Is the whole bird required for a good pic?

[gpsman]

I have been making the effort to capture the whole bird while it’s chowing down on a fish. Is it necessary for capturing the moment.? Looking for Feedback or comments. Which is more effective?

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Ralph]

I have been making the effort to capture the whole bird while it’s chowing down on a fish. Is it necessary for capturing the moment.? Looking for Feedback or comments. Which is more effective?View attachment 64036View attachment 64037

Great shots! Sometimes the closeup has more impact and sometimes the whole bird is necessary to tell a slightly different story. Whatever works. That is one large catfish. Good luck Mr. Heron

 

[DRwyoming]

I have been making the effort to capture the whole bird while it’s chowing down on a fish. Is it necessary for capturing the moment.? Looking for Feedback or comments.

I'd say no, it's not essential to capture the entire animal including birds. That said, both kinds of photos have their place.

In terms of these two photos I much prefer the top image with great viewer to subject eye engagement than the lower with the Heron looking out the side of the frame.

Galen Rowell wrote a bit about this idea in one of his books. When a subject or area of the world or type of photo is brand new and folks lack familiarity then it can pay to paint a more complete story and include all of the subject and a substantial part of its surroundings. His examples were things like Yaks in Nepal and Pakistan in the '60s and '70s where a lot of stateside viewers weren't all that familiar with the subjects, the cultures or the environments. But as subject familiarity grows select outtake shots that capture the mood but don't necessarily include the full subject or a lot of surroundings can work quite well.

In this day and age we've all seen a lot of exotic images so it might not apply as directly but still there's a time and place for a more complete story telling image and times for more intimate portraits or small extractions from overall scenes. This applies to many types of photography and not just wildlife but it could certainly apply here.

 

[Patrick M]

Do you love the “yes, and no” answers? Well. Yes and No! I like the fact that sometimes the background or wider picture tells a story. Sometimes it’s just a great bird.

 

[jeffnles1]

I agree with others here. The answer is "it depends". It depends on what story you're telling with the photo and how you want to present the subject. Both types of photographs have their place and can be used to communicate about the subject. When I look at your photo 2, it tells me something about where this beauty lives, how it lives and what its daily struggle for survival is like. Photo 1 showcases the beauty of the creature, tells me I tis a hunter with intense "hunter" eyes.

Both are good and tell a story just a different story.

I would be happy with either. My personal style tends to lean a little more to environmental but I have plenty of portraits too

 

[Mitesh]

Agree with other posters that both types of images work. One factor that I take into consideration when deciding which type of image to shoot, is the aesthetic of the background. If the scene is pleasing and the colors/light enhance the visual appeal, then I will look for a wider composition that features those qualities. On the other hand, if the scene is cluttered or I really need to isolate the subject to make the image work, I’ll choose a longer focal length and shoot tight.

Two things to watch for when you shoot a tighter compositions are where you are truncating the subject, and your shooting angles/DOF so that you can keep in focus those parts of the subject that you want in focus.