Filling the Frame (Page 4): There are no hard and fast rules. If you are good at composition YOu will know where to place the subject in the frame, how much negative space to include...

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

There are no hard and fast rules. If you are good at composition YOu will know where to place the subject in the frame, how much negative space to include if any, and many other components for effective and dynamic composition. You may want to "fill the frame or not!

Also- common sense dictates that if you are shootg wildlife, unless you have every possible lens from Maco to super telephoto, there are going to be times when you need to resort to cropping. If you are shooting a rapidly moving animal or a bird in flight, you may opt for a loose treatment and leave some space for fine-tuning composition.

Also- if you don't have a super telephoto lens do you want to get close up and personal with an unhappy lion, a charging elephant, or a gorilla? Do you want to climb a tree to get a closeup of a bird?

Do your best to capture the shot with what you have at your disposal. With today's gear and careful shooting, it's surprising waht you can get for a "section" of a file. Not every show will be featured in National Geographic but you'll get something!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Mainridge wrote:

As a wildlife shooter, one is always instructed to fill the frame. When the distance is such that the frame cannot be filled using a full-frame camera, is there a hard and fast rule as to the best alternative method to fill the frame? In other words, should I switch over to Aps-c, add a teleconverter or crop in post. I am usually shooting with a 45 mp camera if that helps.

As Linda From Maine, Longshadow, CHG_CANON, and some others have stated, "fill the frame" is a relative term. I always fill the frame, but as Linda has pointed out, it is the photographic composition that must fill the frame. As Jimmy T points out, for a full-frame or APS-C image most will be a "non-standard" print unless one crops for 5X7, 8X10, 11X14, etc. And if shooting for a "standard" size print, one cannot necessarily shoot to "fill the frame". As CHG_CANON pointed out though, 45mp should allow one to crop very heavily while retaining image quality easily up to and including 20X24. If you are still having trouble obtaining the image size for your composition, then a good teleconverter would be your best option in my opinion. Since I shoot 4/3rds and have less megapixels, it becomes more important that I shoot the best I can to fill the frame so my cropping is minimal. Also, my sensor shape requires less cropping for most standard print sizes than full-frame or APS-C. But at 45mp and additional room for your composition than my sensor, you should not have any worries about filling the frame unless you are printing 30X40 or larger.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

... many other components for effective and dynamic composition....

Indeed. There are many options when it comes to composition and they're worth exploring (and ideally understanding). Sticking with filling the frame is the equivalent of carrying only one tool in your toolbox.

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

Ahhh... "... to the "desired look", AKA composition.

Inherently the frame is filled, with something, nothing is left blank.

Oh ?!? Nothing is left blank ?

(Download)

Morry Loc: Palm Springs, CA

Longshadow wrote:

Probably not...

I just compose with what I have available, adjust to my liking in post if necessary.

Much of these comments are opinion . . . as it should be. Many/most of photographs I sometimes look at that friends/people took (in my opinion) could be improved by "filling the frame". Let me qualify this further by saying (again in "my opinion") I am talking mostly about photographs of people. How many times have you looked at someone's photo that depicts someone or perhaps a couple filling only 25% or perhaps 1/3rd of the frame when it could be more of a close up and one could then see the people in the photo better. And for the third time . . . "in my opinion".

Morry Loc: Palm Springs, CA

R.G. wrote:

Indeed. There are many options when it comes to composition and they're worth exploring (and ideally understanding). Sticking with filling the frame is the equivalent of carrying only one tool in your toolbox.

A very good point!

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

Mainridge wrote:

As a wildlife shooter, one is always instructed to fill the frame. When the distance is such that the frame cannot be filled using a full-frame camera, is there a hard and fast rule as to the best alternative method to fill the frame? In other words, should I switch over to Aps-c, add a teleconverter or crop in post. I am usually shooting with a 45 mp camera if that helps.

A lot depends on time, is the animal/bird going to move soon, then shoot with what you have.
If you have the time, switch to APS-C mode and put more EFFECTIVE MEGAPIXELS on your subject than you could get by shooting full frame.
If you really have time, and this would be, in my opinion, your last option, put on your teleconverter and take the shot, I do not ever recommend a teleconverter because there has never been a teleconverter made that can maintain the image quality of your native lens.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

Longshadow wrote:

I only fill the frame if that's the composition I desire.
I never fill the frame for the sake of "filling the frame".

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

Oh ?!? Nothing is left blank ?

Nope, the background is still there, empty or not.
Whether is has an affect (or how much) on the subject or not is,
Perception...

(Posting one shot would have sufficed.)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Morry wrote:

Much of these comments are opinion . . . as it sho... (show quote)

Key operator: opinion

Based on perception.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Mainridge wrote:

As a wildlife shooter, one is always instructed to fill the frame. When the distance is such that the frame cannot be filled using a full-frame camera, is there a hard and fast rule as to the best alternative method to fill the frame? In other words, should I switch over to Aps-c, add a teleconverter or crop in post. I am usually shooting with a 45 mp camera if that helps.

I always fill the frame as is possible, but I switch to crop mode when needed for sports. Doing so in post would be better but I don’t have the time to custom process hundreds of photos.

Note: My 45 mp camera is an R5. I never use the depth of field preview button so I customized its use to automatically switch from full frame to crop mode. It gives me an instant zoom effect on the fly. I hope you’ll try it.

TerryVS

Mainridge wrote:

As a wildlife shooter, one is always instructed to fill the frame. When the distance is such that the frame cannot be filled using a full-frame camera, is there a hard and fast rule as to the best alternative method to fill the frame? In other words, should I switch over to Aps-c, add a teleconverter or crop in post. I am usually shooting with a 45 mp camera if that helps.

So many answers here! If you want to best quality and boken fill the frame. That doesn't mean with just the animal! You should compose your shot and make that composition very close to full frame.

Leaving a bit of wiggle room with today's high megapixal cameras isn't bad but going out and shooting with the thought of cropping everything isn't a good plan either.

If you want a headshot of a bear then fill that frame with the bear's head. If you want a shot of the bear eating berries then fill that frame with the bear and berry bush. It's all about composing in the viewfinder.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Linda From Maine wrote:

To answer the question about which lens and gear? Best to do controlled tests to see for yourself.

"Always" fill the frame is nonsense. Take a look at one master wildlife photographer's photos:
https://backcountrygallery.com/wildlife/

Lots and lots of examples where not filling the frame with the animal results in an awe-inspiring, high impact image!

Surely "filling the frame" means to include that which the photog wishes to be part of the picture, excluding anything else from the shot, rather than about artistic merit, for good or bad?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Delderby wrote:

Surely "filling the frame" means to include that which the photog wishes to be part of the picture, excluding anything else from the shot, rather than about artistic merit, for good or bad?

Somehow we always end up nitpicking definitions. Sometimes that's a good thing!

The context of the opening post, its first sentence and then the comments about sensor size and gear, suggests that to the OP, "fill the frame" meant exclusively the critter or bird being photographed. With my link to Steve Perry's photos I was pointing out that what "we're always told..." is inaccurate "nonsense"

If you responded to my comments before reading the ensuing 3 - 4 pages of comments, but have now read the entire topic, you'll see there were several interpretations of the opening post and much food for thought for a novice - including thinking beyond megapixels. Good thread!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine wrote:

Somehow we always end up nitpicking definitions. S... (show quote)