Posted by Barry Southon on April 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Just prior to heading home to Blighty I was invited to visit Yellowstone National Park at the end of winter. The snow made all the difference and provided endless snow-scapes.
This image provoked a deeper question that has been bothering me for a while. A great many images on this forum invoke comments which refer to the fact that an image is big in frame not enough space either side etc.
Whilst I totally understand the basis for comments and the fact that they are personal opinions which is fine, but rarely is an explanation provided as too why.
I'm trying to understand the reason why. There is a clear difference between opinions either side of the Atlantic and why shouldn't there be.
I also accept it depends on the photographer as to what he may be trying to exhibit and personal preferences.
If you have the time I'd be interested to know.
"Lone Wolf in the Wilderness" a long way off but nevertheless a sighting and I wanted to record the vastness and the lone movement.
Canon 1D3 Canon 70-200mm hand held 1/8000sec 160mm f/4.5 ISO400
RAW to lightroom resized to post.
Thanks for looking.
Posted by Rene de Heer on April 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Barry, i understand what you mean and what you try to achieve with this image. I also like animalscapes as much as i like full "in your face" birds and mammal images.
The vastness comes out well in your mage, however i find the wolf just a bit too small in this image. Also i think the image could be a bit brighter. Still a good achievement and i can clearly see where you want to go with this image!
Rene de Heer
Posted by Nick Mckeown on April 6, 2012 at 10:54 AM
The wolf is really small in the frame Barry, in fact I'm not sure I have actually found it. You must have been delighted to have seen one though and that will stay with you for the rest of your life and to you this image will bring those memories flooding back to you whenever you look at it. For me that is what photography is all about. Images that we take are always very personal and every image I take is taken for me and as an amateur that is fine and whilst I post on here for comments at the end of the day if I am happy with that image then really that is all that matters to me. My photography as an amateur is intensely personal as indeed it is for most, if not all, photographers and some people do seem to get upset by some comments no matter how well intentioned. I post my comments for critique and if the majority of people do not like it for whatever reason then that is fine by me. I will re-evaluate what it is I liked about the image and it may be that I change my mind about the composition or pose of the creature and learn from that criticism. The more people that look at the image the more critique you will get and as you say there appears to be differing opinions on the other side of the big pond, why that is I am not sure. But at the end of the day if you are happy with your image that is what really matters.
Nick.
Posted by Barry Southon on April 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Rene
We are on the same page, I too like the full in your face images with outstanding detail. Macro can also be exceptional. What I'm trying to understand is the views of others and the reasoning behind the opinions. Most of my images appear on the dull side my monitor is too bright so gives me a false impression and I'm not so sure I have the colour setting correct. I'm easily confused.
I'm pleased I was able to convey the vastness nonetheless.
I too like the concept of the animal within the landscape but here it is not quite working as the Wolf is just simply too small, for this type of image to work the animal needs to be recognisable, Also as mentioned the image is too dark... turn down the brightness of your monitor, better still, get it calibrated and profiled, you will certainly see a difference...
Barry any chase you can post the image larger to give us a fighting chance.
Posted by Barry Southon on April 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Steve / Guys
Sorry I tried to include the large version but it kicked it back my guess it was over 500kb I didn't check the wolf is about 7oclock
at least it makes a good eyesight test For once I didn't have the big glass with me which would have done the job.
I do have a good reason to seek the large in frame observations and just thought this image might provoke the replies.
Barry
Its a difficult one to answer but I think basically a subject in a photograph is really part of a scene. If the subject dominates so much as to give no idea of context, habitat, aesthetic appeal etc,etc whatever you like to call it, then to the viewer it is put down as "big in frame" according to his/her preferences. Some on the other hand post big in frame to show how good they think their camera or lens is !!!
I personally don't mind on bird head close ups for example.- because in that case its the birds head you are showing. Why it should be different in other countries I don't know.. As I say - hard to answer ,but when I see a picture and the subject is too big in my view, then I know straight away - even if I can't explain it. The positioning of an animal or bird with the head to one side is a different story. A bird facing left with the head left of a centre line just to me looks wrong but may not be big in frame.
JR
There is a place for all sorts of images Barry. A good 'animal in its environment' image is better than a poor 'big in frame' image and vice versa. Different images convey different moods, some are more of an ID type detailed study and others are purely aesthetic. I have truly liked both types of image and both have their uses.
On this image as presented I would say the wolf is too small to make the image worthwhile (if what I'm taking to be the wolf is actually it of course!!). You are certainly up against it on an image this size of course and perhaps a larger post would be an improvement. Phil H hits the nail on the head for me when he says the animal needs to be recognizable.
Thank you one and all, rather than going on thinking I know what the comments refer to I now have a clearer understanding. John hits the nail on the head. You can wind up with a different interpretation if you just assume you know.
Once I saw the wolf the whole picture changed for me and made sense. It highlights the harsh environment in which the wolf lives. With a big lens it would just have been a wolf in the snow
Discussion
10 repliesThis image provoked a deeper question that has been bothering me for a while. A great many images on this forum invoke comments which refer to the fact that an image is big in frame not enough space either side etc.
Whilst I totally understand the basis for comments and the fact that they are personal opinions which is fine, but rarely is an explanation provided as too why.
I'm trying to understand the reason why. There is a clear difference between opinions either side of the Atlantic and why shouldn't there be.
I also accept it depends on the photographer as to what he may be trying to exhibit and personal preferences.
If you have the time I'd be interested to know.
"Lone Wolf in the Wilderness" a long way off but nevertheless a sighting and I wanted to record the vastness and the lone movement.
Canon 1D3 Canon 70-200mm hand held 1/8000sec 160mm f/4.5 ISO400
RAW to lightroom resized to post.
Thanks for looking.
The vastness comes out well in your mage, however i find the wolf just a bit too small in this image. Also i think the image could be a bit brighter. Still a good achievement and i can clearly see where you want to go with this image!
Rene de Heer
Nick.
We are on the same page, I too like the full in your face images with outstanding detail. Macro can also be exceptional. What I'm trying to understand is the views of others and the reasoning behind the opinions. Most of my images appear on the dull side my monitor is too bright so gives me a false impression and I'm not so sure I have the colour setting correct. I'm easily confused.
I'm pleased I was able to convey the vastness nonetheless.
I too like the concept of the animal within the landscape but here it is not quite working as the Wolf is just simply too small, for this type of image to work the animal needs to be recognisable, Also as mentioned the image is too dark... turn down the brightness of your monitor, better still, get it calibrated and profiled, you will certainly see a difference...
Sorry I tried to include the large version but it kicked it back my guess it was over 500kb I didn't check the wolf is about 7oclock
at least it makes a good eyesight test
I do have a good reason to seek the large in frame observations and just thought this image might provoke the replies.
Its a difficult one to answer but I think basically a subject in a photograph is really part of a scene. If the subject dominates so much as to give no idea of context, habitat, aesthetic appeal etc,etc whatever you like to call it, then to the viewer it is put down as "big in frame" according to his/her preferences. Some on the other hand post big in frame to show how good they think their camera or lens is !!!
I personally don't mind on bird head close ups for example.- because in that case its the birds head you are showing. Why it should be different in other countries I don't know.. As I say - hard to answer ,but when I see a picture and the subject is too big in my view, then I know straight away - even if I can't explain it.
JR
On this image as presented I would say the wolf is too small to make the image worthwhile (if what I'm taking to be the wolf is actually it of course!!). You are certainly up against it on an image this size of course and perhaps a larger post would be an improvement. Phil H hits the nail on the head for me when he says the animal needs to be recognizable.
Bob