Camera Club Critiques - DPChallenge Forums

08/08/2002 08:55:42 AM · #1

I took a 35mm slide version of THIS PHOTO to my local camera club competition last night. Basically, I got hammered. It scored a 48 out of a possible 75 points.

In the general rules of good composition, centering your subject perfectly in the frame is not a good idea. A vast majority of the club members brought this up about this particular photo. I have also made similar complaints about other photos I have seen and I DO keep that in mind when I'm composing a photograph. This is one of my own 'basic' rules that is in my mind when I'm shooting.

Why did I center this duck?

Good question... I wanted the duck to fill a good portion of the frame in order to be able to see the details in the feathers. In my mind, the center of interest in this photo was the duck's head and they way it was turned and tucked into the feathers on the body. With this in mind, I composed that part of the shot on a third intersection line. I also intentionally composed in such a way that the duck created a 'diagonal' in the frame.

The digital version of this photo has one minor detail that my 35mm slide did not... the catch light in the duck's eye was NOT present in my 35mm slide, but no one mentioned that as being a problem in the camera club.

The club comments agreed that the depth of field was good and the background blur was excellent...

I would love to hear any comments regarding the composition of this photo... :)

sohr

Nikon Coolpix 990

08/08/2002 09:15:55 AM · #2

John,

I agree with you. Looking at this photo... I find that the areas to be focused on are the head (specifically the eye) and the tail-- both of which are roughly at the third's intersections.

I think this is a good example of people treating a rule as hard and fast instead of a strong guideline without having given it much thought. While the duck is centered in the frame, the focus areas are not-- and that is why it is so pleasing to look at.

Here is an example of a photo that breaks several rules (see how many you can find), yet it still has a pleasing effect:

Rule Breaker

* This message has been edited by the author on 8/8/2002 9:21:52 AM.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

08/08/2002 09:49:03 AM · #3

A lot of people hear about the rule of thirds but never understand what it means. They look at a photo, decide for themselves what the subject is, and if that is centred they think the rule is "broken". But the photographer didn't necessarily intend the object they identified to be the subject! It's so infuriating. There's a special kind of incompetence people can have when they narrowmindedly follow a handful of rules and think that's what "good photography" is.

Even beyond that, I think there are many occasions when centering a subject is the right thing to do. If it works, it works. If it draws your eye around the photo the way the photographer wants it to, that is successful composition, whether everything is placed on the third lines, or centred, or completely at random.

08/08/2002 09:53:29 AM · #4

I think this photo does follow the rule of thirds. The problem is distinguishing between the 'subject' and the center of interest.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

08/08/2002 09:59:07 AM · #5

That's what I meant by my first paragraph. It's pretty obvious to me that your photo follows the rule precisely. Anyone who disagrees is superimposing their own view of what the subject (or centre of interest) is on the photo rather than letting your composition guide them.

08/08/2002 10:02:48 AM · #6

Originally posted by lisae:
That's what I meant by my first paragraph. It's pretty obvious to me that your photo follows the rule precisely. Anyone who disagrees is superimposing their own view of what the subject (or centre of interest) is on the photo rather than letting your composition guide them.

The funny thing about this group is that I have to take their critiques seriously. About half of the group is professional photographers. Several of our club members get published regularly and two have been published regularly in National Geographic. That's why I'm ranting about this critique... lol

stephan

Casio QV-4000

08/08/2002 10:20:49 AM · #7

John, I'm by no means an expert but I like to discuss how certain photos are done and why. Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents...

I'm not sure if I'm always able to express myself correctly (not a native english speaker) so I uploaded examples of my croppings to a webserver. I hope it's ok for you although I'm pretty sure that it's infringing your copyright. I'll remove them later again.

First I think that the photo is really nice but it lacks some excitement.

In my opinion the rule of thirds is not applicable here because the subject of the photo is the whole duck. And the duck is in the center. When I look at the photo, at first I look at the body of the duck not at it's head. I think the centering is one reason while the red/green/white area might be another. The colors just stick out more than the head. Even though the head is in good contrast to the dark green of the background there are more distracting things around it.

You said you wanted to fill the most of the frame with the duck. Then why not crop in more tightly? I think this looks better. It also strengthens your idea with the duck creating a diagonal. In the original the diagonal idea is not really visible. The diagonal is destroyed by the sharp horizontal edge of the stone.

But still I think there is a better cropping. If you want to concentrate on the duck's head and how it tucks it's head into the feathers why not zooming in even more?
I like this cropping much more. It's very tight and I don't know if it would have even been possible, but it eliminates all distracting things. The original is despite of the very good blurring of the background quite busy. In the background light yellow spots on the left and dark green spots on the right. The dark hole(?) in the lower right corner. And the duck itself has a white spot and is quite colored, too. With the tight crop you don't have these problems and to me the closeness creates a nice mood.

This all is my subjective feeling and not based on any year long skills or learning. So don't be bothered if it doesn't make any sense to you or is just plain wrong ;-)

Froober

Canon EOS-10D

08/08/2002 10:21:45 AM · #8

I think the borg has infiltrated your camera club. Hide. ;)

OH...I like the photo...it's just ducky.

* This message has been edited by the author on 8/8/2002 10:21:34 AM.

08/08/2002 10:25:18 AM · #9

What you say here makes perfect sense :)

I also like the crop you provided. I could not have produced that image on a 35mm slide though. I couldn't get in that close with my zoom lens. I also may have failed to mention that this was shot through glass as well...

jsabbarton

Canon EOS-5D

08/08/2002 10:27:04 AM · #10

I have been taking pictures for thirty odd years and I had never heard of this rule prior to joining this site. I judge a picture on what I see and trust my eyes to make the right judgement. I looked at both the pictures used as samples and I can see the duck is a great picture. Whilst the second one wasn't quite so colourful or interesting, I haven't a clue why it breaks rules.

Having said that, I am interested in this stuff from the point of view of leaning â�� that's why I joined, so can anybody recommend a good book?

stephan

Casio QV-4000

08/08/2002 10:34:45 AM · #11

Originally posted by jsabbarton:
Having said that, I am interested in this stuff from the point of view of leaning â�� that's why I joined, so can anybody recommend a good book?

My personal "enlightment" was this :-)

At the moment I read Andreas Feininger's "The complete Photographer" and it's a good book, altough he explains a lot of things regarding film photography (dark room setup etc.)

* This message has been edited by the author on 8/8/2002 10:37:17 AM.

08/08/2002 10:35:23 AM · #12

??? You're not allowed to post edit crop like Stephan did, John?

08/08/2002 10:39:35 AM · #13

Originally posted by aelith:
??? You're not allowed to post edit crop like Stephan did, John?

In the camera club, a majority of the competitions are 35mm slides. Since I don't process my own slides, I can't do much with them. It is critical that the composition be done completely with the camera...

The only time I can be creative with post processing is when we have print competitions rather than slides... this is also the only time I can participate with my digital camera...

08/08/2002 10:41:24 AM · #14

Originally posted by jsabbarton:
I have been taking pictures for thirty odd years and I had never heard of this rule prior to joining this site. I judge a picture on what I see and trust my eyes to make the right judgement. I looked at both the pictures used as samples and I can see the duck is a great picture. Whilst the second one wasn't quite so colourful or interesting, I haven't a clue why it breaks rules.

Having said that, I am interested in this stuff from the point of view of leaning â�� that's why I joined, so can anybody recommend a good book?

You may also want to check out what is free before you buy a book... Under the LEARN menu here at DPC, there is a TUTORIALS link page. Check out the Classical and Digital Photography courses by AGFAnet before you spend money :) These are good places to start :)

08/08/2002 10:46:25 AM · #15

Ok now I understand. It's a bummer. BTW, I can not resist pointing out that some comments made in the voting make me feel the same way. :<

08/08/2002 10:50:12 AM · #16

Oh and I like the original because it places the duck in context.
I don't find the distraction distacting at all. aelith

08/08/2002 10:52:59 AM · #17

Originally posted by aelith:
Ok now I understand. It's a bummer. BTW, I can not resist pointing out that some comments made in the voting make me feel the same way. :<

I suppose there is something to learn in all critiques... even when you think you have done it correctly :) Whether or not it's technically correct, there's still the subjective monster to deal with :)

Patella

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

08/08/2002 11:05:54 AM · #18

John,

My initial reaction, I think, was much like your camera club members.

First, and especially in comparison to some of your other work, the colors on this one just don't pop. I recognize why -- the duck's in the shade and isn't exactly colored like a Mandarin Duck -- and the glass you shot through probably didn't help much either. Short of somehow picking him up, moving him into better light, AND somehow maintaining his relaxed/sleepy pose... well, lets just say I recognize that wouldn't have happened. *grin*

As for the cropping, I understand your intent based on what you said in your first post. And I also realize, after reading subsequent posts, that was as close as you could get. But it's that close crop that Stephan did that I like (the one that cuts out much of the body). But then we all know how much I like really close animal crops. ;-) I feel that it's simply a more initimate shot. It feels much more like a portrait -- we rarely shoot a full body portrait (though I concede it does happen). The goal, it seems to me, is to focus attention on the sleepy ducks "look" and that is best done with a closer crop.

All my opinions, such as they be...

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

08/08/2002 11:13:22 AM · #19

I think ANYONE who considers that "rules" have ANYTHING to do with art and beauty is just nuts and probably half-blind.

This is a very good picture, Jim, and if you worry what others think, you will severly limit your creative abilities.

08/08/2002 11:15:06 AM · #20

Originally posted by jakking:
I think ANYONE who considers that "rules" have ANYTHING to do with art and beauty is just nuts and probably half-blind.

This is a very good picture, Jim, and if you worry what others think, you will severly limit your creative abilities.

I *do* worry about the rules in this stage of my photography hobby. It is important to know what they are and why they are there before I worry so much about discarding them.

I agree that you can have a beautiful photograph that doesn't follow any rules though...

Kimbly

Canon PowerShot G2

08/08/2002 11:16:46 AM · #21

Duh! Obviously, John just needs to buy a bigger better lens. That would have solved all the problems ;-)

08/08/2002 11:18:48 AM · #22

Originally posted by Kimbly:
Duh! Obviously, John just needs to buy a bigger better lens. That would have solved all the problems ;-)

The lenses that I would like to buy cost more individually than my Nikon and lenses that I have now combined... lol...

I want a 17-35mm lens and I want a fast 300mm lens... i need a raise... lol..

sylk

Nikon D100

08/08/2002 11:31:48 AM · #23

John, I like your shot and the choice to center the subject. The only thing that I don't like about the photo is the hole in the rock on the very bottom left. It makes my eye jump back and forth between the ducks head and the corner. Therefore I do like stephan's first crop better because it eliminates this issue and only leaves the diagonal crack in the rock on the bottom right which is parallel with the duck's diagonal. Also the duck's contour has the same distance from each of the four sites of the pic ... therefore the perfect centering which makes your composition seem that more intentional and carefully considered.
... But I do understand that you couldn't get any closer to the subject and there is no cropping with slides ...

08/08/2002 11:38:16 AM · #24

OT if I may, congradulations John on your catagory win at BESTPHOTO.com.