Here are four different ways of framing a BIF image.
Which one of the four you'd consider to be the most appropriate one and why ?
Please do not introduce here something new and different than what is shown , because there is indeed a great number of framing possibilities, but I am only trying to address a few basic framing types.
I like 3 and 4 the most Peter and especially 4. I like that they are "flying into the frame" as opposed to out. And I like 4 that the tern is flying up and into the picture. Don't know if that is what your looking for, but that is my $.02 Nice action capture of the tern by the way!
Gotta go with #4 also Peter for the reasons as stated above by Birdie. #1 & #2 just look like the birds about to crash into the right edge to me (I don't see them "flying out of the frame"). #3 to me is just too close to the top edge even if you took some of the "dead space" from the bottom.
I would say a cross between 3 & 4. I know you didn't want a different choice but that would be the comp. 3 is in the top third, I like that for level flight. 4 is in the bottom third, in my eye not ideal for level flight. Sometimes alternate comps work well but more often than not the rules of thumb work best. How that would apply to my eye would be the bird more or less in the top left "third".
In the spirit of the post, I would go with 3, it is a better compromise IMO, for what that is worth!
I prefer the third with room for flying into the frame. Your two new offerings don't work for me. The fifth is too centered in a large frame, and the last is too centered in a small frame.
That said, I don't think you're making the best use of your diagonals in any of them, and I don't think you're placing the bird in such a way as to anchor the entire frame. Just my $0.02.
Folks, let me just mention that I do not presume to have the "right answer" here, I obviously have my preferences like anyone else. Probably there isn't a right answer possible either.
However, I think a discussion on this topic is of value to me, perhaps to some other people as well.
Agree completely on this as a valuable topic of discussion. There are a lot of variables that go into bird shots, and sometimes it looks like composition falls pretty far down the list.
davidearls wrote:
Agree completely on this as a valuable topic of discussion. There are a lot of variables that go into bird shots, and sometimes it looks like composition falls pretty far down the list.
Yes, I see it that way too, particularly with BIF shots. I have been struggling with this topic for years, almost with every shot I've ever made.
An additional complexity is introduced with the wings fully extended upwards like in my example. In the case of long winged birds such as Osprey or Frigate, that wing attitude can pose a difficult framing challenge.
If I had to choose one it would be 4. However . . . . .
For vertical positioning, my choice would be to raise the bird so there is slightly more open space above the wing tip than there is below the body of the bird. Say, move the body up where the > of the wings is now.
Reasons: The bird is flying into the open space. The bird has space above it to fly higher.
I know you weren't asking for other ideas in the framing of this shot - but I'll offer one anyway, and explain why I think it would work.
If you "pinned" your subject into the upper left corner, with almost no space above or behind it, the subject - which obviously covers only a small percentage of the frame - takes command of all the space. When this subject floats in the center of the frame, the space competes with the bird for control of the frame.
Why upper left corner instead of lower left? Because you have a strong diagonal component in the upraised wing, and the invisible line from that wing then flows through the frame as well. This gives a more dynamic look.
I haven't taken the liberty of editing your image, and so, having not seen how this placement would work, I can't tell you if it would be the best. But I think you were after the thought process that precedes the composition rather than an analysis of the composition - so that's what I'd try first, for the reasons listed above, and if it didn't work, I'd try something else -
If I had to choose one it would be 4. However . . . . .
For vertical positioning, my choice would be to raise the bird so there is slightly more open space above the wing tip than there is below the body of the bird. Say, move the body up where the > of the wings is now.
Reasons: The bird is flying into the open space. The bird has space above it to fly higher.George
Now, George, you are adding complexity which is also intertesting.
On that particular image, do you see the bird trying to fly higher, or she is maintaing a constant cruising altitude ?
In other words, what's more important.....giving them enough upper space just in case they might decide to fly higher, or allocating more bottom space which helps to keep them aloft and prevents them from crashing to the ground ?
davidearls wrote:
But I think you were after the thought process that precedes the composition rather than an analysis of the composition - so that's what I'd try first, for the reasons listed above, and if it didn't work, I'd try something else -
PetKal wrote:
Now, George, you are adding complexity which is also intertesting.
On that particular image, do you see the bird trying to fly higher, or she is maintaing a constant cruising altitude ?
In other words, what's more important.....giving them enough upper space just in case they might decide to fly higher, or allocating more bottom space which helps to keep them aloft and prevents them from crashing to the ground ?
I wrestled with that question! It looks as if the bird is in level flight. However, the image does not require that it is in level flight; it probably was, but it could also have been photographed as it was rising or going down. I associate birds more with flying than with sitting. Therefore, I would leave a little more (not much) room above it than below so it can rise.
Composition is a complex aspect of photography for me. And, I've been known to change the composition of my photos! What I see later is not always what I saw when I first worked with them.
Jan 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM
David Leask Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Peter, my choice would be #3, even tough I still thing the bird has unnecessary room behind him. The reasons behind my choice are:
- Allowing more space below gives emphasis to the fact that it is high above the ground. Different story if the bird was looking up
- The subject has plenty of space to fly into. Different story if the bird is facing straight at the camera
This type of composition gives IMO a more natural appearance to the image, especially being a very simple image with no distracting bg, unless you are looking for special effects.
Now, like you said, the wings position gives different feels and can represent a very tricky aspect.
Socrate
By the way, the tern above was just a handy mannequin to help provide the illustrations which were not meant as regular presentation pictures. However, George and David, I am glad you like the bird. Here is one more recent tern + minnow shot for ya.
, because there is indeed a great number of framing possibilities, but I am only trying to address a few basic 
