First, truth be told, I am not a bird photographer, although I like it well enough. Our local refuge has a large variety of wading and swimming birds, which I thoroughly enjoy photographing, along with the marsh scenery. There are 3 other refuges and municipal parks in easy reach, as well as the beach and barrier islands.
My question: I am constantly reminded in critiques that a lower angle on birds is a better shot. Why is this understood as a given? I can see doing it with perching birds, upland birds and raptors (where possible), but why water birds? I ask this because I don't see the advantage or improvement, except possibly in eye contact/catch light, which is still possible from a more upright position, or even a kneeling position. But really it is up to the bird.
I am 68, arthritic, and I do not do well supine or soaked, especially in the winter. Most of the opportunities I have for avian photography are using my car as a blind, standing on a raised dike (or occasionally kneeling), or standing on the lip of a lake.
I come back to my question: why is it better artistically or photographically to be on a level with the bird? I understand compositional rules and try to adhere to them, but I haven't been able to reason this one out. Could someone kindly explain it to me?
Hi Philip,
For the most part no matter what you are shooting, getting eye level with your subject is always better aesthetically speaking. But I'm with you, surgery on both knees and arthritis setting in at 57 year old is not worth kneeling and crawling around on the ground, mud and water. I mostly shoot wading birds and it's just about 100% from my truck. One thing that helps lower the angle is a long lens. The closer you are the steeper the angle, the farther away the lower the angle. I shoot mainly with a 500mm and teleconverters. Being able to shoot wading birds at a distance of up to 100 feet gives the appearance that you were quite low to the water.
With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question. Why is "getting eye level with your subject ... always better aesthetically speaking"? I can see this for most subjects, but why is it always so with wading and water birds? There are luminance values and detail that are picked up in an oblique shot that aren't in a horizontal shot. There is feather detail that is missed when the back and head are not totally visible. You can actually get better DOF when that DOF is at an angle, rather than a vertical plane. In short, I feel an oblique shot has a chance at aesthetic validity, if there is a sound reason for it.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Actually, Philip, common composition rules suggest getting at eye level with any animal (or human). And the main reason is because people seem to like the shots better that way. I don't know the psychology of it, but I think that's all there is to it. If people (the viewing audience) preferred downward 45 degree angles, I think that would be the "rule". In looking through lots of bird images, I do find myself liking those with somewhat lower angles. As for the DOF, people also seem to like birds in shallow DOF. Long lenses and low angles help with this.
I do think with wading/shore birds, having a completely eye level angle may be a negative. As you said, this makes a bit more sense with pirching birds. But a steep down angle can look awkward with wading birds. Some of those with just a bit of down angle - enough to show the water environment - can look great though.
And finally - "rules" are in name only. If you like the results you get not following them, then by all means don't follow them. But others may disagree...
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 19, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Nothing is "always better" IMO. But generally, I prefer eye-level views of birds, including shorebirds, because it gives them more "dignity" for want of a better description. As a viewer I get a more intimate view and feel I see more of how they live and how they see the world. A view from typical human height diminishes them.
My arthritis (I'm 60 but I've been arthritic for almost 20 years) makes it difficult to get down, and I notice this more every time I go out. I'm not sure I could lay flat on the ground. I compromise by sitting on my butt behind my tripod-mounted camera that is probably 2-2.5 feet off the ground. And then I let the shorebirds come to me.
Styles and preferences change over time, so what is popular today may not be so tomorrow. Take the images you want to take and enjoy them; just don't expect everyone else to see them the same way.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on January 19, 2009 at 12:43 PM
A low angle also substantially changes the background and places it much further away.
This generally reduces the background clutter, or at least throws it way out of focus.
I like this "look" a lot, but it is just an option to consider.
But, I'm not a birder, so I'm happy with any shot I can get.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM
From the little avian/animal photography I have done, it seems to be a combination of a couple of things.
Background control - since the camera is lower to the ground, the recording medium is more parallel to the subject. This allows less depth of field, with a corresponding faster shutter speed and sometimes sharper image, thus isolating the subject.
Connection with the subject - The best way to explain this is to take two portraits of people. One is making eye contact with you or something in your direction and the other is just a random eye direction. Usually, the image with the subject making eye contact with you works better. Note that I said "usually". This is partly where your question comes from. The rules of composition are based on what a viewer often finds more attractive, but are not set in stone.
The subject's environment - When shot down at the bird's level, you are putting the viewer in the same space as the bird. In other words, for the viewer, it is a picture with the bird rather than of the bird. A rather extreme case, take two shots of a snake. One is from straight on top, looking down at the ground where the snake is. It will be more of a documentary "this is a snake" photo. Now change your position so that you are at the eye level of the snake, or even below. Suddenly, you bring the viewer into the photo.
And remember, there is no rule of composition which shouldn't be broken if the subject demands it.
I think these are all good observations, including the idea that there is no hard and fast rule. I just didn't want to get caught in a "knee jerk" critique in a particular situation. Here is the one that I had in mind. http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=113603&CGISESSID=3b2e18f37ab126b24bd37417fff22070&u=12430
My observation in the circumstance was that the wave action of the surfacing mallard on his far side, as well as the water sheeting off his back, would have been much less effective with an eye level shot than with an oblique shot. How much of an oblique I guess is a matter of taste and practicality, but at least enough to show the action in a believable manner.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on January 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Philip -
Like you, I have bad knees. Watching me get up from lying on the ground to get a low-angle photo is never a pretty sight. Heaven help me if I ever have to hurry.
But I can give you two tips:
(1) My Olympus E-3 has an LCD viewfinder that tilts up and moves around, so I can see what I'm shooting with the camera lower than me. It's not a perfect substitute for an eyeball to the viewfinder, but as a compromise for getting the eyeball down low, it's not bad. I'm sure there are other models of other brands that do the same thing.
(2) Closed call foam padding. I use something called "ensolite," and old style backpacking mattress. A little padding helps a lot.
Finally, I agree with Richard that lower angles are a guideline, like the thirds rule. Among folks regularly posting in Avian, perhaps Lia's work best demonstrates the incredible impact a low angle can have, for all the reasons others have set out above. But your Mallard shot and the points you made in that thread show why it's a guideline, not a "rule."
Posted by Steve Foss on January 19, 2009 at 7:42 PM
David nailed it.
And I wish compositional norms were never called rules.
Posted by Buck Ward on January 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Shooting at birds eye level is a 'rule' that generally works. An acqauintance of mine carries a yoga mat and unfurls it to lie on. He feels that the lens about a foot off the water is a good perspective for water birds. I tend to agree, but I usually sit behind my tripod, which puts the lens a bit higher.
The same "rule" applies to photographing small children - shooting down at them from a standing position can give you less appealing pictures than if you get down at their eye level.
Of course, with water birds, raising up a little bit and shooting down slightly will let you avoid distracting background objects, such as other birds or objects of people on the far shore. It will also help you isolate one bird from a group.
Reflections in water also are affected by the shooting angle. Shooting lower makes them longer. Shooting from a higher angle can make them more distinct.
But I agree with the others about "the rules". They should be thought of as suggestions, or tips, or rules of thumb.
Discussion
10 repliesMy question: I am constantly reminded in critiques that a lower angle on birds is a better shot. Why is this understood as a given? I can see doing it with perching birds, upland birds and raptors (where possible), but why water birds? I ask this because I don't see the advantage or improvement, except possibly in eye contact/catch light, which is still possible from a more upright position, or even a kneeling position. But really it is up to the bird.
I am 68, arthritic, and I do not do well supine or soaked, especially in the winter. Most of the opportunities I have for avian photography are using my car as a blind, standing on a raised dike (or occasionally kneeling), or standing on the lip of a lake.
I come back to my question: why is it better artistically or photographically to be on a level with the bird? I understand compositional rules and try to adhere to them, but I haven't been able to reason this one out. Could someone kindly explain it to me?
For the most part no matter what you are shooting, getting eye level with your subject is always better aesthetically speaking. But I'm with you, surgery on both knees and arthritis setting in at 57 year old is not worth kneeling and crawling around on the ground, mud and water. I mostly shoot wading birds and it's just about 100% from my truck. One thing that helps lower the angle is a long lens. The closer you are the steeper the angle, the farther away the lower the angle. I shoot mainly with a 500mm and teleconverters. Being able to shoot wading birds at a distance of up to 100 feet gives the appearance that you were quite low to the water.
Ronnie G.
With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question. Why is "getting eye level with your subject ... always better aesthetically speaking"? I can see this for most subjects, but why is it always so with wading and water birds? There are luminance values and detail that are picked up in an oblique shot that aren't in a horizontal shot. There is feather detail that is missed when the back and head are not totally visible. You can actually get better DOF when that DOF is at an angle, rather than a vertical plane. In short, I feel an oblique shot has a chance at aesthetic validity, if there is a sound reason for it.
I do think with wading/shore birds, having a completely eye level angle may be a negative. As you said, this makes a bit more sense with pirching birds. But a steep down angle can look awkward with wading birds. Some of those with just a bit of down angle - enough to show the water environment - can look great though.
And finally - "rules" are in name only. If you like the results you get not following them, then by all means don't follow them. But others may disagree...
My arthritis (I'm 60 but I've been arthritic for almost 20 years) makes it difficult to get down, and I notice this more every time I go out. I'm not sure I could lay flat on the ground. I compromise by sitting on my butt behind my tripod-mounted camera that is probably 2-2.5 feet off the ground. And then I let the shorebirds come to me.
Styles and preferences change over time, so what is popular today may not be so tomorrow. Take the images you want to take and enjoy them; just don't expect everyone else to see them the same way.
This generally reduces the background clutter, or at least throws it way out of focus.
I like this "look" a lot, but it is just an option to consider.
But, I'm not a birder, so I'm happy with any shot I can get.
Background control - since the camera is lower to the ground, the recording medium is more parallel to the subject. This allows less depth of field, with a corresponding faster shutter speed and sometimes sharper image, thus isolating the subject.
Connection with the subject - The best way to explain this is to take two portraits of people. One is making eye contact with you or something in your direction and the other is just a random eye direction. Usually, the image with the subject making eye contact with you works better. Note that I said "usually". This is partly where your question comes from. The rules of composition are based on what a viewer often finds more attractive, but are not set in stone.
The subject's environment - When shot down at the bird's level, you are putting the viewer in the same space as the bird. In other words, for the viewer, it is a picture with the bird rather than of the bird. A rather extreme case, take two shots of a snake. One is from straight on top, looking down at the ground where the snake is. It will be more of a documentary "this is a snake" photo. Now change your position so that you are at the eye level of the snake, or even below. Suddenly, you bring the viewer into the photo.
And remember, there is no rule of composition which shouldn't be broken if the subject demands it.
At least that is my take on it.
My observation in the circumstance was that the wave action of the surfacing mallard on his far side, as well as the water sheeting off his back, would have been much less effective with an eye level shot than with an oblique shot. How much of an oblique I guess is a matter of taste and practicality, but at least enough to show the action in a believable manner.
Like you, I have bad knees. Watching me get up from lying on the ground to get a low-angle photo is never a pretty sight. Heaven help me if I ever have to hurry.
But I can give you two tips:
(1) My Olympus E-3 has an LCD viewfinder that tilts up and moves around, so I can see what I'm shooting with the camera lower than me. It's not a perfect substitute for an eyeball to the viewfinder, but as a compromise for getting the eyeball down low, it's not bad. I'm sure there are other models of other brands that do the same thing.
(2) Closed call foam padding. I use something called "ensolite," and old style backpacking mattress. A little padding helps a lot.
Finally, I agree with Richard that lower angles are a guideline, like the thirds rule. Among folks regularly posting in Avian, perhaps Lia's work best demonstrates the incredible impact a low angle can have, for all the reasons others have set out above. But your Mallard shot and the points you made in that thread show why it's a guideline, not a "rule."
And I wish compositional norms were never called rules.
The same "rule" applies to photographing small children - shooting down at them from a standing position can give you less appealing pictures than if you get down at their eye level.
Of course, with water birds, raising up a little bit and shooting down slightly will let you avoid distracting background objects, such as other birds or objects of people on the far shore. It will also help you isolate one bird from a group.
Reflections in water also are affected by the shooting angle. Shooting lower makes them longer. Shooting from a higher angle can make them more distinct.
But I agree with the others about "the rules". They should be thought of as suggestions, or tips, or rules of thumb.