Composition vs Focus

[Bruce Williams]

This is one of my favourite photographic subjects - I've certainly photographed well over a hundred of them over the last couple of years. They're the nymph of a species of barklouse: Mesopsocus sp. possibly M. unipunctatus or M. immunis. There is a scale bar on pic1.

They're not the easiest subject as they can move like greased lightning and they don't like to be photographed. Fortunately this time of year I see a lot of them and sooner or later one stops still long enough to be photographed. All my pics are hand-held as the subjects move around too much to use a tripod or monopod.

Lets meet a couple of them:





Now to the purpose of this thread:

Almost all my photos (of this subject) are like the first image, side-on with as much as possible of the subject in focus. This particular image is a manual merge (stack) of two images in CS3.

However just recently I've begun to wonder if this sort of result isn't just a bit lifeless and uninteresting so I've been playing around with different viewpoints. Often this has required taking 4 or 5 focus-stepped images in order to get sufficient detail which means lots of incomplete series as the subject moved position mid stack or just did a runner after the first couple of shots. Even if the subject stays still long enough it's quite hard to manually judge the step size and changing points of focus.

Today I took several shots like pic2. These were single shots (no stacking) with pretty much only the head in focus - the rest of the animal is however sufficiently visible to provide a context for the head.

Now I quite like this result (I'm talking about pic2). In my view it has more energy and is generally more interesting than pic1. It's certainly a lot easier to take pics like this and as a bonus thy require very little pp in Photoshop .

I'd be interested to know how other people view the two images (the two approaches) and whether you find the largely out-of-focus pic2 acceptable.

Bruce

[NickCantle]

First off Bruce, they're both magnificent shots.

Secondly, they convey a totally different thing. I take the first image as being very technical image. It's a good image for identification, and a good image to show features, no matter how much emotion is shown. The side on approach generally lacks character as it immediately removes direct eye contact with the subject.

The second image definitely evokes an emotion- you can see the eyes of the insect thus creating an immediate character and in my opinion, a more artistic point of view.

I find that I use two different methods for two completely different things. If I am after an ID, I will take completely different images to those that I'd take artistically (See below). I like the blurred background as it also draws attention to the character of the nymph.

Here's the difference in my images in that sort of topic;

Technical shot ensuring the subject is clear throughout thus making ID easier;



Artistic shot with thought put into composition and intentional shallow DoF;



Hopefully you'll know what I'm going on about. My Grandad once told me that my images were quite unique in the way that I use DoF so variably- and as my initial mentor, I was very taken aback by his saying so (in a good way!)

Nick

[Jason Green]

Hi Bruce,

I agree with Nick - pic 1 is good for ID. If you want it identified, then you need as much in focus as possible in case it comes down to hairs on the femur or something equally tiny.

Pic 2 is great. It shows a nice, low, insect-level shot with a real myriad of textures and depths - the ground has a real alien-landscape look.

Both have their merits Bruce!

[Markulous]

Pic 1 zoologically good, photographically boring (and, TBH, poor with the flash shadow)!

Pic 2 interesting in every way - exactly what I go for. But then I'm a photographer first and nature just happens to provide fun and interesting subjects and macros

[Bruce Williams]

Thanks Guys .

I take the consensus point about the technical/zoological quality of the side-on view and agree that this approach does lack interest (is boring). Your point about eye contact is a good one Nick - I hadn't considered that and it does make sense.

As I said in my original post, up till now I've generally tended to ignore/sacrifice artistic considerations in favour of all over focus (well as far as possible) and sharpness. However I'm encouraged by your positive comments about the second image (approach) and plan to include a lot more of this style of image in the future. It's remarkably easy to get locked into a particular way of doing things and (knowing myself) I suspect I'm going to have to work at changing my thinking about the need for all over sharpness.

Thanks for posting examples of your own work Nick (excellent quality as always) and good examples of the different approaches.

Your points succinctly made as usual Jason - Thanks .

Markulous - I appreciate your comments and hope to see some of your work in the WAB Gallery soon.

Bruce

[matt_xyz]

I prefer the second shot Bruce (although the first is a great technical achievement) and generally try to compose my images in a similar way, even when working at extreme magnifications such as this.

Matt

[DZ]

Hi Bruce, first can i just say "chill out" the pics are fine to me. i can only dream of doing this at the moment. should i see these in a book, i would be impressed.

a friend of mine is into macro and also takes pics of little fast things :-)

one of his tricks to slow them down is to drop the temprature in the room a little (without killing them). he also uses a very big softbox and white bounce cards.

dont know if it will help and in my book you are all way above me when it comes to this type of work. im a bit in awe.

[nutmeg]

I think there's a place for both shots. If I'm photographing something I'm unfamiliar with and want a record shot to help with ID, then the first is my approach. Otherwise I do my best to get something like your really nice second shot, that I'll get a lot more satisfaction from looking at

[Bruce Williams]

Matt - I know you've made very effective use of selective focus in many of your Gallery postings, particularly some of your excellent wasp and bee portraits - so your comments are particularly appreciated .

Tom - Thanks for your encouraging and helpful comments. I gathered from one of your earlier postings that you're not exactly new to photography (Botswana border) and look forward to seeing some of your work in the WAB Gallery.

nutmeg - Yes I'm sure you're right, there is a role for both techniques and although the majority view has been in favour of the more artistic approach I think I'll find a mix of artistic and illustrative to be most rewarding.

Bruce

[Lord V]

Excellent examples of what is the purpose of the shot. As commented above #1 is probably much better for ID purposes but #2 is a much more interesting photo with much better composition.

The only thing I sometimes wonder about is would anyone hang #2 on their wall ?. ie I suspect #1 would be more useful for any publishing purposes.
It all comes down to why you took the shot.
I do the same thing- try to take shots with at least reasonable composition but try to get an ID from them and you are told they are not a good angle .
In the end think it comes down to the personal pleasure it gives you in making the capture rather than what is the photo for - doesn't actually have to be for anything.

Brian V.