, No hard feelings at all. I never take things personally :)

As for the stick, I will say to you what I said to Don, "If you wish to create images with sticks sticking into the side of your subjects that again is your choice."

For me a stick in the side is and always will be a distraction :)

[Roger Clark]

Artie,

On a different subject (than sticks), I started a new thread while you were gone called:
The angle of light and image impact

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...d-image-impact

I would be interested in your views.

Roger

[paul leverington]

Just got through the whole thread here.

It's true it got way off topic but I actually love threads when they do that. Learning anything is all good. But doesn't hurt to get back sooner or later to the original topic.


They say the mark of a great teacher is when his students begin to teach him(or her). This is one of the GREAT things to be found on this site.

Would I be out of bounds by making the statement that we all emulated and copied the photographers we most admired when we all started out?? I mean what they heck did any of us know at that point?? So as we progress and got knowledgeable and skilled at it, we start to explore and try our wings at new and personal visions until we are in fact doing our own thing. It's an evolution like everything else in life and the universe--one thing leads to another-then another-and another--and so on. It's all a personal eclectic work in progress if you will.

So I see no problem with a certain way of seeing things that goes along with a trend, site, teacher, or other, because at least i believe sooner or later, if the artist is serious and commited passionately for the long haul. they will most certainly make the break down a road of their own.

There has been some "stepping on our own toes" in the articulation(semantics) of this artistic discussion and maybe the biggest point I would like to make about it all would be to not use some of the words commonly used in such discussions.
Why not replace-

RULES
PERFECTION
BAD LIGHT

with

TOOLS
PERCEPTION
EFFECTIVE LIGHT

Or some words similar.

Cause there really are no rules, no such thing as perfection when applied to the subjective, and how can light be "bad"??? It can't. I mean can't one photograph any time there is any light of any kind? I know what people are trying to say when they say "bad light" and I agree in those contexts, but the idea that picture taking during the hot sun afternoon is a waste of time, and one should take a nap or something is misleading. Grab a diffuser and do macro, or shoot images where a strong shadow becomes a greater part of the composition are a couple of examples.

I don't know, I just think these terms lead us astray. Funny --I have pretty much agreed with everyone here when I fully considered the contexts in which they made their comments.

Thanks for the little tip Jay about Mana. I am an amateur and casual student of mythology and history and love hearing about these tidbits of info that help me put all the pieces together that explain the why and how and when of who we all are now.

Thanks Artie for being a great teacher and one who shares his many passions freely and openly with others. Like I told you before I litearally used to walk around with a camera in one hand and your first book in the other. Not so much any more though--ya did a good job!

Paul

[ChrisBeveridge]

Wow... there has been so much covered in these past three pages it's a mental overload of good information.

In terms of the title question: I think both serve their purpose when executed properly. Wide shots can show the environment or even the entirety of the bird while tight shots get you up close and personal showing details that can really make the subject pop and stand out or tell a whole different story from the wide shot. Both have their place and when executed properly can produce great images... As represented by the two examples Mr. Morris posted on the 2nd page. I personally favor the wide one over the tight just because it's a more dramatic scene, however my taste is not in high key and so for me neither would be hanging from my wall.

My thoughts is regards to Mr. Clark's image:The Kiss; I agree with Mr. Morris about the stick is a distracting element in the photograph as it catches the viewers eye. However, I personally do not feel that it makes or breaks the images as my eye always returned to the subject quickly and never really returned to the stick after the initial, oh look there's a stick. Would I clone it out or keep it in; this I am not sure about as it would depend on my mood and what else I was feeling when I took the picture. Either way to me it's a great picture.

I don't believe in perfection. To me reaching a state of perfection mean I no longer have anything to learn in that subject and I personally do not find that ever possible as the world is constantly changing and evolving thus making perfection impossible to me.

I do have a question for Mr. Morris or any anyone really here and that pertains to ones 'style'. When it comes to discovering ones own 'style' (I understand it's a process that could take decades) I still come short of understanding or even seeing what my style is or could be. Does anyone have any guidance or thoughts or even ah-ha moments when they discovered said style?