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

Tom, when you first started taking pictures of birds and wildlife did you feel the same way, only taking the best of the best or was it all new to you and you were also taking alot of shots to practice getting on target and getting the exposure etc? This is a whole new area of photography to me and on eagles I had never seen one in my entire 66 years outside of a zoo. I saw two or the same one in a single week, but haven't seen one since. As I get better I am deleting more and more shots. In the last few weeks I have learned about Merganzers and Goldeneyes and other ducks I never new existed or had seen, I used to think the only ducks were Mallards and the white ones from Easter.

When I started Trap shooting I didn't start out doing 25/25 rather it was 8 or 10 for 25 and then with lots of practice I got into the 20's it is all practice. Some people I am sure pick up a gun and hit the bull first time every time and pick up a camera and get really sharp frame filling shots on their first outing but me I need LOTS of practice and it is still fun. I shoot in bad light at the wrong times too far, but when I do I am learning.

Some day I may get to feel about BIF the way you do, only liking the very best. I am that way about Solar imaging, I used to get a thrill with any sunspot or prom or flare, but now unless it is big or unusual I often don't even bother to go out to even look at the sun. Same with deep sky imaging - I am using a 17" telescope in both the Canary Islands and Chile through membership in SLOOH a remote observatory.

I NEVER fill the frame. Well, hardly ever... sometimes by accident I do. Basically every shot is cropped.

If you need to compose exactly in the viewfinder and have the time to do so, then it is fine to fill the frame. That was how we shot slide film a generation ago. Slides were a pain to edit and/or crop. But times are different now.

If you fill the frame every time, then what happens when you need to print do a different size with different aspect ratio, because a client wants it that size?!

Wilt wrote in post #19018246
If you fill the frame every time, then what happens when you need to print do a different size with different aspect ratio, because a client wants it that size?!

Indeed - there are many who will say the 3:2 aspect ratio of the 35mm format is not the best for most prints (or for screen viewing for that matter).

Wilt wrote in post #19018246
If you fill the frame every time, then what happens when you need to print do a different size with different aspect ratio, because a client wants it that size?!

Tell them to take the size we give them because the photographer might not always be right but they are never wrong, once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken

Wilt wrote in post #19018246
If you fill the frame every time, then what happens when you need to print do a different size with different aspect ratio, because a client wants it that size?!

Or if your client needs open space for their masthead, you best not have cropped too tightly.

The advice to fill the frame is, generally, good advice but you must also consider how your client (or potential client) may use the final image.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19017892
... 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"

Jeff I certainly agree with the comments made by many that you should shoot and keep whatever makes you happy. I do. It's just a hobby after all.

For inspiration, you might be interested to listen to some of the thoughts of David Yarrow, a pretty amazing wildlife photographer. As well as his philosophy of getting close and low for the shot, learning intimately about the animals' behaviours, taking a huge amount of time and gaining access to prime viewpoints, it's interesting that he says he considers four to six really good photos a year to be a good year. You can watch it here.

Here are two of my better spots, more birds

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19018239
Tom, when you first started taking pictures of birds and wildlife did you feel the same way, only taking the best of the best or was it all new to you and you were also taking alot of shots to practice getting on target and getting the exposure etc?

Both.

Before I started photographing birds and wildlife for real, I spent a lot of time in zoos practicing, because I realized how much of an effort it would require to get the kinds of photos I wanted. . I mean, literally, hundreds upon hundreds of hours in zoos shooting the critters and birds there, throughout 2006 and 2007, so that I could learn all about exposure and develop reflexes and condition my muscle response. . I literally treated my practice zoo shooting like a full time job, buying memberships in 3 different zoos and going to one of them 3 or 4 days a week for months on end, and staying all day whenever I went. . I would spend the days shooting at the zoos and the nights downloading the photos and scrutinizing them at magnified view and continually asking myself, "what can be done to make this image better".

But the practice outings at the zoos were just that - I never thought of the images I got from any of those practice outings as intrinsically worthwhile. . I knew right from the start what my standards were, and never settled for less. . I may have taken inferior images, but no satisfaction was ever derived from any of those because they didn't meet the standards I had in my mind's eye.

When it came to outings that weren't practice, then I was very picky right from the start.. I simply never took images that required very deep cropping, where the bird was a little spot in the frame. . I just never wanted photos like that - no interest in that look whatsoever at any time.

Right from the start - my very first year of bird photography - I spent a lot of time doing scouting and research, and setting up blinds and spending 4 to 8 hours in the blind each day, waiting for the birds to get close enough. . It was never just "recreational fun" to me - I pretty much applied an obsessive-compulsive effort to bird photography right from the very beginning because I knew that was what it would take for me to get the kinds of photos I wanted. . I soon realized that 90% of bird photography is developing a strategy for getting closer and getting lower, and then spending a huge effort employing that strategy.

I certainly don't think this should be other people's approach or attitude towards shooting birds, because some people do bird photography for fun and recreation, not just for the images they can get out of it.

.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19018239
I used to think the only ducks were Mallards and the white ones from Easter.

That is an awesome line!

Who knows, maybe the Title Fairy will take notice of it?!!!

.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19018239
Some day I may get to feel about BIF the way you do, only liking the very best. I am that way about Solar imaging, I used to get a thrill with any sunspot or prom or flare, but now unless it is big or unusual I often don't even bother to go out to even look at the sun.

So then you know exactly how I feel about bird and wildlife photography. . If you already have a bunch of really good images, then why bother taking anything that is way less?

If one's goal is to enjoy photographing stuff, then that's different. . But if one's goal is only to get the best images they can, then one needs to have stringent standards and stick to them and not totally accept anything less ..... the same way you do it with your solar photography.


.

I would have to say that I concur that the statement as it was made is a *gross* oversimplification, for sure. As you've arrived at with discussion w/ Tom, it isn't really a terrible guideline to keep in mind once you *have* something...but, not such good advice to throw around for an arena of shooting you're new to or unfamiliar with. After nearly a decade of my own shooting, I don't generally shoot things that I've found to be "common" and have a ton of pics of, unless I can fill or at least mostly fill the frame; but, if it is something that I don't get to see often or have a ton of opportunity, I'll take the damned shot and keep what I get.

Had I stuck with that advice I would have passed up being able to capture this:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/C5G2​FX

If they say so

IMHO there are many cases when it isn’t necessary to fill the frame, particularly with wildlife. If I see an animal or bird that is rare (to me), I’ll try to get a half decent shot. My aim is then to get better shots, if I can. We don’t have bald eagles in the wild in the UK, but do have golden eagles and white tailed eagles (although much rare than your bald eagles). I have managed to get some reasonably good shots of the white tailed eagles, but nothing good of golden eagles. I can’t fly, so it is difficult to get closer.

If I was a professional trying to sell my images, I might become obsessive about getting everything perfect, butI am an amateur taking pictures for enjoyment. Jeff, I think you are going the right way. It is better to have a shot of an a eagle than not. Next time there is always an opportunity for a better shot. I find I take less shots of an animal, the more I have already taken, as I am trying to improve. However, in photography and other fields, the pursuit of perfection is often the enemy of good enough and can lead to significant frustration.

All these threads especially this one are good learning experiences. I used to think I was a pretty good photographer but realize I was really a blind squirrel

"even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then"

Seeing the quality of the images here is getting me to try to improve my photography, I try to learn from each thread. For example in this thread I am learning to try to fill the frame which will help with sharpness, wait for good shots (not quite the right phrasing) to be more selective but at the same time not to give up an opportunity for a unique shot just because it is not right in the viewfinder.

Who do I shoot for, myself and family and friends (although one of my sons could care less about my photography and the other who is a better photographer than I am is not impressed, but at least my wife really likes them and she has the pension and I follow the golden rule "she with the gold makes the rules".
My BIF are unique because I am still at the beginning of doing them. Still trying to learn to get them in the frame and focus, since this thread I have started to point at them get them in the frame BFF and then not take the shot if they aren't close enough (98% of the time) other than seagulls I would estimate that about once in every 12-15 hours of sitting watching and waiting does one come close enough to fill the frame. And seagulls not that I have some nice shots are not as interesting.
I mostly shoot at parks or places that there are often a lot of people due to mobility. I have trouble walking more than 500 or 600 feet even on a smooth even surface and if I try to walk around a zoo (which I want to do when they open for the year) I end up in real pain in my knees. I have to be very careful of uneven surfaces and even a slight decline is dangerous. I am probably getting payback for laughing at the TV commercial about the guy who falls in the park and can't get up, that is me now. I can no longer climb on the rocks at Beavertail Lighthouse near Newport RI. The reservoir I have started shooting at has a gentle access to the dam and I wish I could go down the dam to the water, it is about 25 feet below where I sit (can't stand more than a few minutes without pain) but it is a 30 degree slope and if I fall I am in real trouble. I am continually looking for spots to shoot that fit my physical limitations and trying to get good shots there. I am not going to just sit inside, I want to get out and around, although this morning I may only go out for a short while (30 minutes) as it is 21 degrees with a 10-20 mph wind and a windchill down to about 14 degrees, a bit nippy.
My short term goal had been to always come back with a sharp shot, but now it is changing not only sharp but low noise right light more in the frame and interesting and compelling. All helpful criticism is appreciated.

As I say I shoot for myself and just plain enjoy taking pictures and working with the gear and often have G.A.S.

Frame filling, well seagulls fit the bill for me as they get close to you all the time but I am looking to do more interesting shots not just shots

This one was not a total frame filler but allowed for some composition leeway and I like how it looks in the rain.

Wilt wrote in post #19018088
"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'.

Very true and, ultimately, people should shoot and keep the images they like. HOWEVER, I do think that, if we want to improve as photographers, it is vital that we accept when the bottom line is that we didn't get the shot.

Having a valid reason why you didn't get the shot doesn't make an "almost" into "the shot".

.
There are times when it is useful to take a photo even if you cannot fill the frame the way you want to.

One example of this would be the first time I encountered this unusual looking game bird. . I had never seen one before and didn't know what it was. I mean, I knew it was some type of Grouse, but I was new to the western US and had never seen this kind of grouse before. . I wanted a better photo, but he was shy and walked into the grass when I pulled up close to him and brought the car to a stop. . But I took the pic anyway because I wanted a record of what I was seeing.