There seems to be a thing at the moment about Low Point of View pictures. OK they are different and have been the "new" look etc etc, for a while. Nothing wrong with that. It started with the Norfolk coast stuff a year or too back. I do appreciate that fads come and go.(It may well be that using a cherry piker might be the in thing next year doing them from above.)
I can understand if a picture is commented on when it is not sharp, or colour caste, or badly composed etc, etc, but all I need to know is , why is a bird picture better from a lower POV ??
All I need need is a simple answer to a simple question before I chuck a hell of a lot of pictures in the bin.
JR
John if you havnt tried the low pov you may decide that a certain image looks better if you do try it.
I dont think its a fad otherwise you could say looking down or up at the subject is a fad and as a result will sooner or later die out to as all fads do.
I think its all a matter of personal taste and if it is you cant blame someone for passing that very comment. We all know John that you wont be chucking anything but there is nothing to stop you looking a bit harder.
So John flex those muscles and bend that back and get down and Dirty.
Just my point of view.
It's not just a bird picture John - it's anything - you wouldn't reckon much to a portrait photographer who photographed his subject from a 45 degree down-angle now would you.
Nothing 'new' about it in the least - photograph a subject from eye level, basic rule of photography since the year dot - it's just that our subjects in the main have eyes just inches from the ground so to apply basic photography rules we have to get down on the floor.
So it's not a fad, it's just that we are looking to produce stunning photography and not just record shots.
It didn't start on the Norfolk coast a couple of years ago - I've got a book by Eric Hoskins which is full of eye-level images, and it's a damn sight older than a couple of years.
John - when I joined the forum, I also wondered why. I then realised when photographing ducks that getting down to water level meant the background was a long way off, and rendered out of focus. I did think it made the bird stand out better than if the head was against the nearby water. I think the same principle applies to the ground. However, it depends entirely on the effect you are trying to create and your images always (and rightly in my view) get great reviews - that's your style and there are no rights and wrongs.
In the image I've posted, I don't think it would have worked if I had been higher.
The 'lower pov' (I prefer 'parallel pov') done with a telephoto compression gives an image where the photo concentrates on the subject alone as usually the background is defocused. This helps concentrate the viewers eye onto the subject that the photog has selected - usually giving a certain amount of impact/drama to a shot.
Lower POV's can also show the habitat by using a wider angle lens and changing the relative positions of background & subject with respect to the camera. I've shots of Woodcock taken at birds-eye ground view with a wide angle lens - they show a different image to the same position/subject taken with a telephoto lens of 100mm+
Higher POV's & those where the focus is wider/'infinite' are no lesser images - just they convey a different view allowing the viewer to see more of the subject's surroundings/habitat. Those images may be better from a viewpoint of ID'ing a species.
The telephoto+parallel pov (or blown out background - BOB) is popular in the US...and as most of the wildlife internet forums are US based, it's use has become more popular elsewhere too. Plus, not many Americans can do 'habitat' shots very well, so they tend to prefer the 'bob' shots as well as the Bird-on-a-stick (BOAS) shots .
Which you want to use depends on you as the creator of the image and the use to which you want to put the image. No one or other is necessarily correct/wrong. So, no need to bin a load of images....
Yes I agree with some of that , but for want of repeating myself it does not work in my situation. I have tried it many times and with a lot of variations. The pool has been there thirty years and is quite overgrown which is why I get so much variety there. I can't just move somewhere else for all sorts of reasons. As I keep saying again I do not like chopping reflections in half and keeping them all in gives a subject size too small for my tastes. The other very important point is that a large proportion of my birds are done on the vegetation and perches above the pool.( at least as many as in the water) There are many examples on this forum. I don't particularly want to end up taking pictures of birds looking up their bums. I bin a lot of those already
If you look at the hammer shot I posted yesterday you will see that lowering the viewpoint would not show hardly any more background. I am not talking wide angle stuff here - that's a different matter all together. Its interesting, that in all the years I have been selling, posting exhibiting , lecturing with,and giving away pics done at this pool there has never been a mention of "LPOV" until recently.That's why I posted the question.
Again I am not talking about wide angle at all. I did that years ago and lost interest.
Yes Ian I agree about the Coot shot but as I think I have explained my pool at 3 foot across is slightly different.
At the end of the day if I lower my hide,raise the pool etc I don't think it will make that much difference. As Andy says 45% and it would need a rethink.When I built the set up it wasn't just thrown up. A lot of thought and trial had gone into it for all the reasons I have tried to explain. Thanks for your interest everyone.
JohnR
Obviously there is not right or wrong way of doing these things, otherwise we would all end up taking the same photographs. I feel the main argument for low point-of-view shots is that it gives a sense of eye contact with the subject, and for me, that make the photo much more engaging. The ability to throw more of the background out of focus can help isolate he subject as well. For example, in your muddy pool shots, I feel it would benefit from having less of the background in focus, as the area of in-focus mud doesn't add much to the photo (obviously this is just my opinion, and others may well disagree).
Good point Daniel, but I suppose I could do that with aperture selection. Still doesn't solve my reflection problem when it crops up though .
Cheers
John
Manually front focusing and then using the DOF to keep your subject sharp but throwing the rear BG further out of focus and be a bit hit and miss with respect to obtaining critical sharpness of the subject especially at large apertures.
Tom
No I didn't explain very well.
I meant say for example using f 8 instead of f 16 which would spoften it a bit.. A better idea would be to go further away and use the 500 instead as its the 300 often on the 200mm mark which is part of the problem.
All academic now anyway as the pool's gone
JohnR
There is no right and no wrong in this respect. The point of view adopted by the photographer depends upon the situation presented and what the photographer is trying to capture. In your pool situation, a lower pov might well have resulted in the opposite shoreline crossing the frame, which would have been a less pleasing result than the water/mud backgrounds that often form the background to these images. Also, if you want to show the plumage details of a bird, a slightly higher than parallel pov is often advantageous. I feel that a lot of the comments in this forum have become almost a mantra - "I would prefer a .... lower view point, smaller in the frame, space on the right"; maybe some folks have these comments programmed onto their programable keys I rarely post images anymore, because I feel that people commenting rarely take time to analyse what it is that the photographer was trying to do, or had to contend with, in the process of image capture.
If previous comment didn't get you all going, then perhaps this one will
As has already been mentioned, there is no right and wrong, just opinion; but that coot shot further up the thread would have been nothing like the shot it is if it had been taken from higher up, similarly some of your shots of bathing birds with their tails spread on the surface of the water would have been less attractive from a lower PoV. None of this matters - if I look at it and I like it I say so, if I think it would have been better taken lower down I will say that too. For me it just depends on the shot but good eye contact from whatever level always improves a shot IMO and that is easier to achieve when on a level with the subject.
I understand where Phil is coming from re comments on shots, but even in the short time I have been on here it has become harder and harder to study every shot in detail. The number of posts seems to be growing like topsy ( most images disappear from the first page within 3-4 days) and the quality is going up all the time. I think that to a certain extent this forum is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. I hope that nobody ever feels that I would deliberately avoid commenting on their posts, but it is getting hard to comment on everything. Perhaps that is why comments may seem superficial. Eric
Thanks again.
The last two posters I think have grasped exactly what I have been trying to say for some time. I do not have the knack of explaining things too well myself. The spread tail comment sums it up very well indeed. And I can post dozens of shots that have been useless because of a reflection which has to be chopped to get a good frame aspect. No one seems to have grasped this at all.
I could solve the problem simply by moving the hide back a yard. It's only because its so close that gives the looking down feel- not the camera level.
I am too old to start digging big holes in bunter sandstone.
Cheers
JohnR
I am pleased my original qestion has not fallen on deaf ears entirely.
I rarely post images anymore, because I feel that people commenting rarely take time to analyse what it is that the photographer was trying to do, or had to contend with, in the process of image capture.
Whilst I agree to some extent, I also feel that there must be a onus on the photographer to explain the situation and what they hoped to acheive as all critique is based on the information made availiable.
Eric,
We are aware of of the 'churn-rate' and are looking at ways to resolve this, and re-enforce the critique purpose of the forum, without neccessarily a reduction in allowed posts. Watch this space around the end of the summer.
Whilst I agree to some extent, I also feel that there must be a onus on the photographer to explain the situation and what they hoped to acheive as all critique is based on the information made availiable.
I really do think I have tried to explain what I have been doing for the past fifty years too many times already !
I just take pictures of birds in a puddle. I am not really trying to achieve anything. Except a picture of a bird in a puddle.
JR
John,
Can I throw my opinion into the ring though it is far more subjective than any of the above. I think that pictures of wildlife taken from above their sight-line means that you are 'looking down' on the subject. Obvious, I know, but I mean 'looking down' as in the viewer seems to be controlling or dominating the creature they are looking at. If the shot is taken at eye level then the subject is 'equal' to the viewer or in the case of something like a big cat it can almost then dominate the viewer. To me that's where wildlife should be. The subject is the star of the show after all!
I know you think you're bad at explaining yourself but as you can see I'm even worse. I hope this makes sense!
Dave
Discussion
16 repliesI can understand if a picture is commented on when it is not sharp, or colour caste, or badly composed etc, etc, but all I need to know is , why is a bird picture better from a lower POV ??
All I need need is a simple answer to a simple question before I chuck a hell of a lot of pictures in the bin.
JR
I dont think its a fad otherwise you could say looking down or up at the subject is a fad and as a result will sooner or later die out to as all fads do.
I think its all a matter of personal taste and if it is you cant blame someone for passing that very comment. We all know John that you wont be chucking anything but there is nothing to stop you looking a bit harder.
So John flex those muscles and bend that back and get down and Dirty.
Just my point of view.
Major.
Nothing 'new' about it in the least - photograph a subject from eye level, basic rule of photography since the year dot - it's just that our subjects in the main have eyes just inches from the ground so to apply basic photography rules we have to get down on the floor.
So it's not a fad, it's just that we are looking to produce stunning photography and not just record shots.
It didn't start on the Norfolk coast a couple of years ago - I've got a book by Eric Hoskins which is full of eye-level images, and it's a damn sight older than a couple of years.
In the image I've posted, I don't think it would have worked if I had been higher.
The 'lower pov' (I prefer 'parallel pov') done with a telephoto compression gives an image where the photo concentrates on the subject alone as usually the background is defocused. This helps concentrate the viewers eye onto the subject that the photog has selected - usually giving a certain amount of impact/drama to a shot.
Lower POV's can also show the habitat by using a wider angle lens and changing the relative positions of background & subject with respect to the camera. I've shots of Woodcock taken at birds-eye ground view with a wide angle lens - they show a different image to the same position/subject taken with a telephoto lens of 100mm+
Higher POV's & those where the focus is wider/'infinite' are no lesser images - just they convey a different view allowing the viewer to see more of the subject's surroundings/habitat. Those images may be better from a viewpoint of ID'ing a species.
The telephoto+parallel pov (or blown out background - BOB) is popular in the US...and as most of the wildlife internet forums are US based, it's use has become more popular elsewhere too. Plus, not many Americans can do 'habitat' shots very well, so they tend to prefer the 'bob' shots as well as the Bird-on-a-stick (BOAS) shots
Which you want to use depends on you as the creator of the image and the use to which you want to put the image. No one or other is necessarily correct/wrong. So, no need to bin a load of images....
If you look at the hammer shot I posted yesterday you will see that lowering the viewpoint would not show hardly any more background. I am not talking wide angle stuff here - that's a different matter all together. Its interesting, that in all the years I have been selling, posting exhibiting , lecturing with,and giving away pics done at this pool there has never been a mention of "LPOV" until recently.That's why I posted the question.
Again I am not talking about wide angle at all. I did that years ago and lost interest.
Yes Ian I agree about the Coot shot but as I think I have explained my pool at 3 foot across is slightly different.
At the end of the day if I lower my hide,raise the pool etc I don't think it will make that much difference. As Andy says 45% and it would need a rethink.When I built the set up it wasn't just thrown up. A lot of thought and trial had gone into it for all the reasons I have tried to explain. Thanks for your interest everyone.
JohnR
Cheers,
Dan.
Cheers
John
No I didn't explain very well.
I meant say for example using f 8 instead of f 16 which would spoften it a bit.. A better idea would be to go further away and use the 500 instead as its the 300 often on the 200mm mark which is part of the problem.
All academic now anyway as the pool's gone
JohnR
If previous comment didn't get you all going, then perhaps this one will
I understand where Phil is coming from re comments on shots, but even in the short time I have been on here it has become harder and harder to study every shot in detail. The number of posts seems to be growing like topsy ( most images disappear from the first page within 3-4 days) and the quality is going up all the time. I think that to a certain extent this forum is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. I hope that nobody ever feels that I would deliberately avoid commenting on their posts, but it is getting hard to comment on everything. Perhaps that is why comments may seem superficial.
The last two posters I think have grasped exactly what I have been trying to say for some time. I do not have the knack of explaining things too well myself. The spread tail comment sums it up very well indeed. And I can post dozens of shots that have been useless because of a reflection which has to be chopped to get a good frame aspect. No one seems to have grasped this at all.
I could solve the problem simply by moving the hide back a yard. It's only because its so close that gives the looking down feel- not the camera level.
I am too old to start digging big holes in bunter sandstone.
Cheers
JohnR
I am pleased my original qestion has not fallen on deaf ears entirely.
Whilst I agree to some extent, I also feel that there must be a onus on the photographer to explain the situation and what they hoped to acheive as all critique is based on the information made availiable.
Eric,
We are aware of of the 'churn-rate' and are looking at ways to resolve this, and re-enforce the critique purpose of the forum, without neccessarily a reduction in allowed posts. Watch this space around the end of the summer.
I really do think I have tried to explain what I have been doing for the past fifty years too many times already !
I just take pictures of birds in a puddle. I am not really trying to achieve anything. Except a picture of a bird in a puddle.
JR
Which Hoskins book was that ? I've got most of them .
Cheers
John
Can I throw my opinion into the ring though it is far more subjective than any of the above. I think that pictures of wildlife taken from above their sight-line means that you are 'looking down' on the subject. Obvious, I know, but I mean 'looking down' as in the viewer seems to be controlling or dominating the creature they are looking at. If the shot is taken at eye level then the subject is 'equal' to the viewer or in the case of something like a big cat it can almost then dominate the viewer. To me that's where wildlife should be. The subject is the star of the show after all!
I know you think you're bad at explaining yourself but as you can see I'm even worse. I hope this makes sense!
Dave