Composition???

[FUDGEY]

I know the rule of thirds, eg when a bird looks to the right leave two thirds space the way its looking. I have just posted this on flikr and a guy who I hold the upmost respect for and is my fave bird photographer thought I should not have had it so central. I am no expert and thought if a bird was looking directly at you it should be central. I know this gut will be right, but I want to know what others think and why it shouldnt be central if you think it shouldnt be.

[roseway]

The so-called 'rules' of composition are only guidelines of course. Ultimately it's a matter of personal preference. That being said, I think there's possibly too much background, and some out of focus foreground, so the image would be better if it was cropped to about half the height and width, with the bird still in the middle.

[John D]

Hi Fudgey, In this case I would have liked to see more of the bird than be too concerned about its position. I don't think in this particular shot it would matter very much where it was positioned.
However it is better, if possible, to have the bird or animal looking into a bit of space and hence be positioned about a third of the way into the frame. But with 'wildlife photography' in particular that is not always possible and there is no hard and fast rules. Getting a reasonable shot is better than getting none in my opinion.

John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

[Geoff F]

These 'rule of thirds' questions keep turning up, but all I can say is that personally speaking, I don't want to see a world where nature is forced to conform to strict man made rules.

It is different when creating a painting where you can place everything at will to produce the best impact.

With real life photography, it is more a case of working with whatever is available to make a pleasing scene. Sometimes this may coincide with 'rules' but I always think that too often a photo which has been forced to comply with arbitrary rules looks artificial; or even downright stupid.

But in this particular case, I agree with the previous comments and I would be more worried about cropping tighter than concerned about exactly how the crop is positioned.

Admittedly, positioning the bird exactly in the center may look wrong, but so would positioning it so that it's eyes fall exactly on the thirds lines.

And I would also be more interested in reducing some of that harsh and rather 'noisy' background. In cases like this, I often find that running a blur tool (adjusted as required) around the background makes a considerable improvement.

[Juliet1200]

I think this works really well with the bird in the centre - love the way the bird is peeking out at you. I agree with previous posters that there's probably too much background though.

Would it work if you cropped out the out of focus foreground and the same amount from the top but left the sides so you had a long thin image with the bird still in the centre?

[King Edward]

To offer a blunt criticism, this doesn't work as a photo because the subject is just too small. The Jay's head occupies 1% of the frame, while the other 99% is occupied by blurred greenery. Also, its left eye is partially obscured by moss. Cropping wouldn't help, because (1) I don't think there's enough detail in the file to stand enlargement, and (2) it's not a very interesting view of the bird.

Shuffling it left or right wouldn't help matters, and there's no reason for it to be near the side of the frame (i.e. it's looking straight out, and there's nothing else of interest in the empty space).

[Jonners]

Originally Posted by Juliet1200

I think this works really well with the bird in the centre - love the way the bird is peeking out at you. I agree with previous posters that there's probably too much background though.

Would it work if you cropped out the out of focus foreground and the same amount from the top but left the sides so you had a long thin image with the bird still in the centre?

I would tend to agree with Juliet, but rather than crop the same amount from the top, I would crop less from the top, so effectively moving the bird lower... so it's roughly one third of the way up the photo, but central horizontally.


I would also try and lose some of the background noise (NeatImage is good). I don't believe that the thirds rule should be a rule, but more often than not it just works out that way IMHO.

[JeffH]

Hi Fudgey, as the previous comments on this thread clearly demonstrate, opinions on photographs are very subjective and often vary widely so there's no wrong and right view - "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that

At the end of the day who's opinion counts for most depends on what you want to do with the photo - if it's purely for your own pleasure then yours is the one that counts. If it's one you're trying to sell, then the opinion(s) of the prospective purchaser(s) is/are what counts.

For what it's worth, in my personal view head on bird shots rarely "work" (whatever that means!) unless there's an additional element to them. With this particular shot, I'm inclined to agree that not enough of the bird is shown.
If the bird had its neck outstretched and was amongst some more interesting foliage then it may have "worked" better, but I also agree that central cropping usually works best for head on shots.

But that's just another opinion - worth no more and no less than anyone else's

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[Soupdragon]

The rule of thirds is a simplification of The Golden Section/ Golden Ratio/Golden Mean (etc.) and is not man made, it is based on naturally occurring patterns and shapes in nature and mathematical constants.


Golden Section and Rule of Thirds (Golden Mean, Golden Ratio, Golden Spiral, Golden Proportion, Golden Triangles).

It is a personal choice (as you see from all the different replies here!) but I would like to have more photo of where the bird's body is (whether you can see all of it or not) so that the imagination can fill in the rest of its body, and then have the head at the upper left area of the composition (using the golden spiral idea from the above link.)

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

The rule of thirds is a simplification of The Golden Section/ Golden Ratio/Golden Mean (etc.) and is not man made, it is based on naturally occurring patterns and shapes in nature and mathematical constants.

Golden Section and Rule of Thirds (Golden Mean, Golden Ratio, Golden Spiral, Golden Proportion, Golden Triangles).

That's an interesting article Soupdragon but, for me, the most important part of it is the bit at the bottom - "Know the rule, break the rule, and use your natural aesthetic sense"

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)