Reading mode: Light Dark

A nice picture

Go to last post
Iain G Foulds

Iain G Foulds

Veteran Member
Messages
5,742
Solutions
1
Reaction score
5,352
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.

However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.

You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.
Click to expand...
Very pleased indeed
Iain G Foulds said:
However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.
Click to expand...
It's certainly still a composition, in the strict sense, though. You may have simply not but huge effort into composition details other than "subject in middle" with the crop as presented.
Iain G Foulds said:
You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
Not a failure at all when, as the case is here, it meets your intent...regards composition :)

Not sure about that 95% thing though. I know a few folks with the same equipment and software that still have troubles with "Sharp" :)



--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.

However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture.
Click to expand...
I disagree. My eye is drawn to the bird, drifts to the lower left and my brain thinks "nothing here move on", then as my eye moves back to the center as peripheral vision takes in the blurred background and settles comfortably on the bird. I've seen far worse and as a small print in a matted frame would make a pleasing image. If anything slightly desaturating the background might help make it more of a background element.

--
Stacey
 
Last edited:
Aside from slight over exposure and arguably sub-optimal cropping, this would be one of the best if not the best image you've ever posted. You truly seem to think, incorrectly, that sharp images and pleasing compositions are mutually exclusive.
 
Mako: Always respect your perspective. Thoughtful and mature.

Hoping to contrast this photo next to my submission on tomorrow's weekly thread. One a technically correct nice picture, and one a technically challenged, yet intimate and vibrant composition.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

Hoping to contrast this photo next to my submission on tomorrow's weekly thread. One a technically correct nice picture, and one a technically challenged, yet intimate and vibrant composition.
Click to expand...
I look forward to that. Some of the best lessons can be learned from exactly that type of comparison. Always worth that kind of exploration. Good Luck!!
 
I like the photo and disagree about you saying the picture lacks composition. Yes the subject is centered in the photo but whether intentional or not the busy area (branches) on the lower left side balance nicely with the empty quiet space on the upper right side.

Good composition does not always have to mean shifting the subject of you picture off to the left or right. But attention to cropping can sometimes make a mediocre snap shot into a work of art.

Don
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.

However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.

You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
And this is something I have been thinking about myself at some length. These camera fora by far have a preponderance of "gear-heads" - generally by their own admission. Unfortunately gear-heads often make poor artistic photographers.

They replace artistic vision and creativity with technical expertise, because that's what they bring to the table. Many of the photographs reproduced here are dripping with technical excellence but little else. We have come to confuse sharpness, smooth bokeh and shallow DOF (to isolate a subject) with true photographic talent. So yes, sadly, you will see very few truly great images here, but you will see many technically excellent pictures. For great images visit some of the more artistic sites. (Google is a great tool).

All of this is written with the rider that (imho) to produce good (read artistic) images consistently requires quite a deal of technical knowledge about the gear you're using. Otherwise the artistic images produced would be little more than lucky accidents.

Oh - and it is a really nice picture, btw.

--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
 
emem said:
emem wrote:
emem said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.

However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.

You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
And this is something I have been thinking about myself at some length. These camera fora by far have a preponderance of "gear-heads" - generally by their own admission. Unfortunately gear-heads often make poor artistic photographers.

They replace artistic vision and creativity with technical expertise, because that's what they bring to the table. Many of the photographs reproduced here are dripping with technical excellence but little else. We have come to confuse sharpness, smooth bokeh and shallow DOF (to isolate a subject) with true photographic talent. So yes, sadly, you will see very few truly great images here, but you will see many technically excellent pictures. For great images visit some of the more artistic sites. (Google is a great tool).

All of this is written with the rider that (imho) to produce good (read artistic) images consistently requires quite a deal of technical knowledge about the gear you're using. Otherwise the artistic images produced would be little more than lucky accidents.

Oh - and it is a really nice picture, btw.

--
Mike McEnaney. (emem)
www.veritasmea.com
Click to expand...

I don't like dividing something to artistic and non-artistic. Who will decide which one is which? As an amateur good picture for me means, one that I would like to print and hang on the wall. For professional it would mean one he can sell. What is good picture for you? Your fellow "artist" have to approve it? Well, good luck with that.

As for Ian:

I think, I know what you are seeking, although not sure if I would call it composition. You want the pictures which would tell the story. That's great and of course quite challenging in wild life area. However, I also understand somebody else is happy with technically perfect "snapshot" of nice animal.

Best,

Martin
 
Iain G Foulds said:
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop
D7100 70-200 F4/ 1.4 100% crop

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.

However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.

You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
I like it, who cares about composition when you have a good photo !!
--
Nikon D7100
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR
Canon EOS 40D
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX
Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6
 
Well sometimes a nice picture is enough. Ron Reznick a pro photog that use to hang here with images that would rival Ronnie Gaubert liked to have at least double the free space on one side as compared to the other side, which, most of us do. Of course the larger side represented by the direction of the subject, but not always. I tend to agree and would say at least double as the minimum. You guys let Jim mess with your heads and I bet he is lhao.

As for the image itself. Its a little hot with the yellows overexposed taking away some of the fine detail. Looks like the WB is a little warm too, as the yellows are yellow orange in color.

I don't have an exif viewer for ie 10 as its a 64 bit app and none of the viewers I have will work with it so I cant see when the shot was taken and if auto wb was used. Still, it's a nice image with a decent comp congrats!

peace,

Ray
 
Ray: Appreciate your thoughts (and all comments earlier on the thread).

Prefer the subject on the side facing the space myself, it's just that it is pretty dense bush, and lucky to get any kind of clean shot, nevermind have any space of interest for an attractive composition. Especially, these Yellow Warblers. I've deleted hundreds of OOF yellow tails and wings this summer. Absolutely looking forward to fall- the beginning of the artistic nature photo season with the developing palette of color and opening spaces.

BTW: Upon your earlier recommendation, I have my Fine Tune set to plus 2. Considering the cropping and small subjects, I pretty comfortable with it now. Thanks again.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.
Click to expand...
You're right, Iain, it's a nice picture - but it's more than what you think.
Iain G Foulds said:
However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a composition. More accurately, it's a well-composed picture. The subject is in the middle, but that's not illegal or some sort of crime. It also does not automatically mean your picture is badly composed.
Iain G Foulds said:
You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
No one had the opportunity to say anything before you made this declaration.

Now, at the risk of coming off pedantic (I'll do my best not to), I've been observing the developing dust-up over composition in wildlife photography. And from what I can see, many of the players don't really understand what composition is, what it does. So, I would start by saying composition is the arrangement of forms and elements in a picture - It is the design component of your photos.

It includes consideration of color, value, and placement of visual elements in the picture. The relationship of these visual elements provide an abstract structure to the picture. It's that structure that leads the eye around the work. It is that structure that helps make the viewer say it's a nice picture as much as anything. Because the most beautiful, sharp, colorful photo of the subject will not work if the composition sucks.

The rule of thirds, the golden mean, and any other design rule you care to quote is a guideline, something to keep in mind. It is not a requirement. Sometimes, it is an ideal or a challenge. Can I make this work using the Golden Mean? How does this look if I use the rule of thirds? But it is not meant to be a prison. Each picture has its own compositional needs, and it's up to the photographer to see and understand. But you must also understand, whatever composition you choose for your picture, it's only one possibility.

So, where does that leave us with respect to this picture? Well, obviously the subject is centered and in profile. The composition is simple, but it works. The question is, why does it work? It works because of the abstract structure, the design of the photo. You have a harmonious and balanced arrangement of forms around the bird. Please forgive my trespass. I hope you will see what I mean here:



c13d9c9e242d4e648280f45b8e8fa6ec.jpg



It really doesn't matter if you consciously thought this through when you took this particular picture because you've been consciously considering composition for a long time. Doing that, you've developed an inner sense for these things - You couldn't help but do that. It's part of your thought process. You know when it looks right, and you snapped it! So, whatever else you can say about it, it is also well-composed :)



--
Hunter
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

Ray: Appreciate your thoughts (and all comments earlier on the thread).

Prefer the subject on the side facing the space myself, it's just that it is pretty dense bush, and lucky to get any kind of clean shot, nevermind have any space of interest for an attractive composition. Especially, these Yellow Warblers. I've deleted hundreds of OOF yellow tails and wings this summer. Absolutely looking forward to fall- the beginning of the artistic nature photo season with the developing palette of color and opening spaces.

BTW: Upon your earlier recommendation, I have my Fine Tune set to plus 2. Considering the cropping and small subjects, I pretty comfortable with it now. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Fun times ahead Iain! That's great you have AF fine tuning to your liking. It can be a pita for sure. I've had a number of Nikon DSLR's that didn't need any tuning and wish this D7100 was the same maybe the next one :)

cheers,

Ray
 
Art: Appreciate your time and perspective.

Myself, I definitely don't consider the centering or side-placement of the subject the most important aspect of composition. The harmony of the colors, depths, and textures of the background and foreground- and their relation to the subject is more important.

I always consider the words of Scott Kelby about being in a room of people judging photographic contests. The pictures come up on a screen, and sometimes there are affirmative responses scattered throughout the group. But then sometimes, all the group will respond enthusiastically. And, not for any intellectual reason.

The composition just works.
 
artlmntl said:
artlmntl wrote:
artlmntl said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

Took a nice picture this morning. Really sharp and evenly lit. If I was someone who just liked to take nice pictures, I would be mighty pleased.
Click to expand...
You're right, Iain, it's a nice picture - but it's more than what you think.
artlmntl said:
However, it is not a composition. It's just a nice picture. I'm only posting it to highlight my point.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a composition. More accurately, it's a well-composed picture. The subject is in the middle, but that's not illegal or some sort of crime. It also does not automatically mean your picture is badly composed.
artlmntl said:
You know that your photograph is a compositional failure when everyone responds "It's really sharp". Sharp is 95% equipment and software.
Click to expand...
No one had the opportunity to say anything before you made this declaration.

Now, at the risk of coming off pedantic (I'll do my best not to), I've been observing the developing dust-up over composition in wildlife photography. And from what I can see, many of the players don't really understand what composition is, what it does. So, I would start by saying composition is the arrangement of forms and elements in a picture - It is the design component of your photos.

It includes consideration of color, value, and placement of visual elements in the picture. The relationship of these visual elements provide an abstract structure to the picture. It's that structure that leads the eye around the work. It is that structure that helps make the viewer say it's a nice picture as much as anything. Because the most beautiful, sharp, colorful photo of the subject will not work if the composition sucks.

The rule of thirds, the golden mean, and any other design rule you care to quote is a guideline, something to keep in mind. It is not a requirement. Sometimes, it is an ideal or a challenge. Can I make this work using the Golden Mean? How does this look if I use the rule of thirds? But it is not meant to be a prison. Each picture has its own compositional needs, and it's up to the photographer to see and understand. But you must also understand, whatever composition you choose for your picture, it's only one possibility.
Click to expand...
I wish I could communicate it that well.
 
5d194fe8ef0c471c8549a5ef63d404bb.jpg

Taken the same day as the Yellow Warbler. Not as glamorous a subject, but the background is interesting and attractive without being obtrusive.

I would offer... a beautiful, centered composition. I would take this over the dull and boring picture of the Yellow Warbler any day.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
Iain G Foulds wrote:

5d194fe8ef0c471c8549a5ef63d404bb.jpg

Taken the same day as the Yellow Warbler. Not as glamorous a subject, but the background is interesting and attractive without being obtrusive.

I would offer... a beautiful, centered composition. I would take this over the dull and boring picture of the Yellow Warbler any day.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that this picture is a nicer composition than the other one. The angle is more interesting, IMHO.

--
Thanks,
Daisy AU - Brisbane
( Nikon D7000 and V1 )
 
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

I like the warbler better. Better light, not so much reflected light reducing your contrast, as in the chickadee. I like the warbler's bokeh better because it features your subject better. If the purpose of your photo is to feature the bird, the first one is better, in my view, because the background isn't as busy. I also like the color better because the contrast is more vibrant than in the chickadee shot. However, that said, I'd be pleased to have gotten both these images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top