Kingfishers

I am trying to be less "cold" with my photos. Looking at the images creatively vs documentary like. Here are 2 images from the same day, which do you like better? I was going with less of a "fill the frame" on the second image. I realize that the overall quality of #1 is lower, but its a sacrifice that comes from trying to fill the frame as much as possible.

#1

Tuff call. I like em both.

Rediscovered this old thread of mine from 4 months ago, and realized that just a few minutes ago I had the same question from a set of photos I was working on. So I will post them here, and see what you think. Which is better, more context, or fill the frame. (these are 2 different processes on the exact same photo)

Both pairs are good and I am fighting the same issue. The choice should be what story you are telling with the shot.

Both pairs are great.

On the kingfisher I prefer the second shot partly for the environment rather than burnt out sky and partly because you are closer to the eye level of the subject.

On the second bird I prefer the tighter shot, not because it is bigger in the frame but because their is less competition from the background for the viewers attention.


I think in wildlife photography it is a tough choice between showing in the environment as apposed to a more minimal approach to concentrate the eye on the subject.

Although far from expert I tend to show the environment more where it is of interest, such as a mossy tree branch, warm sun-lit rushes etc.