Two photos, same subjects, different emphasis.
May 4, 2018 10:48:53 #
Last week, Mrs. Anvil and I were on a house-hunting trip. While we were driving to a site, we came across a welcoming committee -- a bachelor group of five elk. I happened to have my camera with me, and the elk were close enough that I could fill the frame using a full-frame camera with a 24-105mm lens.
Now, the snow-capped peaks are gorgeous, and the temptation is to include those in every shot of the elk. But, the bright, snow-capped peaks can easily become the focal point of the photo, even if that is not the intent. In the first shot, we have two bulls looking at me. Those two bad boys are my subject, so the snow-capped peaks are de-emphasized, even to the point of cutting them off. I wanted to show the animals in their environment, without making the environment the subject. Now, the fact that both bulls have their tongues out is completely serendipitous. It is as if they are saying, "You can't touch this!"
In the second photo, we have the same, two elk, but the composition is different. Here, I wanted to show the animals in their environment, but I wanted the snow-capped peaks to have equal billing with the critters.
I think that, in the first photo, the viewer cannot help but look at the animals, first, then look at the environment. In the second one, I think the snow-capped peaks coerce the viewer into noticing them, first, causing the viewer to think about the environment, which happens to have a few elk in it.
Now, the snow-capped peaks are gorgeous, and the temptation is to include those in every shot of the elk. But, the bright, snow-capped peaks can easily become the focal point of the photo, even if that is not the intent. In the first shot, we have two bulls looking at me. Those two bad boys are my subject, so the snow-capped peaks are de-emphasized, even to the point of cutting them off. I wanted to show the animals in their environment, without making the environment the subject. Now, the fact that both bulls have their tongues out is completely serendipitous. It is as if they are saying, "You can't touch this!"
In the second photo, we have the same, two elk, but the composition is different. Here, I wanted to show the animals in their environment, but I wanted the snow-capped peaks to have equal billing with the critters.
I think that, in the first photo, the viewer cannot help but look at the animals, first, then look at the environment. In the second one, I think the snow-capped peaks coerce the viewer into noticing them, first, causing the viewer to think about the environment, which happens to have a few elk in it.
May 4, 2018 11:07:31 #
An interesting theme, Anvil, as I always enjoy showing (and viewing) an animal's environment and discussing the pros and cons of composition - or cropping - depending on which story you want to tell.
I did not have the response to #2 that you suggested, however. The peak is too far in the distance and too small in the frame to catch my eye initially. However, I did enjoy it later on
Mighty fine looking elk!
I did not have the response to #2 that you suggested, however. The peak is too far in the distance and too small in the frame to catch my eye initially. However, I did enjoy it later on
Mighty fine looking elk!
May 4, 2018 11:37:43 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I did not have the response to #2 that you suggested, however. The peak is too far in the distance and too small in the frame to catch my eye initially. However, I did enjoy it later on
I did not have the response to #2 that you suggested, however. The peak is too far in the distance and too small in the frame to catch my eye initially. However, I did enjoy it later on
Thanks for your comments. I love wildlife photography, and I am always one to look at the animal, first. The second photo seems to make me want to look at the environment, first. I thought it might be the snow-capped peaks in the center that causes that, but maybe it really is the space between the two bulls. The two bulls are far enough apart, and with equal weight, that I don't concentrate on either one. Maybe I concentrate on the space, in the center. That space happens to lead to the peaks.
May 4, 2018 11:48:10 #
Anvil wrote:
Well, the one elk is kind of directing you to the mountain with its head Thanks for your comments. I love wildlife photogr... (show quote)
I wish I'd looked closely at the photos before reading your discussion; I always intend to do that, but often forget. I imagine that much of what you wrote initially influenced my "first take."
May 4, 2018 12:53:53 #
I have another shot in which that elk is actually looking in the direction of the mountains. While it is a handsome elk, no one ever asks to see the back of its head.
May 4, 2018 15:11:48 #
[quote=Anvil]Last week, Mrs. Anvil and I were on a house-hunting trip. While we were driving to a site, we came across a welcoming committee -- a bachelor group of five elk. I happened to have my camera with me, and the elk were close enough that I could fill the frame using a full-frame camera with a 24-105mm lens.
Now, the snow-capped peaks are gorgeous, and the temptation is to include those in every shot of the elk. But, the bright, snow-capped peaks can easily become the focal point of the photo, even if that is not the intent. In the first shot, we have two bulls looking at me. Those two bad boys are my subject, so the snow-capped peaks are de-emphasized, even to the point of cutting them off. I wanted to show the animals in their environment, without making the environment the subject. Now, the fact that both bulls have their tongues out is completely serendipitous. It is as if they are saying, "You can't touch this!"
In the second photo, we have the same, two elk, but the composition is different. Here, I wanted to show the animals in their environment, but I wanted the snow-capped peaks to have equal billing with the critters. My feeling (especially in the first photo) is that the snow-capped mountains are not really part of their environment - they are down in the valley eating, not up there in the snow. So in the first one I would have cropped a lot of that out - with just a hint of the mountains and snow. The second one is different - it is very nice as is. But I am far from an expert and just offering my opinion.
Now, the snow-capped peaks are gorgeous, and the temptation is to include those in every shot of the elk. But, the bright, snow-capped peaks can easily become the focal point of the photo, even if that is not the intent. In the first shot, we have two bulls looking at me. Those two bad boys are my subject, so the snow-capped peaks are de-emphasized, even to the point of cutting them off. I wanted to show the animals in their environment, without making the environment the subject. Now, the fact that both bulls have their tongues out is completely serendipitous. It is as if they are saying, "You can't touch this!"
In the second photo, we have the same, two elk, but the composition is different. Here, I wanted to show the animals in their environment, but I wanted the snow-capped peaks to have equal billing with the critters. My feeling (especially in the first photo) is that the snow-capped mountains are not really part of their environment - they are down in the valley eating, not up there in the snow. So in the first one I would have cropped a lot of that out - with just a hint of the mountains and snow. The second one is different - it is very nice as is. But I am far from an expert and just offering my opinion.
May 4, 2018 15:16:34 #
May 4, 2018 17:02:24 #
Too many legs in #1 but explained in #2 much more quickly visually. I think the grouping made 'allowing space to walk into' better in #2 also. Its nice to see a more 'natural' pose where the animal isn't looking at you, but getting on with their own life quite relaxed. You have got enough of the 'environment' in the shot to please whilst having a close enough placement of the subjects.
#2 is the better image in my opinion.
well done
#2 is the better image in my opinion.
well done
May 5, 2018 08:38:58 #
Both are excellent, but I lean towards #2, just because they are more natural and all the legs from the hidden elk in #1 confuses me. Maybe crop #2 just a bit from the bottom to move everything closer?
I for sure would not hit the delete button on either one.
Gilbert
I for sure would not hit the delete button on either one.
Gilbert
May 5, 2018 09:52:12 #
In the top shot, there are 2 bulls that need to be erased. Besides that, I think the bull on the left is too close to the trees.
The bottom shot is a keeper. If you deleted more of the foreground, the viewer's eyes would be closer to the bulls, and see them, and quickly look toward the mountains, which are gorgeous.
If the photo were mine, I would delete most of the foreground, which I don't think is necessary to the image. I would also delete two branches that look as if they were sticking out of the left bull's nose.
You have a beautiful photo there!
The bottom shot is a keeper. If you deleted more of the foreground, the viewer's eyes would be closer to the bulls, and see them, and quickly look toward the mountains, which are gorgeous.
If the photo were mine, I would delete most of the foreground, which I don't think is necessary to the image. I would also delete two branches that look as if they were sticking out of the left bull's nose.
You have a beautiful photo there!
May 5, 2018 11:01:54 #
Thank you, all, for you comments.
When it comes to wildlife photos, I tend not to edit out things that are in the picture. I'm not a purist, by any means, but I generally like the critters to be just the way I found them. That frequently means my main subject might be obscuring much of another animal. I usually leave those shots that way. Sometimes I do it just because the shot might have some humor value. A couple of years ago, I took some shots of a small herd of Tule elk, on a hill. Two of the elk were so perfectly positioned that it looked like one elk with two heads. I had to keep that one. In the first shot, I just liked the synchronized tongues.
When I first encounter wildlife, I'll take several shots, just to make sure I get something. After I do that, I'll move around, to try to get closer, and more suitably positioned. In this stage of the encounter -- if the critters have not gone away -- I'll try for useful framing, but I'll still take anything I can get. Once I'm happy with that, I'll move around, again. If the critters are still there, I'll try for better framing of a shot. I'll also try to isolate an individual, if that is applicable.
When it comes to wildlife photos, I tend not to edit out things that are in the picture. I'm not a purist, by any means, but I generally like the critters to be just the way I found them. That frequently means my main subject might be obscuring much of another animal. I usually leave those shots that way. Sometimes I do it just because the shot might have some humor value. A couple of years ago, I took some shots of a small herd of Tule elk, on a hill. Two of the elk were so perfectly positioned that it looked like one elk with two heads. I had to keep that one. In the first shot, I just liked the synchronized tongues.
When I first encounter wildlife, I'll take several shots, just to make sure I get something. After I do that, I'll move around, to try to get closer, and more suitably positioned. In this stage of the encounter -- if the critters have not gone away -- I'll try for useful framing, but I'll still take anything I can get. Once I'm happy with that, I'll move around, again. If the critters are still there, I'll try for better framing of a shot. I'll also try to isolate an individual, if that is applicable.
May 6, 2018 06:38:57 #
Anvil wrote:
Last week, Mrs. Anvil and I were on a house-huntin... (show quote)
I understand your point; but I see both photos as being all about the elk. The background in the first photo is very much incidental and I would probably crop even more than you did. In the second shot, the background is much more prominent, as you mentioned, but it still does not take top billing. Because of the background and the confusion with the legs in the first photo, I think the second photo is my preference.
Erich
May 6, 2018 07:33:54 #
The mountain is a nice complement to the photo, but I don’t see it as a strong element in either photo. That said, I do like the placement better in the second shot.
May 6, 2018 10:02:11 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.