Whats your angle? Re: The Angle of a photograph

I have noticed lately, and over time, that it seems the primary nit on a lot of photographs is the subject of angle. It has been said countless times "I would prefer a lower angle", even on photographs where the angle is generally quite good, but not perfect. I guess i'm wondering what the fascination with a perefct angle is. I know it increases the "intimacy" of the image. Do we, however, sacrifice other things for this "intimacy". For example, in the recent Greater Yellowlegs post of 9/2/2003 Arthur Morris stated that if the angle was lowered as suggested by 5 other people, then the reflections would have been lost and the blues would have been lost. Now considering the loss of two positives to achieve a better angle, is it worth it? Does one always see nature at eye level? This was also a critique of an image I recently took at Fort DeSoto of a Short-billed Dowitcher where I had my tripod at about the lowest I was comfortable with, with my camera about a foot above the water, and the tides were rising. So I had a very low angle, yet still 90% of the comments on the image were about angle. Should I have nearly immersed my camera to get a better "angle"? I'm just trying to figure out how to achieve better results, and this seems to be a significant key.

Certainly, as a birdwatcher, this is not a "natural" way to perceive nature. Anyone who has been out in May to watch Warblers during spring migration will tell you this. Most warblers (in Minnesota I can only think of a few that primarily prefer lower levels, such as chestnut-sided, yellow, waterthrushes, ovenbirds...) prefer the upper levels of the canopy when they are feeding, and getting low, eye level, intimate shots is not exactly a trivial thing.

Any comments are welcome,

Chris, photographing subjects at their level definitely provides for a more intimate look into their lives, but as you mention there are times when other elements important in the image can take precedence. Reflections, horizons, background gradations, etc can have an adverse impact on the overall image when improperly placed within the frame. Conversely, these same elements when well placed can enhance the overall Visual Impact of the image. Many photographers base their perception of what is good and bad about an image on what they are used to seeing or being told is so by a name artist. Additionally, the viewer does not usually know the circumstances involved in capturing the image. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. While an image should be judged on its own merit, and the opinion of others always considered, you in the end must like the image most.

We, as photographers, are afforded with every frame we expose, the unbelievable opportunity to be creators, masters of our domain. There is no right or wrong way, only your way.

Ever look a raging pit bull in the eye; it is far more intimidating than standing on a fence. Nevertheless, I will take that image from atop the fence. Now a bear on the other hand-lol

Best,

Chas

Great topic.

Chas's point about hindsight being a wonderful thing is very well put. On these forums your work is being critiqued by other photographers and photographers see EVERYTHING! The pickiness with which they view your photos is probably second only to the pickiness with which they view their own photos.

Take the criticism with the point of view that what you learn might help you the next time you are shooting. Maybe you'll be about to shoot and suddenly you'll think "is this the best angle" and you'll look around and maybe find a better one. The more we are aware of what makes a good shot, the better we are armed for when the light is right and a great subject presents itself.

I know it stings to get critcism on a photo that you love. But just remember this is critism from photographers who want to help you make better photographs.

I'm a landscape photographer and I ofter look through books of my heros, Galen Rowell, Jack Dykinga, Elliot Porter and others and often I see things in their photos that were critisized in my photos. So just because people might nit pick, it doesn't necessarily make your photo a bad one.

We've just got to do the best we can when the light is right. The more we know how to make a great shot, the better.

- Dan.

Chris,

I think I understand what you are saying. I'm just a beginner in avian photography (< 1 year), but I have noticed that unless a photograph fits certain "rules", it's not considered "good." I think some people are so caught up in the technical aspects (head turned the right amount, not even one small area of blown highlights, etc., etc.) that sometimes they don't look at the overall picture. I read Art Morris' book several times. I got caught up in trying to do everything he said. So much so that I was not appreciating the overall picture. Don't get me wrong, I read all the critiques carefully, but no longer do I take them as gospel, even from the well known (and excellent photographers.)
I hope my ramblings are communicating my feelings. When I look at a picture, the most important thing is - "Do I like it?" Then I try to decide what I don't like about it. Is it because the head is turned too far? What is it that makes me like it?
Anyway, I think it's easy to get so technical that you forget why you're taking the picture in the first place.
Now if all my pictures looked like Artie's or Chas', I might feel differently!


BTW, in no way is this meant as a slam against anyone here (or the other photo forums I visit.) I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

EGrav, thanks I think-lol.


Learning to see, whether in the field or the printed page is the same - use this to your advantage. I do not think you can teach one individual to see as another, nor would I really want to, but I believe you can certainly teach one to recognize the individual components, the key ingredients that make an image successful. May I recommend creating a clip file, a resource if you will, of images you emulate that will ultimately define your unique photographic style? What commonalities can you identify amongst the images you like? Analyze each image, breaking it down into its most basic of components of line, form, color, texture, composition, and of course light. As your photographic eye develops, it will be less difficult for you to recognize the lighting, compositional elements, and key components you admire in others images. Mastering the technical side of photography provides freedom, expanding the possibilities and allowing you to see outside the box. It is equally important to know what you like and dislike in an image before depressing the shutter.

Best in all your photographic endeavors,

Chas

Thanks Chas,
I agree with what you're saying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that many times the critiques are predictable. I posted some pix on NANPA and it got to the point that I knew what the criticisms were going to be ahead of time (and who from.) Just about every comment dealt with strictly technical stuff. It seems that there is more to a good photo than just the technical stuff. I still am working on improving MY technical stuff and I agree that it's very basic and important. Maybe I mis-understood Chris' original point. Anyway, I love coming here and reviewing other's work and reading the comments. I think I have improved just from what I've learned here.
Thanks,
Earl Gravois

Dan Baumbach wrote:Great topic.

Chas's point about hindsight being a wonderful thing is very well put. On these forums your work is being critiqued by other photographers and photographers see EVERYTHING! The pickiness with which they view your photos is probably second only to the pickiness with which they view their own photos.

Take the criticism with the point of view that what you learn might help you the next time you are shooting. Maybe you'll be about to shoot and suddenly you'll think "is this the best angle" and you'll look around and maybe find a better one. The more we are aware of what makes a good shot, the better we are armed for when the light is right and a great subject presents itself.

- Dan.

Dan's comments - and Chas's - are right on the money, IMO. Critiquers don't know under what constraints the photo was shot, and in particular what really could have been changed. Frankly, I would rather have someone point out the nits than just say "nice shot." While I may well know myself, and I have worked hard to become very picky with my own shots, I also know that it's easy to become so emotionally attached to a shot that you overlook something where in retrospect I say "how could I have missed that?" Sometimes you can't take a step to the left because it's 100 feet down, but sometimes you can take that step and it's a major improvement and I wonder what was I thinking in not stepping left?

Second point to note is the issue of being prepared, and your comments about "angle" really strike a nerve there. I spent a week in the Galapagos this summer and was not as happy as I would like with some of my shots. Two reasons. First, fill flash isn't allowed; it's a park rule and that's a constraint I can't relax. Second, the angle of some shots wasn't as low as I would like - and it was pretty low. The angle would appear to be a constraint I could have relaxed pretty easily except that the ground was sharp lava and kneeling wasn't an option, assuming you value your knees. The only solution? Go back with knee and elbow pads - sometimes being prepared is not as simple as one would think!

In terms of being only a foot above the water and still having too high an angle, the best solution may be to back up and use a longer lens or a TC. The effective angle then would be lower.

Rich

EGrav wrote:Chris,

I think I understand what you are saying. I'm just a beginner in avian photography (< 1 year), but I have noticed that unless a photograph fits certain "rules", it's not considered "good." I think some people are so caught up in the technical aspects (head turned the right amount, not even one small area of blown highlights, etc., etc.) that sometimes they don't look at the overall picture. I read Art Morris' book several times. I got caught up in trying to do everything he said. So much so that I was not appreciating the overall picture. Don't get me wrong, I read all the critiques carefully, but no longer do I take them as gospel, even from the well known (and excellent photographers.)
I hope my ramblings are communicating my feelings. When I look at a picture, the most important thing is - "Do I like it?" Then I try to decide what I don't like about it. Is it because the head is turned too far? What is it that makes me like it?
Anyway, I think it's easy to get so technical that you forget why you're taking the picture in the first place.
Now if all my pictures looked like Artie's or Chas', I might feel differently!


BTW, in no way is this meant as a slam against anyone here (or the other photo forums I visit.) I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Since we're all photographers here, we all know the technical aspects of nature photography. It's much easier to critique an image technically than artistically. Overexposure will always bring out the nits and that's much easier to say than explaining the way the image makes you feel.

Getting the perfect angle is one of the most challenging aspects of avian photography. I'm always wanting to move two steps to my left or right. I make sure I take an image first, most of the time when I take the two steps, the bird is long gone, and totally fed up with me. I love the extreme low level images, they don't always work, sometimes there is to much grass or other vegetation in the way. Just because someone makes the suggestion that a better angle would help the image, doesn't mean getting that angle was possible. The person writhing the critique doesn't know this, he/she is just analyzing what they see on the screen. When I critique an image and point out a nit, not only is it for the person who took the image, it help reinforce the concept in my own photography. Writing critiques is often more helpful to the person who writes the critique than the photographer.

The problem here is, with such excellent photography it's tough to find any nits at all, every image is a total inspiration to me.