Young alligator

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

This picture of a juvenile american alligator, Alligator mississippiensis, was taken a few months ago at a wildlife refuge in central Florida. I was photographing the a larger alligator when this young one surfaced at my feet!

Data:
Nikon N70 with Sigma 600mm f8 mirror lens
Broad daylight
~1/500 of a second
Handheld

Please pardon the streaks on the photo. They are scratches on the print, placed there by the developers. They don't appear to be on the negs, though, which is good.
Any and all comments are extremely welcome. I need input to get better and the lack of input lately is a little discouraging. Thanks in advance!
--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 25, 1998

Answers

You've held the contrast range quite well and I find the balance of exposure to be just about right. My cropping aid tells me that eliminating a good deal of foliage at the top and right makes a big improvement in the composition, not least of which is getting rid of those awful donut highlights. The worst of the blurry twigs, to the immediate right of the aligator's head, can't be cropped, though. That one's really distracting.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), August 25, 1998.


I agree with Frank. Exposure is bang on. With a mirror lens you can't do much about DOF ( fixed aperture aren't they). Did you take more shots? Moving around alittle to get a better angle may have helped to remove distracting elements like the out of focus plants. Getting the gator in half doesn't improve the composition IMO.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), August 26, 1998.

I have a couple of things to say in response to both Frank's and Paul's crtique about the "distracting lines" in the photo. I recieved nearly the same critique on a photo that I posted a month or so ago of a large male alligator. People said that the lines of plant material near his head were distracting and insinuated that I composed the shot incorrectly in not avoiding them, just as you are. In shooting wildlife, you often have to take what you get. I did not have the freedom to get down on my hands and knees and move those two or three blades of grass that appear in this photo and I could not swim out and get the 12 foot long alligator in the other photo to move away from the reeds that were tilting at the wrong angle (as most reeds usually are). Any type of move like that would have sent this little guy or the big beast flying away from me (or toward me!).

I took this photo at the near focus point of the lens (2 meters). Immediately to my right was a huge bush of tall grass that I had to consider when framing in order to not get a distracting brown corner in the photo. To the left of the frame was a big clump of dead plant material, an ugly sight for sure. Any side stepping would have changed my angle to the sun, burning out the highlights and adding even greater glare off the water. Stepping back would have let both sides enter the frame and reduced the size of the gator in the frame.

Framing here was also hard. The gator's head is close to the center of the frame, but it had to be near there somewhere in order to include the tips of both front legs.

Just for the record, I am not flaming here, I am simply filling you in on the details of the situation. I greatly appreciate the comments about my photos and I need them to get better. There are some things that are out of the control of the photographer unless you are in the studio, and these are the things that I am mentioning now.

--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 26, 1998.


Joe,

Quite often the situation is less than ideal. Sometimes this can be overcome and sometimes not. However, regardless of the effort, distracting elements in a photo are just that. If they weren't, all shots would be keepers ;).

A photo can be documentary (here's what I saw) or it can be art which stirs emotion in the viewer.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), August 26, 1998.


It doesn't matter how difficult (or impossible!) it would be to avoid the "distracting lines", they are still distracting. If this was easy, everybody would have perfect images. Ditto for composition. When judging an image (say for competition or publication) it doesn't matter how hard the photographer worked, how long it took or what the problems were. Only the final image counts. Sometimes we have to be satisfied with "the best that could be done at the time", but that counts for nothing, except for the photographer! In this game you don't get points for effort, only for results.

As for the image, it's well exposed, but the composition isn't good and the mirror lens effects don't help. Don't worry, we all have lots of shots like this one in our files I'm sure!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), August 26, 1998.



So then, Paul and Bob, you're saying that "keepers" are produced with not only the equipment and correct exposure, but also luck? I am familiar with the rule of thirds and the golden ratio, etc., but there are times when unorthodox compostion must be used to capture the moment. This moment is accuarately recorded. It looks exactly the same on paper as it did throught the lens. Is that not what photography is about? I understand that some photographs are intended to "stir emotions," but do you think that all photos have to do that to be interesting? Personally, the grass doesn't keep me from noticing the detail on the alligator's neck and head. A little strip of green does not, in my opinion ruin a shot like this. I know that it's my picture and you may not think I can be objective, but the overall documentation of the subject is to me far more important than whether or not there is one line out of place in the photo.

--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 26, 1998.


There is nothing wrong with this picture then for you. Art is subjective. You'll have noticed that many pictures receive mixed reviews. What I value or others is not important. You take the picture to satisfy yourself. Many well known artists early works were hated by the critics. Accept the criticism when you agree with it. Dismiss it otherwise.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), August 26, 1998.

Interesting discussion. I am sure the situation with the suddenly surfacing alligator was amazing in itself and you did the best to frame and capture the shot. Unfortunately, viewers don't know (and you usually don't care) about the circumstances but are only interested in the final print. I myself don't find the green too disturbing, except for the left most one with the completely out of focus top leaf. If you crop of a little from the left (just enough to let two of the greens remain) it would look nicer in my opinion. Without any of the greens it would look too empty. The picture also were stronger if the alligator were swimming towards the camera...

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), August 27, 1998.

Let me take this chance to clarify where I'm coming from on this. I'm not disputing that there are things that are "wrong" with this photo, but I am asking if anyone thinks that a photo has to be "perfect" and conform to all of the rules to "work." What does everyone think?

Also, I frequently don't crop images before I put them up so that people can see what I saw. Should I start cropping?

I appreciate everyone's willingness to answer my questions intelligently, especially Paul's. This is great. Thanks to all.

--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 27, 1998.


A narrow depth of field would have fixed the problems with distracting elements and would have still been a resource available to the photographer inspite of the physical limitations/difficulties of the environment. Is it important to have the right tool for the job? I have a whole wastebasket of photos that would have been great works of art except for this, or that or...

-- Lester LaForce (102140.1200@compuserve.com), August 27, 1998.


Actually, there are many excellent photos that break the rules and aren't perfect yet have great appeal. The famous D-Day shot of soldiers landing on the beach of Normandy is an example. This photo was actually damaged accidentally when the exposed roll was locked in a drying cabinet. The result was that the emulsion started to run. The resulting photograph appears "shakey" but rather than taking away from the subject, this adds to the "rawness" of the action.

Rules are tools which used the wrong way can damage the composition. We see what we are interested in and ignore the rest; however, the camera does not. That is where skill in composition and technique come in. The ability to reduce the photo to its essential elements draws the viewer to the emotions you felt when you took the photo or to the message or image you wish to project. Elements which distract from this, should be eliminated when forming the composition through photo techniques such as selective DOF, camera angle, etc. Notice that what distracts in one composition might actually support the subject in another.

If it could be reduced to a set of rules, computers would be programmed to do it. Opps, I just realized, they are ( any one seen the digitial effects of the Titanic movie). In all seriousness, though, human input there was also essential.

Many books are availiable discussing these ideas. Since I'm Canadian, I'll recommend one from here. Freeman Patterson is a photographer I admire and has written several books on photograpy. I've a link below to his website:

http://www.houssennet.nb.ca/pub/DEC/freeman.htm

PS. He's a bit of a rule breaker.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), August 27, 1998.


Joe, I'll get in on this one since I have a couple of poorly formed opinions on the critiques given here. First of all, I think that anyone who goes to the trouble of posting an image here thinks that the photo they're submitting has some merit, and accordingly, at some level, I think everyone would like some positive reinforcement. Only natural. Sometimes you get it, sometimes not. Quite often, technical aspects are assumed to be done correctly, so nobody says "nice sharp focus" or "perfect exposure". In your case, both are true. As to the negatives, I think you have to separate them into two distinct categories, since the contributors rarely do. First, given the best of all possible worlds, what could be better about this photo? You could have waited two hours for better light, or a couple of weeks for some plants to grow a little more to properly frame the shot, or whatever. These are the factors that were really beyond your control at the time of the shot. The second category would be, given the situation that you had to shoot (in so far as it is apparent to the viewer), are there any ways to improve the shot? Many of the critiques are heavy on the first category - no way you could implement them on this particular photo, but its still very useful to hear them, tuck them away in some dank corner of your brain, and possibly think about them next time you are shooting in a similar situation. Finally, I guess its obvious, but just keep in mind that they are all just someone else's opinion, so take them to heart, lightly, or ignore them if you disagree. Personally, thinking back on my first couple of years of taking "nature" shots (loosely defined), if I had been producing photos of the quality that you have in your first couple of month's of photography, my head would be so swelled I would be an insufferable dickhead (which some say I am anyway). But then, I was working with such inferior equipment that its not really a fair comparison;). Keep shooting, keep submitting, get pissed off if you must, but have fun with it. Peter

-- 8-pig Pete (peter.may@stetson.edu), August 27, 1998.

Ok, it's time for today's replies:

Peter: Thanks for chiming in! You have stated concisely in one reply what I have been trying to say over the course of this entire post! I appreciate the support, and I appreciate the compliments.

Paul: Thanks for the honest discussion. Also, thanks for the book recommendations. I will look into that.

Lester: It was a fixed aperture mirror lens, so I had no control over depth of field. As for having the right tools, I suppose that is important, but I was using a tool that was "right." Not everyone can afford the "best" of the "right tools," though I do hope to someday have a Nikor 600mm f1 prime lens or whatever would have been the best for this (Zeiss or something). Until then, it's a Sigma mirror for me and the rest of the poor graduate students. :)

--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), August 28, 1998.


joe, i'm confused by statements like "It was a fixed aperture mirror lens, so I had no control over depth of field. As for having the right tools ... Until then, it's a Sigma mirror for me and the rest of the poor graduate students."

this is a picture critique forum. not a photography equipment critique forum. of a photography IDEA forum. your picture (taken however it was, on whatever equipment, at whatever time, under whatever danger, etc...) has things i (and others it seems) would rather have different. (DOF, donut highlights, etc...) telling me you would do it different if you had whatever (better equipment, more time, better light, etc...) doesn't change the fact that this picture has those things i'd change.

you mentiones "luck" above sarcastically. YES!!! i think that for good photographers, "luck" is a LARGE part of weather they take great pictures of just good ones.

you also ask above weather a photo has to be "perfect" in order to work. and weather you should crop before you post. again... this is a crituque forum, not a "self esteem boosting" forum. a picture doesn't have to be perfect in order to "work" but it has to be perfect for people to not tell you what they think is wrong with it with a very critical eye. (hence the definition of the word critique) and yes, i think you should crop the photo the way you like before posting it. it's one less thing people would comment on.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), August 28, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ