Pine Grosbeak

[Teewinot]

Lately there have been several Pine Grosbeaks showing up at our feeders. I had the opportunity to photograph a couple on Thursday through the window. Here's my favorite image:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7845858@N05/2220226995/" title="Pine Grosbeak by ~Teewinot~, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2277/2220226995_cabd3fe5e1.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="Pine Grosbeak" /></a>

EXIF info: Olympus C8080 (p&s), f/3.2, 95mm, 1/125 sec., WB-auto, ISO-50, hand-held

Post-processing: Unsharp mask, curves, straighten, saturation, crop

Critique desired: I'm wondering about the composition/crop. Is it effective (both horizontally and vertically) and does it follow the rule of thirds?

Thank you in advance for any comments/suggestions! :)

[LindaM]

wow... I like this a lot. :)

Does it follow the rule of thirds?? Not really, but it works. It's kinda hard to follow the rule of thirds without adding more feeder or cutting off the birds tail. It's the tail that makes it kinda hard to place the bird following the rule.

If it's on the original image, you could try to add some negative space below and to the right of the bird, or including more of the upper left but I don't think that would really add a lot.

Nice shot. BTW. I have a feeder just like that one.. :D

[FocalFrenzy]

Hi Teewinot, I agree with LindaM about the rule of thirds. Wildlife Photography makes it very difficult to comply. If you back off enough to allow for proper ROT (rule of thirds) placement, you lose all of the detail that you gain by zooming in. I believe that sometimes we have to break the rules in order to show our subject in the best possible light. This is a great capture, and I feel that the placement is correct for this image. Thanks for posting.

[peeperita]

i think it's a keeper too.....you have a beautiful depth of field and your subject is so very crisp....nicely done.....

as far as composition goes.....i would consider a larger framing.....my eye says that the bird's torso should be placed on a lower third......i feel that doing so still would give your subject ample focus even at a relatively smaller size within the frame...........

thanks!

peeper

[Sandie]

This is an excellent example of proper DoF! Really great shot as is, to make it compositionally better you would need to have more feeder and I think you could trim just a smidden off the bottom without loosing any tail.

The way I used to teach the rule of thirds is to have my students take their photo, a ruler, and a black marker. Measure the image horizontally and divide that number by thee. Let's say it is six inches across then every two inches you draw a line from top to bottom. Then measure vertically and divide by three. Let's say that is nine inches, then every three inches you would draw a line across your photo. The four points at which these lines intersect are your 'anchor' points. Where the biggest part of your subject should be. The lines themselves are where the movement and 'framing' of the subject should hit, where horizons are most pleasing, and where eyes tend to rest. The ROT is just a guide line, but if you can lay it over your photos physically until it becomes second nature to compose that way, you will know when a shots needs it and when it doesn't.

I hope that helps and isn't redunant to something you have read here before. Again, this is a great shot!

[RussHeath]

Teewinot -- Not sure if I have anything useful to add, but I wanted to say this one really caught my eye. Very well composed and DOF is suberb. The way the sunlight acts as a rimlight over his head really makes the little guy pop.

I agree with previous posters about the ROT. You would have to add negative space behind him to put his eye on a ROT intersection, and that essentially zooms you out, which is counterproductive. I think the subject here is strong enough to bend the rules a bit. :)

[CallMeKat]

great use of depth of field! i would have like the photo more if the light was shining ON the bird rather than behind it but still, this way is still good :) i also really like that the green of the bird feeder is the same or almost the same as the green in the birds feathers and the red is inbetween them. love it!

[Selected Pixels]

An eye-catching photo! Along the lines of the last post I really like the red and green combination, which are opposites on the color wheel. Sharp, nice use of DOF. The feeder must be close to the house (95mm FL). Must be nice. I need my 200mm to get anything like this. Keep it up!

[netbymatt]

I don't have much new to say about the rule of thirds or the depth of field. The bird's tale makes it difficult to follow the rule of thirds, but don't forget that the bird feeder fits this perfectly. The depth of field was an excellent choice.

One thing I did notice is that your subject appears back lit, yet you still pulled off a good exposure. Great work! Did you use the flash for some fill light with this photo?

[jiminyClickit]

Teewinot,

Debate over thirds may never end; I've made peace with it by accepting that a major feature of a title subject (your bird's eye/beak/head) should fall on (or as near as possible) to one of the thirds lines (yours does). Secondary subject (feeder) also (right side, bottom) fits that guideline. Bird also forms a pleasant diagonal. You did well.

[the_camera_poser]

Rules are made to be broken!

[jiminyClickit]

Without question, that is the most ridiculous out-of-context remark made over and over on this website. You may only be repeating something you heard someone else say, here or elsewhere, but did you take one second to think about it yourself?

Why not "Laws are made to give policemen something to do."

Rules are man's attempt to pass along information, knowledge of the world around him as he has perceived it.

Photography rules, no big loss. Just take whatever you feel like. Blurry? You meant it to be "artistic." Cropped off someone's head? You didn't like them anyway. Too dark? Moody, yeah, that's it.

Break any rule you want, but have enough sense to know why the rule existed, what it was meant to improve, how many of the finest works of art follow it.

A professional may occasionally use a device to create a certain look, and it may appear to break a rule. That right is earned, through diligent study and understanding of the rules of light and composition.

In a school forum, where the rules are debated and studied and practiced over and over, your statement makes us all look like fools. If the rules are meant to be broken, we can all go home now.

[CallMeKat]

Without question, that is the most ridiculous out-of-context remark made over and over on this website. You may only be repeating something you heard someone else say, here or elsewhere, but did you take one second to think about it yourself?

Why not "Laws are made to give policemen something to do."

Rules are man's attempt to pass along information, knowledge of the world around him as he has perceived it.

Photography rules, no big loss. Just take whatever you feel like. Blurry? You meant it to be "artistic." Cropped off someone's head? You didn't like them anyway. Too dark? Moody, yeah, that's it.

Break any rule you want, but have enough sense to know why the rule existed, what it was meant to improve, how many of the finest works of art follow it.

A professional may occasionally use a device to create a certain look, and it may appear to break a rule. That right is earned, through diligent study and understanding of the rules of light and composition.

In a school forum, where the rules are debated and studied and practiced over and over, your statement makes us all look like fools. If the rules are meant to be broken, we can all go home now.

easy! easy!

[jiminyClickit]

CallMeKat,

There's a particular form of torture in which a subject is tapped on the chest, lightly, repeatedly, for so long that it becomes unbearable. Frankly I feel much better for having expressed another view of a simplistic catchphrase.

Thanks for a good philosophy of life, one I have supported for decades. And I believe the length of the post was a waste of time. We all believe what we want, and a forum is a great place to air those beliefs.

No worries, Kat

[the_camera_poser]

The thing with rules is this- authorities will tell you that they are guidelines, NOT rules, and that they should only be used to accentuate your work, not dominate them. If you endlessly follow the Rule of Thirds, your picture is going to look like everyone else's pictures. I'm sure that Picasso, Dali, Warhol, Seurat and Monet were all follwing the rules quite closely when they completely transformed art with their creativity.

What you must look out for is the blindly-aderent follower's pictures. If you follow someone else's guidance blindly, your pictures will look like theirs.

As a lawyer, I know a lot about laws. There are legal laws, not to be broken, and there are guidelines in art. Funny- no one puts you in jail for breaking those. But then real laws, at least in the US, are also made to be interpreted- that's why there's a court system. The laws themselves, the most absolute things in daily civil life, are flexible and designed to be interpreted.

The Rule of Thirds is like every other rule in Art- it is a guideline to be used sometimes, perhaps frequently, but it is certainly not the only way to get a good picture, and it is DEFINITELY not a prerequisite to getting a good picture.

Your photo is a "portrait" of a bird, and as such the bird is not in the context of the surrounds, but rather is the sole subject of the picture. It is not going anywhere, doing anything or reacting to anything. There is therefore no need for space for the bird to move into, move out of, for vanishing points or layers or anytihng else. The picture is effective as it is. Period.

BEWARE those who would blindly apply rules. It is the blind that blindly aply things. They will make up for their lack of creative vision by adhering blindly to those that have gone before them, without adding anything new to the process of creating art. They will also seek most emphatically to ensure that you are no better than they are, as they find it difficult to accept that they are not masters themselves.

And as for authorities to back up my statements- go pick up a National Geo.

There, is that less of a foolish statement?

This is after all a teaching forum, and we ALL have osmething to learn from each other, both in photography, in criticism, and in life, and it would appear in law as well.

[jiminyClickit]

And it all starts with learning the rules.

That's a better Critique. Well done.

[the_camera_poser]

I'm glad you approve, oh great one. :rolleyes:

The Cliff Notes version of my lengthy response is, "Rules are made to be broken." :-)

[jiminyClickit]

Thanks; any time I can help.

[the_camera_poser]

:rolleyes:

[CallMeKat]

how about so we're all happy "rules are up for interpretation"...?

[Selected Pixels]

I wonder if birds have "rules"?

[the_camera_poser]

Don't fly North in Winter or South in Summer. Don't speak unless spoken too, unless you're a mockingbird or a crow.

[Selected Pixels]

But I bet they fly north just a little bit in January. Maybe on relatively warm January days. Maybe to get some food, like at a feeder.....


(sorry, silly mood this morning)

[Teewinot]

Goodness, my internet is broken for a few days and I return to quite the discussion happening in my thread! :eek::)

LindaM: Thanks for the feedback. I do have some space available that I cropped out initially...but one problem I have is that I unfortunately held the camera a bit crooked when I shot, so I had to straighten and therefore lose some area on the right...very little wiggle room for adding more space next to the tail.

FocalFrenzy: Thanks so much!

peeperita: I appreciate the insight...I will play with different crops. Thanks!

Sandie: Thanks so much for the tip on ROT...very helpful!

newbie: Thanks for the feedback...I too like the sliver of light on his head.

CallMeKat: I agree that the lighting was a little tricky...I brightened the image a bit using curves in post. Thanks for the comments!

Selected Pixels: The feeder is very close to the house...and I'm lucky I got a clear shot because my window is very dirty! Thanks!

netbymatt: I didn't use a flash...I used curves in PSP to brighten the bird up a bit. Thanks for the feedback!

jiminyClickit: Thanks so much! I appreciate the description of how you think the subject fits into the thirds...very helpful!

the_camera_poser: Thanks for the insightful thoughts about rules in photography...I'm always on the look-out for fresh perspectives.

Thanks again everyone for all your very helpful critiques and nice comments!!! :)