robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Yes, as I said in my other post, "Birds and animals do not take direction."
You can spend a long time scouting, stalking, sitting up and sitting in a blind etc. You can have the perfect view of the setting with what would be great composition for a landscape or scenic shot, even of a particular tree, rock formation etc. But if the animal, bird, lizard, snake, deer, fox, bear or whatever doesn't go to that perfect spot you are SOL. Even if you scout and know the subject comes to that location there is no law that says the subject will be posed well or just a blur going through. If they don't come close enough then you shoot and crop later to get the best composition you can. If the eagle, osprey etc nest is not in a location for a good composition, then it isn't. You can use a long lens and get a close tightly framed shot of the subject with hopefully good positioning and composition. But if not, and you want or need a shot of that subject you take what you can get and try improve it in cropping and PP.
Now if you keep it up long enough you get some of those dream shots with the subject and the scene all in a balanced/good composition. Does that mean you never show any less than perfect shots?

silveragemarvel Loc: Keller, Texas

I consider myself a shooter of nature (mainly wildlife) and I have degrees in biological sciences and have always tried to think scientifically. I also think I know a bit about composition but when shooting subjects on the move, the last thing on my mind is composition. My goal is to capture the moment as it is (in nature), to reveal the truth, as sharp and as detailed as possible.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

leokn, you don't have to care but let me remind you, this was NOT my post, by me. This was obviously a troll attempt by a guy named UXOEAD. Apparently he is a bus driver, and thought he would throw me under his bus. Fortunately his bus driving skills are only just a slight bit better than his nature compositional skills, and he missed with the bus!!!! LoL
Either way it has served to bring an important factor to light, and that's that nature is not easy to photograph and a few will have to apply a higher set of skills to do it well, if indeed that is the goal.
But it warms my cold little Hog heart that you've been here silent for 3 years and it took this to draw you out and cast your one and only reply ever!!
Do come back and participate again soon but hopefully on one of MY post!
Thanks again
SS

RRS Loc: Not sure

Gee SS, you really are a nice guy! Many here would have bitten off his head, he doesn't realize how lucky he is.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

By-the-way, since that image keeps coming up in reference. Everyone might want to research it and read the complete story behind it and the stories of the participants (photographer and girl). In short the photographer was also running for his life from the friendly fire Napalm drop! The burnt girl survived and is living in the USA today. But there are tons of fascinating and painful details. It certainly was not posed nor was there time for compositional considerations.

blackest Loc: Ireland

That is a powerful horrible haunting image, the content overwhelms any compositional aesthetic. If the content is strong then composition can take a back seat. Other than that you need something to hold the viewer's interest.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

If what you say you believe then why do you respond. it seems you do like to mix up the MUD ?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

As to you.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

I truly think you are wrong in stating the picture had no composition I just recently visited LBJ's library in Austin tx and saw that vary picture in full frame it most certainly did show composition that picture shows the horror of that war all the people in that photo had the look on there faces was absolutely terror, just maybe more of the fine folks on this site might want to rethink what the definition of composition can be in my opinion it comes in many shapes, colors,forms!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Small change as in a penny !

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Yes and No.

SS is correct when it comes to capturing the instant. Not one critter will seat prettily for some predatory biped, even if only armed with a camera. So there goes the 'in camera composition'.

SS in incorrect when he attributes this to lack of composition skills.

Most wildlife shooting needs some form of PP (even if the 'purists' are already screaming 'no'). Another skill enters (PP) and SS may also be right. If you know you are going to PP a capture you must plan for it and this where the 'purists' are wrong.

SOOC works only so much but this is the whole debate of photography: what is a photograph? A stolen instant or a deliberate process? This horse is always beat to death by vultures who try to pick whatever bone has been left intact and try to make an issue over it.

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

In nature photography it is the subject that is most important (the fox, the lion, the bird, the bear), everything else is secondary... It is just as simple as that.

When shooting trees, mountains, lakes, it is quite different. Then, people can be hung-up on the composition of the entire scene.. Quite different. "To apply the same rules to all types of photography, in all situations, is just dumb."

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Not only that, he was famous for carrying his camera everywhere. Every moment for him was about his photography.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

maybe you can explain to me what "shooting" has to do with making an image?

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Exactly: shooting for me is with a rifle or pistol or revolver. With a camera it's taking photographs or pictures plain and simple!