Why do people put the bird right in the center of the frame?

.
When looking at bird photos online, so often I see am image where the photographer had an awesome bird in an awesome setting, but they seem to have ruined the opportunity by not composing the image properly. . They have the bird in the middle of the frame, with just as much negative space behind the bird as there is in front of the bird. . This looks so awkward. . I mean, even if the bird is striking a perfect pose, and the light is gorgeous, and the background is natural and free from any distraction ..... they can get all of that right, but if the bird is dead-center in the frame, it's like all of that goodness is for naught, because having the bird in the middle of the frame just totally ruins the shot.

So what I have always wondered is WHY? . Why do they put the bird right in the middle of the composition? . Is it because that is where they think it looks the very best? . Or is it because they simply just don't know any better?

I suspect it is because they don't know any better, because it is almost always hobby photographers who do this. . When I go to a professional's website, or view the best selling stock photos for any given species, those images almost always have the bird properly off-center, with much more space out in front of the bird, and very little space behind it. . But with weekend birders who post on Flicker and so forth, it is almost always just right there in the middle of the frame, looking as awkward as can be.

What do y'all think? . Do you think that the photographers who center their subjects do so intentionally, because they think that is how it looks best? . Or do you think that they just don't think about composition and framing when they are out shooting, and are just happy to get a pic before the thing flies away?

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, because this has bothered me a ton for years and years and I finally just had to put it out here for discussion.

I have attached two images to show what I am talking about.

In the first image, the composition is all wrong. . If I saw that posted on a forum, I would think, "darn - why did you waste such a good opportunity by putting the bird's head right in the center?"

If I saw the 2nd image posted on a forum, I would think, "beautiful image - you composed it beautifully!"

Yep, agree with you, Tom. Putting the bird in the middle of the frame is boring. It's bad composition. There are exceptions of course. But as a general rule, don't put your subject in the middle of the frame.

Why people do it? I think they don't have a clue. Never thought about it, never looked at the rules of composition. Not that you always have to follow the rules, but if you break them, have a good reason to do so.

I think that trying to impose absolutes onto something as subjective as photography is a fool's errand.

FWIW I find the first image that you presented preferable to the second. The entire body of the bird is right of the photo centerline, there is open space in front of the bird, and I find the composition pleasing. In the second I feel like the bird is a bit too far right with excessive open area on the left. I don't find the "surroundings" in that particular picture to be interesting or additive.

Something between the two might be "perfect" for me, but given the choice, I'd take the first.

I'll bet if you showed that pair of images to 100 different people you would get a pretty good split on opinions regarding which they prefer.

I think people center the bird because that's the first thing that occurs to them, and their thought process stops there, without considering other options. They're interested in showing the subject, the bird, more than in creating a work of art. I see a lot of the same thing in the Flowers thread: many shots of single blooms, centered and tightly cropped, as if made for identification only, like a mugshot.

If you grab a paper napkin and draw a bird to show someone the markings of that species, you'll probably put the bird in the center. It's the obvious choice.

Just look through the national geographic archives for birding photos, and you will get a mix of centered birds and off-center/quadrant birds shots. There is truly no right or wrong answer to how to frame, as long as the images are compelling.

Markmcc wrote in post #19202554
Something between the two might be "perfect" for me, but given the choice, I'd take the first.

I'll bet if you showed that pair of images to 100 different people you would get a pretty good split on opinions regarding which they prefer.

.
But I am not really interested in what random people think. . The opinion of the layperson isn't really what matters to me. . I am more concerned with those who have "informed, educated tastes".

I am interested in pleasing myself first, and pleasing industry professionals second. . By industry professionals, I mean graphic designers and publishers - the ones who buy my photos. . I need to compose my images in a way that gets them to sell, and the 2nd, more off-center composition will outsell the first by an exponential ratio.

.

OhLook wrote in post #19202560
.
I think people center the bird because that's the first thing that occurs to them, and their thought process stops there, without considering other options. They're interested in showing the subject, the bird, more than in creating a work of art.
.

.
Yes, OhLook, I think you nailed it!

Some friends of mine who lead wildlife photography workshops for a livelihood have a term for what you described. . They call that "subject fixation".

They say that the hardest thing to teach their workshop clients is to stop putting 100% of their attention on the animal, and start to use most of their brain to consider things like the light, the shadows, the background, the elements in the greater scene that could be used as supporting elements, etc. . This mindset/modus operandi is what they want most to impart to their clients, and yet they say that it is the hardest thing to get across ...... the idea that the photo they are taking is to be a work of art, and that the subject is just one of the parts of that photo.


.

So why pose the question if you don't care what random people (ie. POTN membership) thinks, it sounds like you should be consulting with your clients as to what they want in your photos. Seems odd to post a question to the general random populace of POTN if you don't care what others think. There isn't a universally right answer, it is just personal preference.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19202605
.
So why pose the question if you don't care what random people (ie. POTN membership) thinks, it sounds like you should be consulting with your clients as to what they want in your photos. Seems odd to post a question to the general random populace of POTN if you don't care what others think. You are probably going to get at least 100 or more views from POTN and everyone will post their opinions, which won't mesh with your own.
.

.
I already know what my clients want - no need to consult with them about composition because I already "got it".

What I am interested in finding out is why so many hobbyists don't compose their bird photos the way professionals compose thier bird photos. . What is it that is holding them back in this regard? . If we can find out what holds them back, then maybe those who want to improve can find a way to unleash themselves from whatever chains are binding them.

And of course, those who just want to take some bird photos, and aren't driven to improve, will just keep clicking away, the way they have always done. . I get that - not everyone wants every picture they take to be a masterpiece. . But for those who do, figuring out what holds them back could be very useful.

If we here on this forum are going to make thousands of posts about what gear could help us take better photos, then doesn't it stand to reason that it is just as useful to discuss what techniques can help us take better photos?


.

So this thread isn't really designed to be an objective discussion, but rather one where you hope to "instruct" others on the error of their ways and hope to correct their "bad" habits? I hope others find value in that, I certainly won't. I am too stubborn that way I guess!

It's interesting how about 30% of the NatGeo editors' favorite bird photos from various years seem to have birds centered in the frame, but what do they know?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19202496
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, because this has bothered me a ton for years and years and I finally just had to put it out here for discussion.

I'm not a fan of bird photography. In fact, the only birds I like looking at are on my dinner plate.
However, I find both of these photos to be equally attractive. I don't favor one over the other.
Both are very nice. But that's just me.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19202600
.
But I am not really interested in what random people think. . The opinion of the layperson isn't really what matters to me. . I am more concerned with those who have "informed, educated tastes".

I am interested in pleasing myself first, and pleasing industry professionals second. . By industry professionals, I mean graphic designers and publishers - the ones who buy my photos. . I need to compose my images in a way that gets them to sell, and the 2nd, more off-center composition will outsell the first by an exponential ratio.

.

Ah, the old "Informed, educated tastes" argument. I have a sister who was an aspiring opera singer and who would go to great lengths to explain to me the flaws in the latest top-10 artist's voice or technique. She was a "Professional" who was quite happy to dismiss what "common folks" liked in favor of what the (much) smaller informed and educated people favored. But to be clear, in the subjective world of music the artists that she didn't care for were much more popular than those that she did.

Just for giggles, I've reviewed the latest Texas Ornithological Society (TOS) 2020 Annual Bulletin which is 101 pages of pictures, articles, etc. Of the dozens of images published, many have the subject centered, most are somewhat offset, but virtually none are offset to the degree of your second image. Now this bulletin is intended to be equal parts entertainment and presentation of research, so may not reflect the publications that you sell to.

You've made you position very clear, and I too wonder why you even bothered to post your "question". Carry on...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19202616
.
So this thread isn't really designed to be an objective discussion, but rather one where you hope to "instruct" others on the error of their ways and hope to correct their "bad" habits? I hope others find value in that, I certainly won't. I am too stubborn that way I guess!
.

.
Those who really love bird photography and who are desperately driven to improve may find discussions such as this one to be useful.

I guess the most accurate way I could describe my purpose in creating this thread is to say, "so many bird photos that I see - everywhere - are composed so much worse than they could be, and I want to find out why."

The thread has already paid off - OhLook did a great job of explaining why it may be that so many folks don't compose their birds more thoughtfully and effectively. What she said makes a lot of sense to me, and seems to be a very plausible explanation for what happens at the point of capture that results in a placement in the frame that may not be the best.

Here on this forum, I sometimes don't have a very friendly demeanor, and am often negative and critical about others' work, and my own work as well. And I am also critical of the way other people think, because sometimes they are mis-informed and don't approach things with the most accurate, advantageous mindset. I am equally frustrated with myself, because I often don't have the most accurate, most advantageous mindset. I will do whatever I can to dispel such poor mindsets in myself and in others.

We should all strive for excellence in everything that we do and everything that we think, and along with that striving comes a frustration when we miss the mark. This frustration is what drives many people to do better - it gives us the extra motivation we need to force ourselves to improve. Without that frustration, many would be complacent with less than excellence.

My personality here is rather bristly at times. I see thousands of bird photos that could be so much better than they are - both my own and others. And that bugs the hell out of me. But I really do want to improve my bird photography, and I would love to encourage others to do the same. And creating better photos is what really matters, after all.

Many of us are here because we want to get better, and those people are the ones I relate to and write posts for, because I want to get better, too. It is hard to grow if the only things ever said are complimentary pats on the back. If someone just comes here because it is their happy place, and they want to relax here, then what I post isn't really for that segment of the membership. I cannot relate to those folks. I like them; they are nice people, but I cannot relate to them.
.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19202616
It's interesting how about 30% of the NatGeo editors' favorite bird photos from various years seem to have birds centered in the frame, but what do they know?

Keep in mind that Nat Geo's people are more interested in documenting things, and in creating "clickbait". Content itself is what is king to them, and not necessarily the artistic component of the imagery. For those interested in approaching wildlife and bird photography from a fine art perspective, Nat Geo may not be the best place to get inspiration and instruction ...... not that those things can't be found there, but that is far from their foremost objective.

Also, we must keep in mind that there are certain types of images that work best with the bird centered. This would be true for images where the bird is very large in the frame, and there is little or no negative space to work with. It also tends to be true for square, or near-square, aspect ratios, and to a lesser extent, vertically oriented compositions. And it would, of course, also be true for images that are based on radial or bilateral symmetry.

BUT ..... for most of the classic horizontally oriented compositions that have a fair amount of negative space, placing the bird well off-center typically results in the most aesthetically pleasing composition.


.

This leads me to an obvious question: What publications or outlets are you referencing or aspiring to sell to in which "...the 2nd, more off-center composition will outsell the first by an exponential ratio."? As I look at birding magazines, journals, and yes, National Geographic, I simply don't see the heavy bias towards the far off-center aspect that you present in your second image. But as you've dismissed Nat Geo so cavalierly, perhaps these other publications are likewise unworthy of consideration.

So what is the gold-standard of bird imagery in your experience? Where do you go to find truly well composed bird photographs? I will admit that I am primarily interested in bird photography with regard to the bird itself (focus, exposure, IQ) and I suppose "documenting things", and pay less attention specifically to how the image is composed than to if I find it appealing.

Markmcc wrote in post #19202670
.
This leads me to an obvious question: What publications or outlets are you referencing or aspiring to sell to in which "...the 2nd, more off-center composition will outsell the first by an exponential ratio."?
.

.
Many of my images are sold to:

advertising agencies for use in print and online ads or promotions, hunting publications for use in print or to accompany online content, in bird and mammal identification guidebooks, by science-based organizations such as NG and Audubon for editorial use (accompanying articles), by hunting guides and outfitters for use in both online and print ads and promotions, by publishers for use in wall calendars, on hunting and outdoor magazine covers, by state wildlife agencies for use in their publications and websites, by brewing companies for use on banners and other ads, by outdoor clothing manufacturers for use in packaging and promotion, by state and regional tourism departments to promote travel to their area, etc., etc.

.

Markmcc wrote in post #19202670
So what is the gold-standard of bird imagery in your experience? Where do you go to find truly well composed bird photographs?

.
What a great question! . And a fun one to answer, too!

Oddly enough, I go to Instagram a lot to view awesome bird photos. Of course over 95% of the bird photos there are not worth the time it takes to click on them. But a few out of every thousand will be world-class masterpieces! Of course, that shouldn't come as a surprise, given that the world's best bird photographers, such as Frans Lanting and Alan Murphy, post there regularly. Of course, the compositions on the Instagram platform have usually been abbreviated, to optimize viewing on the vertically oriented phone screens that most people use to view the platform. But if I see a photo there that I really like, I just go to the photographer's website to see the full image in its original aspect ratio.

Other stand-alone websites that I go to often include:

https://fstoppers.com/
specifically, bird photos that make it to the "editor's picks" gallery

https://www.alanmurphy​photography.com/favori​tes

https://donaldmjones.c​om/portfolios/songbird​s

http://www.glennbartle​y.com …hotography/favo​urites.htm

And for pure compositional excellence, these two guys are among the very best with how they arrange the things in the frame:

http://rayhennessy.com​/portfolio

https://jhunterphoto.c​om/portfolio/birds/

Those should give you enough to get started. . I can provide more if you'd like!


.

Markmcc wrote in post #19202670
I will admit that I am primarily interested in bird photography with regard to the bird itself (focus, exposure, IQ) and I suppose "documenting things", and pay less attention specifically to how the image is composed than to if I find it appealing.

.
It is interesting to me that you separate finding an image appealing and how it is composed. To me, those things are one in the same. Whether or not an image is appealing is mainly based on how it is composed, and everything else comes secondary. It is good for me to learn that composition and overall appeal are not mutually tied to one another in other people's mindsets.

I never would have imagined that focus and exposure would have more impact on overall appeal than composition would. But I suppose that composition can usually be "fixed" by using software to add canvas, crop, stitch images together, etc. While nothing can be done to fix missed focus - blow the focus, even by just a little, and the image is garbage. So your way of seeing things makes a lot of sense to me, from that perspective.


.