Hello everyone,

I'm looking for feedback to this image especially regarding it's composition. Feel free to edit it as you please.



D3100 + AF-S 300mm F/4: 300mm, f/4, ISO 400, 1/1000 sec

Not much for changes other than the obvious crop, and some sharpening & levels tweaks.

As to composition, there was a lot of negative space, so the subject got kinda lost in it. My crop might be a bit tight lfor some tastes, but you get the gist. Generally speaking, the eyes of people and animals are critical points of focus, so seeing the "back end" of the butterfly doesn't lend well for strong presentation perspective as well as another angle might ... but sometimes you just gotta go with what you've got to work with, so I get that.

The exposure looks like the red channel might be blown a little bit ... not sure if that is a byproduct of your PP, or the original exposure.

HTH

Now that you've seen my crop ... which is based on YOUR composition ... what are YOUR thoughts on YOUR composition? I'll explain myself in a bit, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

RustyBug wrote:
Not much for changes other than the obvious crop, and some sharpening & levels tweaks.

As to composition, there was a lot of negative space, so the subject got kinda lost in it. My crop might be a bit tight lfor some tastes, but you get the gist. Generally speaking, the eyes of people and animals are critical points of focus, so seeing the "back end" of the butterfly doesn't lend well for strong presentation perspective as well as another angle might ... but sometimes you just gotta go with what you've got to work with, so I get that.

The exposure looks like the red channel might be blown a little bit ... not sure if that is a byproduct of your PP, or the original exposure.

HTH

Now that you've seen my crop ... which is based on YOUR composition ... what are YOUR thoughts on YOUR composition? I'll explain myself in a bit, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.




Thank you for your response, Kent. I think your crop is really good.

Let me see... I find it unfortunate that the butterfly is casting so many shadows on the small flowers where it's standing. That greenish "blob" of about-to-bloom small flowers right over the butterfly's left wing is really distracting. My eyes keep looking for some anchor point in the image but can't find a place to rest; actually, they do tend to go to that greenish blob quite often. Probably that's the effect of the lack of eyes in the image; or perhaps the effect of the excessive 'clutter' in the center of the image. Also, I guess direct sunlight is not the best light for this kind of subject, probably a diffuser would have improved the light a lot while still keeping it's "directional" character (as I don't really like when light is coming from "everywhere and nowhere at the same time", example cloudy days).

I posted the image because I was somehow attracted to it's excessive negative space, and wanted some feedback to try to figure out if other people were as well. It's an older image, I don't really consider it a keeper, but I can't easily make my mind about deleting it; guess it's one of those "problematic" images Ben talks about, so I'm bringing it to the forum mainly as a discussion starter.

And the reds can definitely be blamed on my poor PP.

Here's a new take at it, based on your comments; I made the crop a little less tight so I could make the leaves "disappear into the shadows" as they go towards the image borders. Made the colors also much less aggressive, which was how I liked colors back then, but not really nowadays.




Last but not least, what was I thinking about the image when I took it, what's the message? Nothing, really, I just wanted to make a pretty/pleasant image of a butterfly, so I guess we could simply call this a "study"

Your own critical analysis suggests that you've got a really nice ability to see the image and "study" it. This comes as no surprise to me, as I could tell from the capture, that you're eye / mind is "in the game" ... hence why I asked first.

The thing that I disagree with the most (subjectively, of course), is that I like the direct lighting. Granted, overcast days with softer lighting does make for less contrasty shadows, but I think you have done a nice enough job of dealing with the shadows, that the "pop" from the greater contrast light is a worthwhile trade-off. Subjective, artistic rendering is of course a very personal decision, and a softer look could work as well.

As to "What's the message?" ... sometimes it is simply "I want you to see this pretty butterfly." or "Look at the pretty interplay of color and lines that caught my attention." It doesn't have to be some philosophical message, but the motivation / intent does help drive your shooting and processing decisions ... whatever you desire them to be.

Well, you're probably right regarding the light and perhaps all I needed in the end was a bit more fill light instead of diffusing the direct sun light - I'm mostly worried about the too contrasty shadows in the lower left part of the image, the shadow to light borders are too abrupt, they end up becoming entities of their own in the composition and drawing attention, if this makes any sense.

After reading your last posts about "what's the message", I've been thinking about it quite a lot, and I wanna try to introduce this kind of thinking in my photography prior to pressing the shutter, and not as an afterthought. So I was thinking about some subjects I could photograph (the "theme" or "message", in constrast to "subject matter" which would be the birds ) and came with one big concept I might just try to capture: the loneliness of most birds in nature, it's a harsh and cruel and merciless reality they face everyday, and it's the most striking difference from their lifes to ours, they don't have second chances, they don't plan much ahead, as they might not live to see tomorrow. So yes, next time I might photograph with this subject in mind, might make a huge difference to what I come home with!

I like your second crop, very nice image and nothing I would change.

Thank you Ben!

It's really Kent's merit on the crop as I wouldn't see it by myself, my mind was really trying to make something out of the negative space in the first image.

gneto wrote

After reading your last posts about "what's the message", I've been thinking about it quite a lot, and I wanna try to introduce this kind of thinking in my photography prior to pressing the shutter, and not as an afterthought.


Sometimes we take our images from a visceral unexplained, or at least without pre-capture thought, perspective / process. Let me try and be very clear ...

When I am taking an image like this of a living unposed subject, I try to get a background and light angle that is favorable. Then I wait for the subject to arrive to the place and take several shots, maybe a hundred if it sticks around long enough.

I may move after I see the first results on the viewfinder, and may make exposure adjustments. But it is not until I get home and see the images that I decide which to keep and work.

The butterfly is the primary subject here with the flower second and foliage third. That they fade away in that order is good. It is also good that the butterfly is doing something (visiting the flower).

The butterfly is a horizontal subject (wider than high). That dictates the crop to me.

I really like the negative space as it fully isolates the subject.

Your second version has better visual balance.

RustyBug wrote:

Sometimes we take our images from a visceral unexplained, or at least without pre-capture thought, perspective / process. Let me try and be very clear ...

Ben, Karen, thank you for your feedback - appreciated as always

It sounds like you got your head in the game for both understanding your photography and your goals for growth and purpose of your work. The rest is a matter of time for the evolutionary processes. There is a time and place for both "pretty pics" and "message" ... paying attention to understanding how the two intertwine and separate will allow you to pursue each accordingly for your more powerful images, imo.

To say that the world is full of pretty pictures is an understatement. We've all contributed our share, and there will always be another one somewhere that is "prettier". I think that 99% of us start by trying to emulate the "pretty" ones before we start thinking beyond that. It sounds like you're on a fast track compared to someone like me that took a long time to really begin to think more and shoot less.

RustyBug wrote:
IIt sounds like you're on a fast track compared to someone like me that took a long time to really begin to think more and shoot less.

Thanks, but don't forget the role of the internet in this process - it's really trivial to realize, nowadays, how many "pretty pictures" there are (you just have to google!), and it's also pretty trivial to learn valuable lessons from far more experienced photographers (like I've been learning from so many people in this forum). This wasn't the case just a few years ago! So, while you might have taken longer to make certain kinds of progress, the barriers you had to overcome were much harder than the ones I face currently - and the credit for not giving up easily and making progress (albeit slower) really belongs to the older generation of photographers, who are teaching everything the younger "fast track" generation is learning from the internet. And for this, I thank you all

PS: I don't mean to call you old

gneto wrote:

PS: I don't mean to call you old

... "er"

A 10 year old is older than a 9 year old. That doesn't make the 10 year old "old" ... just old "er".

Compared to some of the even more "er" folks with even more experience, knowledge and talent ... I'm just a "young pup".

RustyBug wrote:
gneto wrote:

PS: I don't mean to call you old

... "er"

A 10 year old is older than a 9 year old. That doesn't make the 10 year old "old" ... just old "er".



I meant to say (type?) one common expression we use a lot here in Brazil, but it obviously got lost in translation