Best photo?

[Islandbound 1]

These are from today (Dec 2) and as I was taking shots of the critter it got me to thinking just what makes a shot interesting. Is composition more of a balanced photo and therefore more fun to look at or is the detail and mix of the primary subject in its environment what makes a photo look nice? I must admit that composition is a vague and foggy notion to me and the great unknown when taking photos.

 

Any thoughts and suggestions for improvements of the following photos would be greatly appreciated!

 

1)

 

2)

 

3)

[jlyle 8]

I like number two - better composition, second focus point, action, and DOF. Just my $0.02.

[Cerianthus 55]

It took me a while to see it was swimming: On the first picture it looks like it's sitting on the coral.

 

I think I like the second one best as well (also because it shows the nice back of the nudie. Altough there is something to say about 3 -> because it is headon (as in not chased)

[anthp 0]

my vote for 2 too! great shot.

[Steve Williams 0]

I really like number 2 also. You might think about framing a shot like this a little tighter next time or crop it if you"re into that. Something like this:

 

 

Still holds up as a good image and cuts out negative space where not much is happening. It also moves the nudi over to take advantage of the rule of thirds. One more thing that's interesting about this crop it is that it now makes the inverted V shape more prominent and draws your eye up to the head. If you want to get more of a handle on composition ideas, I think Jim Church wrote the bible for underwater, "Essential Guide to Composition". Martin Edge does a great job in his book, "The Underwater Photographer". If you want a rather serious look pick up The Photographers Eye by Michael Freeman" Taken in moderation these guys can help with the concepts, but at the end of the day it's what makes your eye happy that counts.

 

 

Steve

[pakman 0]

I'm gonna have to vote for #3. I think the out of focus background adds to the impression of it flying/ floating vs the other two where in the first 2, the in focus coral distracts from the subject and makes it almost appear as though it's climbing on them.

[ce4jesus 1]

heh...I like them all. Wonderful series. I think #2 captures the moment of flight better

[Islandbound 1]

I have to thank you all for the nice comments. What is most interesting to me is that #3 is my favorite as it was the hardest to shoot. Waiting and moving around to get the face shot took awhile.

 

I understand that cropping #2 to establish "thirds" will allow for a balanced and symmetrical photo. Is this the most common manner to make a pleasing photograph for the most people who will eventually view a photo? Do most UW photographers both professional and beginners end up cropping photos to generate a photo that follows this manner of symmetry?

[echeng 0]

I tend not to like photos where the subject is swimming away from me. It sure would have been great to have a shot framed like #2 with the guy swimming towards you.

[Steve Williams 0]

Do most UW photographers both professional and beginners end up cropping photos to generate a photo that follows this manner of symmetry?

 

I wouldn’t speak for most UW photographers; I know I feel much better about the shot when it comes out looking like I envisioned it before I hit the shutter. I'm far from a professional, sold a few images to a hotel, given some shows at dive shops etc. If you bet me a rum drink I'd guess most folks feel OK with some slight "trimming". I fall back on "If I could do it in the darkroom it's OK. That's way to "Old School" for some but that's just me for now. I’m still coming up the digital curve and trying to keep an open mind. The failure mode I see is when folks crop to make the subject fill the frame when they should have been closer to begin with. I'd guess that we amateurs (I speak for myself) crop a lot more than the real pros. Might be an interesting subject for a poll someday. It does start to open up the “how much manipulation is allowable†conversation. A 21 mega pixel camera produces an image that could be massively cropped and still look very nice on a website. We are blessed (or cursed) to live in a time when the technology is progressing far faster than the culture. That to me is one of the outstanding benefits of Wetpixel. I’m watching the future culturally accepted values evolve and be defined right before my eyes.

 

I'd love to hear what the Pro's have to say.

 

Steve

[Islandbound 1]

Steve, you make a good point in discussing "how much" is perhaps "too much" when the crop manipulates the photo to produce an image which is fundamentally changed from the "entire" original photo. I crop to some extent all my photos as the image produced by the Nikon is too large for me to print on my home picture printer. When I crop to either portrait or horizontal though I generally use the outer boundary of the taken image and do not use the center subject and abnormally change the picture size.

 

The irony to me of the crop issue is that for some who think this is a bad practice there is no reciprocal negative feeling of shooting in RAW. RAW is the ultimate form of post picture manipulation but for most is all right to do. In digital terms I guess that anything other than actual color manipulation has become part of the norm and commonplace on the way to actually printing a photo for viewing.

[Steve Williams 0]

RAW is the ultimate form of post picture manipulation but for most is all right to do. In digital terms I guess that anything other than actual color manipulation has become part of the norm and commonplace on the way to actually printing a photo for viewing.

 

Oh there are those who would argue that auto anything is not "real" photography. Of course they don't tend to hang out on Wetpixel. If you want to see what Chris Newbert had to say on the subject go checkout

www.undercurrent.org/UCnow/articles/digital200507.shtml

It's an article in Undercurrent from 2005. It pretty much sums up one end of the spectrum. I don't agree with him but you have to love his conviction and dedication to the art form. People here care too, check out the categories for the competition at this years Digital Shootout Bonaire led by Eric and Berkley White. They have both "Traditional and Unrestricted categories. "The “Traditional†divisions allow for the adjustment of brightness, contrast, color, and sharpness only. Cropping, cloning, and other digital manipulation is not allowed in this category. "

 

Steve

Edited December 5, 2007 by williamshs

[diggy 54]

Being totally new to underwater photography and having used film cameras on land earlier i am fascinated by this conversation and debate.

 

I started in Tulamben Bali in September 2007 when i first took some u/w pics...and was totally taken by CS2 and the results.post that it was the Andamans at which point i felt like i was cheating in an examination altering images on CS 2 cropping, cutting etc. Post that it was Maldives and i have come to realise that one's endeavor to be a better photographer lies in taking that image u/w which should be the final image on top. Digital took me some time to understand but nowhere is it mentioned that RAW or alterations on CS2/3 is part of the programme. It is indeed difficult and a challenge in itself with the MEGA pixels available as armament. Thanks Steve and J. Winter for the input and thoughts on this. Indeed it will be difficult for me to abandon CS2 as i wrte this but there is hardly any gray on this one in my mind.

 

Diggy

 

 

 

Oh there are those who would argue that auto anything is not "real" photography. Of course they don't tend to hang out on Wetpixel. If you want to see what Chris Newbert had to say on the subject go checkout

www.undercurrent.org/UCnow/articles/digital200507.shtml

It's an article in Undercurrent from 2005. It pretty much sums up one end of the spectrum. I don't agree with him but you have to love his conviction and dedication to the art form. People here care too, check out the categories for the competition at this years Digital Shootout Bonaire led by Eric and Berkley White. They have both "Traditional and Unrestricted categories. "The “Traditional†divisions allow for the adjustment of brightness, contrast, color, and sharpness only. Cropping, cloning, and other digital manipulation is not allowed in this category. "

 

Steve

[Steve Williams 0]

Diggy,

There is another side to the coin, and more reflects my way of thinking. Photoshop in the right hands puts the photographer finally back in charge of his image. We have come full circle back to the control the great print makers and photographers had in their darkrooms years ago. No longer do you turn your film over to some dude and open the package days later to see what happened. Creating a brilliant print, tack sharp, well composed to draw in the viewer and tell a compelling story is not an easy thing to do on film or on a computer. The tools (camera & software as a system) are designed to let you shoot in RAW in order that you can get the best possible representation of the image you saw through the viewfinder. The fact that some choose to use the tool to put nudibracs on bristle worms shouldn't diminish the tool, it should and does from what I've seen here on Wetpixel diminish the person who falsified the image. And then only if they attempt to pass it off as Truth. The concern I think some have is that the day someone does get the image of the nudi and the bristleworm(guess it could happen) no one will believe the image is real.

Everyone has to come to terms with what they believe to be truth on their own, it's a personal decision. Please don't take my words to represent the feelings of anyone else. It is truly IMHO. And like I said above I'm still learning.

 

Steve

[diggy 54]

Thanks Steve,

Am taking no one's words on this one. And a long time ago i was involved with B & W photography and have worked in the darkrooms moving my hands to make an area lighter or darker etc. And i did mention that it would not be possible to abaondon CS 2 Its just i found this entire subject VERY interesting and would really like to hear other people's take on this one. And yes i am a pupil too walking on the learning curve.

 

Cheers ,

 

Diggy

Diggy,

There is another side to the coin, and more reflects my way of thinking. Photoshop in the right hands puts the photographer finally back in charge of his image. We have come full circle back to the control the great print makers and photographers had in their darkrooms years ago. No longer do you turn your film over to some dude and open the package days later to see what happened. Creating a brilliant print, tack sharp, well composed to draw in the viewer and tell a compelling story is not an easy thing to do on film or on a computer. The tools (camera & software as a system) are designed to let you shoot in RAW in order that you can get the best possible representation of the image you saw through the viewfinder. The fact that some choose to use the tool to put nudibracs on bristle worms shouldn't diminish the tool, it should and does from what I've seen here on Wetpixel diminish the person who falsified the image. And then only if they attempt to pass it off as Truth. The concern I think some have is that the day someone does get the image of the nudi and the bristleworm(guess it could happen) no one will believe the image is real.

Everyone has to come to terms with what they believe to be truth on their own, it's a personal decision. Please don't take my words to represent the feelings of anyone else. It is truly IMHO. And like I said above I'm still learning.

 

Steve

[Steve Williams 0]

Some of the Pros had a good conversation on the subject back in 2005. Check out a thread in the Galley, It's called Optimisation or Manipulation and is in The Gallery, Best of Wetpixel General

 

(someday I'll learn how to enter a link)

Fascinating reading, the culture evolves

 

Steve

Edited December 7, 2007 by williamshs