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

joedlh wrote in post #19246745
.
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.
.

.
I agree that if the subject is facing more or less straight at the camera, then it often looks awkward to have it placed well off-center, and a centered composition usually looks more pleasing to the eye in such situations.

But when a subject is facing the left or the right side of the frame, then it looks VERY awkward to have the subject in the center. . Like an "ewwwww, yuk - what were they thinking?!" kind of awkward. . At least most of the time ..... there are, of course, exceptions.


.

.

When I saw a goldfinch for the very first time in the real life and in wild open space,
I was as a parisian dweller so amazed that I drank it with my eyes, any idea of photographing anything had fled from me...
It was only afterwards, by dint of seeing it and coming back to frequent the place in front of the blind that I started to work behind the viewfinder,
although not as efficiently as with captive zoo animals.
Emotion, inexperience, excitation, discovery wonder are all parameters that can explain the fact of centering the subject at the time of a first contact.
Practice makes perfect.

This being said, all the pleasure lies in the fact of envisaging and fixing on the sensor framings as varied as possible facing a given subject in a given context.
Therefore, centering is in my humble opinion full part of working every enjoyable subjet.

Is there not a reasonable chance that a lot of birds are centred for more technical than stylistic reasons - that they were locked onto with a super sensitive centre AF point, for example, and/or the image quality in the shot is best around the centre of the frame? And that perhaps that was the only sharp shot that the photographer managed and as such, will have to do even if the composition isn't optimal?

I agree composition should be considered if there's more going on in the frame than the bird but I think if the subject is clearly the bird then it doesn't really matter so much.

Pictoraider wrote in post #19246771
When I saw a goldfinch for the very first time in the real life and in wild open space,
I was as a parisian dweller so amazed that I drank it with my eyes, any idea of photographing anything had fled from me...
It was only afterwards, by dint of seeing it and coming back to frequent the place in front of the blind that I started to work behind the viewfinder,
although not as efficiently as with captive zoo animals.
Emotion, inexperience, excitation, discovery wonder are all parameters that can explain the fact of centering the subject at the time of a first contact.
Practice makes perfect.

This being said, all the pleasure lies in the fact of envisaging and fixing on the sensor framings as varied as possible facing a given subject in a given context.
Therefore, centering is in my humble opinion full part of working every enjoyable subjet.

Hosted photo: posted by Pictoraider in
./showthread.php?p=192​46771&i=i259740141
forum: Birds

I like the implied crosshair here

In your two examples, I find that I prefer the Rule of Thirds (RoTs) composition. The first shot, if you gave just another 10% canvas, it would be perfectly acceptable.

I'm not at all surprised that you posted something thought provoking like this, Tom, because these are the sort of deeper, hot button topics you like to discuss. Keeps the site discussion lively, and should hopefully compel photographers of all skill levels and disciplines to examine their processes and work, and who knows, maybe find a nugget of knowledge that they can employ to enhance their photography.

From a casual birding standpoint, you have those that want to just take ID shots in order to report on a particular bird they see during an outing, or come across something out of the ordinary and just want to snapshot it in order to share, and that works for them. Composition most likely isn't a primary concern, but most importantly, they're enjoying themselves, so we have to acknowledge that not everyone is (or has any intention of being) a hard core, dedicated bird/wildlife photographer, so let's not begrudge them for that.

Turning a critical eye towards my own work, I have a high percentage of bird shots that have the subject near center. Near center, but not perfectly centered, with slightly more open space in the direction the bird is looking. Admittedly, I do have a good amount of shots that I wish I had composed differently, and may revisit some for touch up, but overall I am happy with the direction in which my work is going. I feel that the most important thing is being aware of such concepts, and whether or not you choose to adhere to common "expectations" is down to each individual.

I much prefer this to a hard RoTs composition:

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1092256)

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1101864)

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1101267)

OpenC wrote in post #19246783
Is there not a reasonable chance that a lot of birds are centred for more technical than stylistic reasons - that they were locked onto with a super sensitive centre AF point, for example, and/or the image quality in the shot is best around the centre of the frame? And that perhaps that was the only sharp shot that the photographer managed and as such, will have to do even if the composition isn't optimal?

I agree composition should be considered if there's more going on in the frame than the bird but I think if the subject is clearly the bird then it doesn't really matter so much.

This. Especially in tricky/challenging environs, on all but the top-tier bodies the center point gives you the highest chance of positive AF lock. Heck, even on my D500 I get nervous trusting the outer points, so will often lead off by using center point in order to get in the neighborhood, and if conditions permit, walk out my AF point to the outers and go for the solid composition.

May have already been mentioned but it's useful to consider a photographer's body of work when looking at individual images.

If you look at my stuff, I tend to compose off center with the bird looking into the frame. I'll mix it up occasionally. If every subject is on a thirds intersection images in a gallery get boring fast.

I like centered subjects, particularly when the background is blurred to the point there's nothing discernable, just colour. I'll try to compose with colour in mind to make the bird stand out but it's hit and miss. Composition has to really be exceptional for me to consider it important in bird photography.

The other thing we tend to forget as viewers is what's been cropped out of the frame. Sometimes you just can't get a perfect shot. There's an offensive branch or some agitated background elements that need to be removed but isn't worth editing out in PS. I'm happy to compromise on composition if the photo's otherwise decent.

All a matter of personal taste I suppose.

I very strongly have a preference for off-center, Rule of Thirds (RoT) or "power point" placement in my final compositions. However, when out in the field, both situations and the photog's gear set very infrequently allow for final framing in the original image capture. I think many of the photos you see online where that is the case come from folks that are self-taught and have never learned editing/cropping and the power that those things can bring to an image.

I have found that many times (prior to the R5) I just couldn't get one of the active AF points, aside from dead center, to reliably hold focus for the best result, in addition to not being close enough for the bird to fill the frame. This results in grabbing the shot and just ensuring that any other environmental details I want are still in the frame, grabbing a dead-center shot of the subject and then cropping to the desired frame when I finish edits.

I still remember when I got started and one of the things I was pushed hard toward from basic readings, other forums, etc was to "get it right in camera" <hard stop>. Which adhering to somewhat religiously resulted in precisely this problem; many more photos than I was happy with not being "acceptable", containing dead-centered subjects, etc.

So, stack ranked list answer to the question from my view: Intentional or unintentional lack of application of relevant photography concepts or tools, lack of ability (lens not long enough, physical barriers, uncooperative subjects), intentionally breaking "the rules" because they want a particular look or to tell a particular story. And, even the application of those won't necessarily be agreed upon by those of us viewing the images; mrsilver's example earlier of a dove looking out the edge of the screen would be a non-starter for me, even though it's a perfectly good image. I prefer to have the edge a subject is looking toward be farther away from the subject and would have placed it in the left-hand 3rd instead of the right (assuming the room exists in the original) and if not, would have passed over for editing.

As listed above, though, I do think the most frequent source dead-center shooting is due to the photog either still learning and refining their craft or because it isn't relevant to the usage they have for having created the image in the first place. Learning about Leading Lines (including the invisible ones created by your subjects' sight lines), the RoT and the power points at those intersections was a huge step of learning and improvement in my satisfaction in my results; as well as gaining a much stronger, positive reaction from my viewers. Shooting a little more "loosely" with the conscious thought toward framing later certainly starts with a lot more dead-center shots than not, though.

Also me:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hTJ​Cmi

Snydremark wrote in post #19330869
Also me:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hTJ​Cmi Mandarin Duck (Aix galericulata) by Eric, on Flickr

So; you know....<shrug>

There's something to be said for central placement in a symmetrical composition.

Pippan wrote in post #19330882
There's something to be said for central placement in a symmetrical composition.

Yeah, I just thought it was funny as I was finishing the previous post I was also reviewing my Flickr stream for other reasons and stumbled on that one ߘ. I think that itϢs interesting how broad the spectrum of reasons for this is, from totally unconscious to extremely intentional.

Snydremark wrote in post #19330913
Yeah, I just thought it was funny as I was finishing the previous post I was also reviewing my Flickr stream for other reasons and stumbled on that one ߘ. I think that itϢs interesting how broad the spectrum of reasons for this is, from totally unconscious to extremely intentional.

There is also the issue that for some subjects and situations, just getting the subject in the frame is a challenge if you choose high magnification and a narrow angle of view, and you don't have the luxury of exposure-time composition. Some of us are driven mainly to take great photos, but many are driven to try desperately to photograph things that we consider great or challenging subjects.

Composition is very important. I often see bird shots and I think: this would have been a GREAT image if it were framed differently. Of course I get it wrong too, all too often. I sometimes see an older image and think .

The Rule of Thirds is what I always look for first. And then adjust to my liking. It depends on the situation, the bird, the setting (do I need to crop out stuff), the pose, the head turn, lots. Sometimes a bird definitely belongs centre stage, as Eric's image shows.

I went to check out a nearby lake yesterday. The Tufted ducks are already gone, back to their breeding grounds. Geese are on the move also. I had hoped for cormorants but didn't see any. So I amused myself with watching the gulls as I waited for more exciting birds. In said lake there is a corner that used to be a small harbour for pleasure boats. It's long been deserted and it's all derelict. Remains of wooden jetty's, piers, a few old boats and what have you and lots of wooden poles that stick out of the water that birds love to perch on: Cormorants, Herons and the inevitable gulls. And of course the gulls quarrel over those poles as they don't want to land on a vacant one but always on one that is taken. I took some shots. It was rather foggy and damp, but light was not that bad actually as the water reflects so much of it back unto the birds.

Here is an example where the only right place for the birds seems to me to be the middle of the frame, enforced by the landing bird.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19331117
Composition is very important. I often see bird shots and I think: this would have been a GREAT image if it were framed differently. Of course I get it wrong too, all too often. I sometimes see an older image and think .

The Rule of Thirds is what I always look for first. And then adjust to my liking. It depends on the situation, the bird, the setting (do I need to crop out stuff), the pose, the head turn, lots. Sometimes a bird definitely belongs centre stage, as Eric's image shows.

I went to check out a nearby lake yesterday. The Tufted ducks are already gone, back to their breeding grounds. Geese are on the move also. I had hoped for cormorants but didn't see any. So I amused myself with watching the gulls as I waited for more exciting birds. In said lake there is a corner that used to be a small harbour for pleasure boats. It's long been deserted and it's all derelict. Remains of wooden jetty's, piers, a few old boats and what have you and lots of wooden poles that stick out of the water that birds love to perch on: Cormorants, Herons and the inevitable gulls. And of course the gulls quarrel over those poles as they don't want to land on a vacant one but always on one that is taken. I took some shots. It was rather foggy and damp, but light was not that bad actually as the water reflects so much of it back unto the birds.

Here is an example where the only right place for the birds seems to me to be the middle of the frame, enforced by the landing bird.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=193​31117&i=i91222705
forum: Birds

But here is a magpie. It's just a sample image as the only thing I like about it is the wet grass!

I'm posting it here because these kinds of images are often a dilemma for me. Do I put the magpie on one of the left cross points of the RoT grid, so it has space to walk into? But then the eye and face are in the middle. To me that doesn't feel right. So I want to put the eye on the right upper-cross point as that is where I want the viewer's eyes to go to first. However, I feel that would put him too far to the right and he already has little space to walk into this way, so I put the cross point in front of his eye, on his nose. Of course framing the bird like this also means that the body of the bird itself is pretty much in the middle. To me the way I positioned the magpie here looks just about right. But is it? Thoughts?

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=193​31117&i=i3058544
forum: Birds

For the Magpie image, I would have followed that same train of thought, more or less; except I’d crop in just a little more closely and put the eye, or maybe the beak around the nostril on the up/right cross point. I don’t really edit a shot like this for for artistic merit, more for trying to show as much ID material/detail as possible. So filling the frame as much as reasonably possible, which usually involves mostly centering the bulk of the animal winds up as the result. Regardless of artistic or journalistic intent, I still still land on the eyes being the top most important feature of imaging other living creatures, and therefore they belong as close to one of the cross points as is reasonable for the overall image. This would be one of the qualities of mwsilver’s earlier image that makes me say it’s a fine image regardless of how I’d have treated it myself. The eyes are still in line with the nearest cross point as well as being clear, good line of sight and well exposed.

And thanks Tom for kicking off a fun discussion thread; I’ve missed these in recent times. It has always been fascinating for me to learn others’ mindsets and approaches and seeing how they differ from (or match) my own.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19331117
Here is an example where the only right place for the birds seems to me to be the middle of the frame, enforced by the landing bird.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=193​31117&i=i91222705
forum: Birds

I agree, that's the only right place.

But here is a magpie. . . . To me the way I positioned the magpie here looks just about right. But is it? Thoughts?

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=193​31117&i=i3058544
forum: Birds

To my eye, it's a little too far right. This bird's extra long tail causes difficulty in placement. The tail adds length disproportionate to its (implied) bulk, so that making room for it, and a reasonable stretch of grass behind it, forces the head and torso to the right and creates a "right-weighted" image. Maybe pass up profile shots of birds like this, or catch them in scenes where something in the background provides visual balance.

Disclaimer: I'm not a bird shooter. Still, composition is composition.

Snydremark wrote in post #19331167
For the Magpie image, I would have followed that same train of thought, more or less; except I’d crop in just a little more closely and put the eye, or maybe the beak around the nostril on the up/right cross point. I don’t really edit a shot like this for for artistic merit, more for trying to show as much ID material/detail as possible. So filling the frame as much as reasonably possible, which usually involves mostly centering the bulk of the animal winds up as the result. Regardless of artistic or journalistic intent, I still still land on the eyes being the top most important feature of imaging other living creatures, and therefore they belong as close to one of the cross points as is reasonable for the overall image. This would be one of the qualities of mwsilver’s earlier image that makes me say it’s a fine image regardless of how I’d have treated it myself. The eyes are still in line with the nearest cross point as well as being clear, good line of sight and well exposed.

And thanks Tom for kicking off a fun discussion thread; I’ve missed these in recent times. It has always been fascinating for me to learn others’ mindsets and approaches and seeing how they differ from (or match) my own.

Yes, I placed the nose (nostrils) on the upper right cross-point and not on the eye itself to create a little bit more space in front of the bird.

Funny, I edit a shot entirely for artistic merit. Or I try to anyway. And the longer I shoot birds, the more I am interested in showing its habitat. Pretty settings just are a bonus for me. I mean, take the magpie shot. It's a fairly crappy image. It was dark and the bird is not well exposed. He just doesn't look good. And I also don't like the angle (I didn't go down on that wet grass as I wasn't dressed for it). But I love that grass. It's the only reason I haven't yet trashed the file. It's also the reason I haven't cropped it much.

I very much agree with you that the eyes are the "top most important feature" in photographing animals.

OhLook wrote in post #19331168
To my eye, it's a little too far right. This bird's extra long tail causes difficulty in placement. The tail adds length disproportionate to its (implied) bulk, so that making room for it, and a reasonable stretch of grass behind it, forces the head and torso to the right and creates a "right-weighted" image. Maybe pass up profile shots of birds like this, or catch them in scenes where something in the background provides visual balance.

Disclaimer: I'm not a bird shooter. Still, composition is composition.

The problem with moving it more to the left is that then the body really ends up smack in the middle and that just won't do, not with this type of image. At least not for me. It's boring.

I can't believe you would suggest to "pass up profile shots" of birds like this! Seriously? Yes, disproportionately long tails are problematic. But not shooting them in certain poses because of that is simply not an option. They have long tails and they will always have long tails. You shoot them and then try to find a reasonable compromise in post.