"If you can't get close enough to fill the frame, don't take the shot"

Now that I have your attention, I want to tell you about my experience last night.

Last nights PS workshop at my camera club was interesting but I have to take exception to a comment made about my image of an eagle. "If you can't get close, don't take the picture" First off with wildlife this is a bad mindset, getting close usually disrupts the wildlife. Also with shore birds such as piping plovers or terns people will tramp over the dunes to get closer, very disruptive. Secondly if you had a chance to get a once in a lifetime shot, in my case an eagle or a movie star or a plane crash would you say "I can't fill the frame so I won't try the shot"? I used a 100-400mm lens on this and the eagle was still a long way away, although with a 30mp sensor I can crop quite a bit, the original is soft and overexposed but I submitted it rather than deleting it because I wanted to see what they could do with it.

One final thought and piece of advice: I usually shoot in Manual and Raw and had my settings on the camera from the last trip and when I saw the eagle as I arrived at the lake in RI I grabbed the camera and jumped out of the car and started shooting, yikes overexposed. I usually try and recommend you to set your camera to Program or Automatic so if something like this happens you at least get good exposure.

I posted my comments on the clubs facebook site to see if that is the general mindset or not.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19017892
Now that I have your attention, I want to tell you about my experience last night.

Last nights PS workshop at my camera club was interesting but I have to take exception to a comment made about my image of an eagle. "If you can't get close, don't take the picture" First off with wildlife this is a bad mindset, getting close usually disrupts the wildlife. Also with shore birds such as piping plovers or terns people will tramp over the dunes to get closer, very disruptive. Secondly if you had a chance to get a once in a lifetime shot, in my case an eagle or a movie star or a plane crash would you say "I can't fill the frame so I won't try the shot"? I used a 100-400mm lens on this and the eagle was still a long way away, although with a 30mp sensor I can crop quite a bit, the original is soft and overexposed but I submitted it rather than deleting it because I wanted to see what they could do with it.

One final thought and piece of advice: I usually shoot in Manual and Raw and had my settings on the camera from the last trip and when I saw the eagle as I arrived at the lake in RI I grabbed the camera and jumped out of the car and started shooting, yikes overexposed. I usually try and recommend you to set your camera to Program or Automatic so if something like this happens you at least get good exposure.

I posted my comments on the clubs facebook site to see if that is the general mindset or not.

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=190​17892&i=i29329679
forum: General Photography Talk

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=190​17892&i=i32447790
forum: General Photography Talk

When I first started out in photography many years ago in the bygone days of film, the one thing that I was always told was to “fill the frame.” Today using a digital camera I still have the same mindset. It doesn’t matter whether the camera is 1mp or 100mp, I will always fill the frame with the image. I only crop for compositional purposes. If you are too far away then you need to either move closer or use a longer lens. Or, alternatively, wait until the subject moves closer to you.

In regards to your image of the eagle, personally I would have binned it. If you like it, then that is all that matters. You have to take images to please yourself, not other people.

In regards to camera settings, I always set the camera up before leaving home.

But, as with everything in photography it is about personal preferences. Use the equipment that YOU want to use. Use it the way that YOU want to use it. And take the photographs that YOU want to take. What other people say or do is largely irrelevant.

I would say the aim should be to get as much of the frame filled as is reasonably possible, but still leave room to crop afterwards as there are always things you see when processing that did not look obvious in the heat of the moment of taking the shot.

The larger the subject in the frame, the more pixels there are on target and the better the detail will be.

Every shot has it's own unique challenges, and smaller birds, skittish wild animals, keeping off private land etc all mitigate against getting a frame filled. You work with what you have.

Does that "fill the frame" rule apply to astrophotography too?

As in get closer.

joedlh wrote in post #19017952
Does that "fill the frame" rule apply to astrophotography too?

As in get closer.

Absolutely; buy a very long ladder.

John
I do like to fill the frame, unfortunatly I cannot walk on water and shooting from the shore I am limited on how close I can get and the eagle both times stayed way out over the lake. I am usually shooting with a crop sensor (80D or 90D) and at 600mm the effective mm is 960mm. The 1.4x from Sigma hurts the resolution to my mind and the AF.
The pic I posted is not good but it was the image I wanted to see what others could do compared to what I could do.

What is binning, I know what it is in Astro Imaging, most of my astro images are binned 2x2 or 3x3 so you combine pixels to get a shorter exposure although the resolution is less you can get as much data in a 30 second exposure as a much longer exposure.

Here is a better shot of the eagle after I noticed the wrong settings also a binned astro image (binned 3x3)

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19017956
What is binning

The trash BIN

Wilt wrote in post #19017964
The trash BIN

Ah ha! I thought it was combining pixels to get a shorter exposure, in astronomy that is what we do.

Since this was my first eagle I kept every image as space is cheap and I had never seen one before. on the second sighting I binned many of them and for my regular stuff I get rid of 90-95%+

As I had mentioned the only reason it came out of the archives was because they were having a workshop on PS/LR and I wanted to see what they could do with a crappy image.
I have only been doing birds for about a year and BIF for about 6 months, still learning

I agree with other have said. I do my best to fill the frame and compose my shot in camera. One of my biggest goals during a shoot is to compose my image as best as possible without have to crop for composition in post.

One of the things that I like about photography is that I can ignore the "rules". My photographs are for my enjoyment and, while I value the opinions and input from others, at the end of the day, if I like it, I keep it. I don't mean to suggest that we can't learn how to improve from others because we can and should, but absolute rules just are not absolute.

You fill the frame if it is a) possible and b) desirable. Not always possible or desirable with birds. Many times, getting close to a very small bird like a warbler isn't possible. It isn't always desirable, either, because it is, in my opinion, good to include some of the bird's surroundings to give it scale but to also make the bird part of the environment and not just a display (if that makes sense).

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Tim

3Rotor wrote in post #19017973
I agree with other have said. I do my best to fill the frame and compose my shot in camera. One of my biggest goals during a shoot is to compose my image as best as possible without have to crop for composition in post.

I do TRY to fill the frame but usually not possible when shooting at a lake or pond, I haven't been able to walk on water since my kids were small.

Mostly the birds seem to be about 100-200 yards away and no way to get closer. I can wait for them to come to you but like the eagle, mostly they just fly away.

Given that my budget and what I can reasonably keep with me are limited, I fill the frame except when:

1) physical obstacles prevent it
2) doing so would create a safety issue
3) doing so would disturb the subject and ruin the opportunity
4) a delay in taking the photo will cause the opportunity to be missed
5) doing so would change perspective to the extent that the composition is no longer desirable.

I imagine there are a couple other reasons, but the bottom line is that I don't pass up photos because my frame isn't filled.

This seems like another "crop or don't crop the print" thread in disguise. If you don't crop, fine; if you do crop, fine. There's no rule.

.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a "once in a lifetime" shot.

For me, Eagles are kind of common and uninteresting, compared to most other birds. . I see them as lazy scavengers that would rather eat trash at the dump than hunt for their own food. . So I usually don't bother taking a picture of an Eagle unless it is in a real good situation and I can fill the frame the way I want to and align it with a distraction-free background.

Some people think Eagles are really special and may not see them so regularly, so I guess if you really like Eagles and hardly ever get to shoot them, then it makes sense to take a shot even if it is a poor opportunity.

It's really about what something means to you and what your purposes are when it comes to making images.

Personally, I don't usually bother taking photos of anything unless I know it is going to be a quality image with good technical qualities. . There are many hundreds of times every year when I have a wonderful bird of mammal in front of me, but don't bother taking any pictures because the setting or the distance or the light isn't what I'm looking for. . Taking a picture just to have a picture isn't satisfying to me.

What is satisfying is when all of the elements come together and I get photos that I absolutely love! . That's what it's all about for me - getting the right composition and the right light and the right background and the right angle and the right pose or expression and the right framing and having all of the technical elements right, such as exposure and depth of field and noise and resolution. . When it all comes together it is very satisfying. . When it doesn't all come together, I'd just as soon not bother taking images.

When one already has thousands upon thousands upon thousands of really good quality wildlife and bird images, why would they want to take photos that are so much less than those they already have? . The best wildlife and bird photographers I know are very picky about light and distance and backgrounds. . They only bother taking pics when everything is "right". . And they are the people taking the best wildlife photos I have ever seen, so it is hard to argue with their methods.

But if you are not concerned with creating an aesthetic masterpiece, and see wildlife photography more as a way of preserving the memory of what you saw while afield, then it could make sense to take photos even when conditions are "off". . It's really all about your own personal reasons for photographing wildlife in the first place.
.

john crossley wrote in post #19017935
.
You have to take images to please yourself, not other people.

But, as with everything in photography it is about personal preferences. Use the equipment that YOU want to use. Use it the way that YOU want to use it. And take the photographs that YOU want to take. What other people say or do is largely irrelevant.
.

.
John, you are right on the money with those comments!


.

Getting close doesn’t always mean walking to it. In photography it achieved by tele lens as well. But I know wild life photogs who are spending time and putting lot of effort to get close for real.

"If you can't get close enough to fill the frame, don't take the shot"

Does not take into account the reality that everyone does not necessarily HAVE the time nor ability to 'get close to take the shot'.
In photojournalism might have an opportunity for a 'breaking action' situation, and you don't even have the time to switch lenses to telephoto zoom, from the wide angle zoom, because the action would be over in 5 seconds.
Does a wildlife photographer forgo the opportunity to photograph two mating elephants because they only take up 25% of the frame? Or a breaching whale herding fish with a bubble net?