One of the things I am often conflicted about is when I read or hear about “the way to shoot” a particular subject. For example, for shorebirds, the way that is often proclaimed as the best way to shoot them is on your belly, as low as you can possibly go. This creates the nice blurred surroundings and really makes the bird pop in the frame. It is the way I shot this Least Sandpiper – flat on my belly in the sand. I don’t disagree that it creates a very appealing portrait. It is much more intimate than one from a standing position.
But quite frankly, as much as I like to play the skeptic at times, and as much as I tried shooting shorebirds ‘another way’ – I ultimately return to this method. And I don’t know if this is partly preconditioning on how an ‘acceptable’ shorebird photograph should look, or simply because it is an equation that works.
I think this is a line we probably all walk once we learn certain techniques. Certainly I think thi s sandpiper image is better this way than if I shot it from standing or even kneeling. However, I don’t think I was all that creative about it. I simply followed a formula and waited for a moment and had the right light. This bird didn’t stick around long enough to really try too many other things. And even if I did have the opportunity, I might have trashed everything else and ended up with the same image as my ‘keepers.’
I don’t think formulas yield particularly creative images, but can be useful in helping someone go beyond where they may have been before. What formulas do you like or dislike using?
Well, I don’t know about formulas, but your method certainly worked for this shot; it’s beautiful! I just happened to have taken a similar shot of two seagulls recently, and although I didn’t know about this formula and started shooting from a standing position above the birds, I soon found myself trying to get down to their level, lying flat on the dock so as to get as low as possible. It was instinctive as I looked through the viewfinder that I knew the nearer to their level I could get, the better the shot would be. And maybe that’s why formulas develop in the first place, because they make sense. 🙂
great question and responses both.. your image is right up my own preferred ‘formula’..it shows behavior..my own tastes kean towars this and the inclusion of habitat.. it’s much to prphetic 2 me to remove it../9not a big fan of BOAS shots)I’m also fond of avian captures where the bird doesnt necessarly have its attention on me,, eye contact isn’t a
‘must get’ in my world. Just like that sweet warbler shot you sent, it shows life.. curiosity and behavior all in 1.
good to read u again buddy ;?)
As usual, I say shoot what’s in your heart. Let go and don’t worry about the formulas. It seems that we always have to have a plan, fearing that to not have one will result in failure. Go with the flow.
BTW, the bird shot is wonderful! I need to do a little belly shooting. Come to think of it, I have never shot a shorebird, or any other bird for that matter, from this angle. I usually like to catch the flying or perched upon some interesting.
It may sound strange, but for me it’s like riding a bike, you can only learn to ride it pretty much one way but after you learn, you can then take your hands of the handle bars or do a wheelie..you may crash, but then you go back to what got you there and start over.
I guess what I mean are formulas are all tried and true, but if you want to try to be a little more daring you may fall, but you will always have the formula to go back to. I am sorry if this is rambling but its been a long weekend.
First, I love your image.
I think the reason a shot like this works so well is because we are willing to get down on the bird’s level and become a part of their environment. Way too many people would never have taken the time or the effort. I applaud you. It is almost like you think you are better than the bird if you shoot down wards though this can be nice shot if taken from a tree.
Some people dig holes to stand in and use blinds to get on the bird’s level.
As far as technique we have to learn from our predecessors and and if it works for your vision great. If not experiment.
I keep some and throw away some in my art and never quit searching for more ways to visualize my subjects. My process continues to get easier as a result.
I don’t think any creative medium has had as much written about it as photography and this is one of the reasons I encourage artists to consider at least some photographic study as there is such a broad expanse of knowledge laid up. I love the British photo magazines. Photography must be huge there.
Great article represented by the great comments you received.
Thanks. Thanks for writing me back, and thanks for a fine Web site with so many lovely photos and good thoughts. I was thinking last night about lenses, and wondering if lens choice would somehow fit into your notions of a formula.
Have you ever read what John Shaw has to say about the 200mm lens in any of his books? His subsection on 200mm lenses in Closeups in Nature is, I am sure, one reason why I carry a 200mm lens. It’s a great tool for birds, small animals, and flowers. I saw that again yesterday after I took half a dozen not very satisfactory photos with my 100mm lens, then picked up the 200mm. All the difference in the world, IMO.
Mike – ah – but is a master of a formula still applying it as a formula, even if it comes second nature?
Bill – thank you for visiting and the comments. You make some great points to think about. I actually shot a few different compositions with some groups of birds as well. I didn’t quite get what I was after, but they are different perspectives as you mention.
Formulas? I have no formal education in photography, so my mind has not been so poisoned. This is by design. I worked in a field other than photography where I had to live by formulas. I have always enjoyed photography while keeping myself blissfully ignorant of formulas.
Ok, exceptions. I will admit to a few. I like to take color pictures that in one way or another have strong (or sometimes pale)colors. If not, I may remove the colors and output the photo in black and white. I like to take pictures that are sharp, but it doesn’t always happen and I don’t always care. I like to take big broad pictures like landscapes, and I am a fan of the Hudson River School of painting, but not all of it. I am not too fussy about omitting the so-called Hand of Man. I also like compositions with two or three big blocks of outdoor color, sort of my version of Mark Rothko.
But above all, I like to take photos that are pleasing either to me, my family and friends, and to the people I take pictures for. I almost don’t like to take pictures for money because I feel that when that happens I have to pass certain tests or adhere to certain standards. One of the joys of being retired is that I not longer have to kowtow to the idiots who write paychecks, much as I may have loved them and the checks.
If I can comment on your photo, it is beautiful and a credit to your camera, lens, support system, software, and of course yourself. With the right marketing, it could sell well. Someone might well use it for a logo for a business. My idea of criticism is not that it should expect the photographer to take pictures in accordance with certain formulas. Criticism should be about how well a piece rattles an audience’s cage, and your photograph will rattle a lot of cages, I am sure.
But, if you brought your photo into an educational environment, there might be reservations. If education was the goal, I might have reservations about a photo that showed only the bird and not the bird’s environment. An accompanying environmental photos might be called for. Part of knowing a bird is to know the bird’s habitat.
I was at the beach other other day and I observed a variety of birds. What caught my photographer’s eye was the interaction between species, how birds of a feather flock together, and how one small bird might tiptoe timidly past a larger bird, or how a large bird might drive a smaller bird away. I particularly noticed a group of foraging sandpipers on a mudflat. From 15 or so yards, they looked like a bunch of two-legged mice with wings. For people (students) looking at a picture and wanting to get an idea of how the bird might appear in the field, this could be important.
So that brings me to my final formula (even though I hate formulas): Know who you are taking the picture for and think about how it could serve an audience. I hope this isn’t too long.
Hey Mark, I think formulas, or rules of composition are for beginners to get started with but as you master these you start to form your own formulas sometimes breaking the rules.
Paul – you have given me some interesting points to think about… that the creative process, once driven into your ‘routine’ can almost feel formulaic. But it still a creative process nonetheless perhaps?
Mark,
This is a great image. I like the colors, the light, the perspective, the composition, and very importantly – the posture of the bird. I disagree that what you did is formulaic. I see what you’ve done as making creative decisions(!) based on experience and the situation. I think sometimes when you get comfortable with yourself and the elements that turn you on visually, the process may feel too regular and not creative. The decision to work low to the ground, to not diminish the bird visually, is a creative decision that was only the start of the process. I don’t think that equates to a formula.
The formula that I like is shooting at sunset. 🙂