Composition - for the birds?

[SmartWombat]

I assume there are no different rules for bird photos.
So I put the background into thirds and bird's eye on the golden ratio.
Results in room for the bird to walk into.
Does it work, could you tell if I hadn't described it?

[StormGirl_LP]

I like the cropping and I like the softness of the tone on tone palette. Your logic is good, there should be room for the animal to walk... The first photography book I read was on the topic of nature and wildlife composition by Art Wolfe and Martha Hill--it had a huge impact on me. One of their recommendations is to create room in the direction the animal is looking. The human eye naturally wants to follow the animals gaze. If you crop it short, the viewers eye has no where to go.

[shootme]

I'm by no means a nature photographer so hard for me to add more. What I feel is that I like the sharpness of the bird itself, I don't like the stone in the foreground and would probably have cropped or masked that out? More colour would have been nice? I took one recently posted in the members gallery and coincidently composed along the same lines, not knowing there are rules for this type of shot. Cheers, S

[SmartWombat]

I don't know if there are any special rules.
I'm trying to provoke a response to see if anyone says there are

With a white and brown bird, on a sandy beach, there's not a lot of colour to add.
I was lucky there was that subtle colour band from what looks to be algae on the sand.

[AgingEyes]

For this one, I find it kind of dark. Perhaps because of the size as presented, I'm not sure of the sharpness. Composition-wise, I would either crop the top or the bottom a bit. I would probably crop the top if it were mine. Left and right sides looks ok to me.

As for if there're rules, I don't know if there are rules but perhaps guidelines or "strong" preferences for many. Most it seems to me prefer to see the "bird-on-a-stick" kind of shot with a clean background...almost like the driver license, passport photo. Anything in the background they would easily find it distracting even though they may find it ok if it is a portrait shot of a human being. So environmental portrait for human beings are common but for birds, many would say the background is too busy, distracting. If you're shooting song birds, a clean background actually is not easy to find in the real world given their habitats and so many use bait, setting up feeder and perches in their own backyards for photography purposes. But if you're shooting shore birds, then a clean background shouldn't be a big problem like your shot here and many of Canon-Bob's photos. Most of the composition "rules" applies to nature/bird photos as far as I know. Whether you want to follow is up to you.

Here's a couple of other sites you could take a look at to see how others do it. Take a look at the critiques, too:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/home

http://www.birdphotographers.net/


Not saying I can do better but just saying what I've found so far.

[Anbesol]

Rules schmules. I like it but I'm a bit distracted by the foreground, the front of focus bokeh is bothering me a bit. I like the shot, but I would crop a bit off the bottom, possibly the right side too to balance the crop and aspect ratio.

420mm at f/4??? Wow.

[Anbesol]

Okay I'm stumped, 420mm at f/4??? Couldn't have been a Canon, or could it? Havent heard of a zoom into the 500mm range that stays at f/4.... ??? Wombat whats up?

[AgingEyes]

Okay I'm stumped, 420mm at f/4??? Couldn't have been a Canon, or could it? Havent heard of a zoom into the 500mm range that stays at f/4.... ??? Wombat whats up?

How about a 300f2.8 + 1.4? That should give you a 420mm f4, I guess

[KmH]

I'd take a bit off the bottom composition wise to rob attention from the foreground.

There are no rules, but over the last few hundred years it has become readily apparent that some compositional techniques (ROT, golden spiral/diagonals) do make for pleasing images to most people.

I have to agree the image seems somewhat underexposed.

[SmartWombat]

Right, the 2x converter sucks quality out of the image, 1.4 is acceptable.
Far cheaper than the 600mm lens I want, and don't mention the cost of the 800mm !

[Anbesol]

so, is this an f/2.8 70-210 then? So your converter only cuts it down one stop?

The prime 600 f/4? Yes, the sony one is a couple thousand more even!

*edit - wait, you used a 1.4, with a 300mm, how did you do this keeping f/4? Does the converter not stop it down? Is this on the mount side or the filter threads?

[AgingEyes]

so, is this an f/2.8 70-210 then? So your converter only cuts it down one stop?

70-210 f2.8 @210 + TC2 = 420 f5.6.

*edit - wait, you used a 1.4, with a 300mm, how did you do this keeping f/4? Does the converter not stop it down? Is this on the mount side or the filter threads?

300 f2.8 + TC1.4 = 420 f4.

[Anbesol]

oh doy a 300 prime..... Still, a 300 f/2.8, damn! Paul, let me know next time you are in KS so I can borrow your equipment