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

I think a lot of people put the bird more centered because they see it as a portrait and we typically put humans more or less in the center of the picture, with a little more room left in the direction the person is looking.

It sounds like a number of your customers are advertising related might want extra space to put type over so your experience might not be common to others.

I agree with others here, I think the second sample you posted is much farther off center than I prefer. A position somewhere between 1 and 2 is what I would produce.

bpalermini wrote in post #19202702
I agree with others here, I think the second sample you posted is much farther off center than I prefer. A position somewhere between 1 and 2 is what I would produce.

I agree too. The bird is too far to the right for my taste. But moving it leftward would cause another problem: the tilt of the roofline would raise the bird enough to interfere with the present relations among elements (is more space available at the top?). Then there's that blurred yellowish streak in the background. You don't want the bird too close to it.

.

OhLook wrote in post #19202730
.
I agree too. The bird is too far to the right for my taste.
.

.
You are not the first to say that the bird is too far off-center for your liking. . This is good feedback to have, because I find it interesting to know the tastes of others, especially when a number of people that are into art and photography have the same opinion, and when that opinion differs from my own.

The vast majority of the bird photos that I see that are off-center, I always think that they are not far enough off center - that the photographer could have gotten them even closer to the edge, and that doing so would cause the image to look even more appealing. . But I am now learning that a number of you here do not share this ideal.

.

OhLook wrote in post #19202730
.
But moving it leftward would cause another problem: the tilt of the roofline would raise the bird enough to interfere with the present relations among elements (is more space available at the top?). Then there's that blurred yellowish streak in the background. You don't want the bird too close to it.
.

.
Roofline? . Hmmmm. . Did you think the Warbler was perched atop a manmade roof?

The object the bird is perched on is a part of a tree limb that got charred in the Okanogan Complex Fire of 2016, which is the largest wildfire in Washington state history. . I thought the image helped to tell the story of "life and rebirth after the fire", but if it is not obvious that the perch is a charred limb, and it could be readily mistaken for something manmade, then I need to reassess the usefulness of the image.

Frankly, I don't think I would use a photo of a bird on a manmade perch - that is in disagreement with my aesthetic ideals.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19202741
Did you think the Warbler was perched atop a manmade roof?

Yes, having looked quickly at shapes and paying little attention to textures, since the judgments you were talking about concern composition. I'm also wearing out-of-date glasses until an eye exam is safe. To see fine detail, I have to lean toward the screen. In these conditions, the surface under the bird seemed shingled.

I'm no great photographer but I'm a big believer that everything in a photograph should be done for a reason, very much including the crop. If you decide to center something up it's because you weighed the options and went with that.

If you don't weigh the options, your work becomes accidental. Lot of great accidental pictures out there. But your hit rate goes way down. Learn to do things on purpose.

Learn the rules of composition. If you learn the rules you'll understand how to put them to use, understand how to see them and understand when they can be violated if you have a reason.

drsilver wrote in post #19202757
.
I'm no great photographer but I'm a big believer that everything in a photograph should be done for a reason, very much including the crop. If you decide to center something up it's because you weighed the options and went with that.

If you don't weigh the options, your work becomes accidental ..... learn to do things on purpose.

Learn the rules of composition. If you learn the rules you'll understand how to put them to use and understand when they can be violated if you have a reason.
.

.
I love your way of thinking.

I started this thread, primarily, to see if people centered their birds because they really educated themselves about composition, and did so as a conscious choice, or if they centered the birds "just by default", because they didn't really think about where, exactly, to position the bird in the frame.

My hope is and was that if some people just unthinkingly center the birds, and think their photos would look better with the birds thrown off-center a bit, then maybe this could get them thinking more about how they frame their shots, and then they could shoot more intentionally, as you suggest.

............... ............... ............... ............... ...............


I have the same thoughts about photographing ground-perched birds from a low "eye level" position (usually laying prone on the ground) vs. shooting them from a standing-up position.

I suspect that many people shoot from a comfortable, standing-up position because it never occurred to them that their photos might look a thousand times better if they laid down on the ground and shot from there. . Or do these people know exactly how their bird photos would look from a prone position, yet think that they look better when photographed from a standing-up position, aiming the camera down at the birds?

Whatever people do is fine, so long as they have well-thought-out reasons for doing it that way, and that what they do is done intentionally and purposefully, and not just done out of unawareness or laziness. . This pretty much goes for anything in life, not just bird photography.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19202767
.
I suspect that many people shoot from a comfortable, standing-up position because it never occurred to them that their photos might look a thousand times better if they laid down on the ground and shot from there. . Or do these people know exactly how their bird photos would look from a prone position, yet think that they look better when photographed from a standing-up position, aiming the camera down at the birds?
.

I hate that about being old. I have trouble getting low and I can't climb on things like I used to. My work these days comes from standing eye level. Limits the fish you can catch when you can't wade.

drsilver wrote in post #19202769
.
I hate that about being old. I have trouble getting low and I can't climb on things like I used to. My work these days comes from standing eye level. Limits the fish you can catch when you can't wade.
.

.
Watch out .....

You're giving the Title Fairy some great material to work with!


.

I must admit I prefer the off center images. I think it is much more pleasing to (my) eye. Tom makes a great point about his clients wants. If that's what they wants, that's what they gets! They are paying the bills. The newspaper is paying my bills, & they want everything front & center. If they don't get it that way, they crop it that way. This is obviously about space restraints.

What about clients like Tom's? Do they want the images that way because they look better, or because they want to have space for type? When I shoot for the paper I do it their way, & when I shoot for myself I do it my way.

Slightly off topic, just went back to shooting film & many videos I've been watching on YouTube seem to ignore the rules, such as a man on the far right of the frame, facing right, & at his back (left of frame) is an urban background, the man taking up about 1/4 of the entire image. I liked many of the images. Is this a film thing or just a "street photographer" thing?

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19202772
.
The newspaper is paying my bills, & they want everything front & center. If they don't get it that way, they crop it that way. This is obviously about space restraints.
.

.
That happens to a lot of my images, too. . I sell a nicely off-center subject with a beautiful amount of out-of-focus negative space on one side of the image, and they crop that away so that the new, tighter frame is just filled with a centered subject. . That is usually done when the image is used editorially, or in field guides, etc. . When my images are used for advertising, or for two-page spreads, then they keep all of that beautiful negative space, or even add more of it, because it provides room for copy.

At least shooting it off-center in the first place leaves plenty of options open for the people who use my images, and that means that I sell more than I would if they were only suitable for certain kinds of use. . Plus, it's much more pleasing to my eye that way, and i want to shoot things in the way that pleases me most. Pleasing myself is more important than making more sales, anyway.
.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19202772
.
Slightly off topic, just went back to shooting film & many videos I've been watching on YouTube seem to ignore the rules, such as a man on the far right of the frame, facing right, & at his back (left of frame) is an urban background, the man taking up about 1/4 of the entire image. I liked many of the images. Is this a film thing or just a "street photographer" thing?
.

.
That could be the photographer working with what he has, and making the most of an imbalanced scene. . If everything off the frame to the right (the direction the man is facing) is ugly, or incongruous with the aesthetic that the photographer wants to express, and everything behind the man fits the artist's vision for what he want his image to look like, then he may be adapting to the scene before him in a creative, outside-the-box manner, as a way to solve a compositional problem.

Or, it could be that the photographer pre-conceived this compositional idea, and is purposefully looking for subjects and scenes that can be used together in this way, because the photographer has developed a style of showing images that are not at all what the viewer expects to see, or is used to seeing. . It can be very effective to compose images that are opposite of "the rules", in order to surprise the viewer and draw a reaction to the unexpected. . Just as long as it is done thoughtfully and purposefully and not just done because the photographer "didn't know what else to do."


.

It's odd to me. I find myself liking the breaking of the rules more with film, I'm not sure why. Maybe I see digital as the way I pay the bills & film as more fun/artsy (do not claim to be an artist).

Funny about this topic as I was talking to another photographer this evening covering a HS bb game. I am a small paper, he is big city paper. We talked about how different things are due to Covid (just like for everyone else). He would normally be in Florida now for Pirates spring training. Instead, the Pirates are providing images through their team photographer & a couple of interns. The team photographer is brand new this year, replacing a 30 year vet. He told me so many of the pool images are very wide shots, sometime unsure who/what the subject is. He's not sure if this is done to give different outlets options on crops. We always think about shooting as tight as possible, then crop even more.

Speaking as a graphic designer and product photographer who has bought commercial images for my workplace, I would opine that just because your 'off-centered' subjects sell more than the 'centered' subjects, may simply be due to the fact that the designer wants more room to crop for different spaces. We often buy, or shoot, to have the ability to get as many different crops of images out of a single shot. Commercial work has budget/time constraints, and if we can use an image in more ways than one, we will do that.

For instance, if I shoot a beauty image with several products in one frame, I set it up so I can crop the different subjects in the single image as a hero with the other subjects as background. I can get four or five different crops out of it that way. Plus vertical or horizontal mast shots. Not to mention that position on a page makes the orientation of subject and shape very important for readability and eye tracking.

So I wouldn't necessarily conclude that off-center is your buyer's preferred style. They have to budget their assets for their work. I'd be checking to see what the final crop is on the published pieces before I draw a conclusion.

Another side of the coin is the slavish devotion to the rule of thirds.

If a subject has a favored side, that is, one into which it is "looking," I give it room to look. In other words, don't have it looking at the edge of the photo, which translates into loosely following the rule of thirds. If I see a photo where there is no favored side and the photographer has followed the rule of thirds, it looks unbalanced to me. I will tend toward a centered composition in straight-on shots. Although a 3/4 profile tends to be more attractive.

This applies also to flora, as flowers have faces.

greyswan wrote in post #19246735
.
Speaking as a graphic designer and product photographer who has bought commercial images for my workplace, I would opine that just because your 'off-centered' subjects sell more than the 'centered' subjects, may simply be due to the fact that the designer wants more room to crop for different spaces. We often buy, or shoot, to have the ability to get as many different crops of images out of a single shot. Commercial work has budget/time constraints, and if we can use an image in more ways than one, we will do that.

For instance, if I shoot a beauty image with several products in one frame, I set it up so I can crop the different subjects in the single image as a hero with the other subjects as background. I can get four or five different crops out of it that way. Plus vertical or horizontal mast shots. Not to mention that position on a page makes the orientation of subject and shape very important for readability and eye tracking.

So I wouldn't necessarily conclude that off-center is your buyer's preferred style. They have to budget their assets for their work. I'd be checking to see what the final crop is on the published pieces before I draw a conclusion.
.

.
You're right - when it comes to selling stock photos, it is all about final usage. . Which is even more reason to put the subject off-center and leave some distraction-free negative space on one side. . That way, people who just want a tight shot for a guide book of for National Geographic type of educational use can crop tight, with the bird right in the middle, and people who are using the photo for magazine spreads or advertisements or packaging can use it with the negative space still there.

But for fine art usage, which means just having something that is visually pleasing, for most images, having the subject off center is the most appealing composition for most people. . And when we post a bird pic here on the forum in the photo sharing sections, that is fine art usage, meaning that it is for visual pleasure ... "eye candy", if you will.


.