Sandhill Cranes...full body or parts of the bird?

[Viathelens]

I'm going through all of my Sandhill cranes shots from a recent visit to New Mexico. I will have dozens of nice shots of full-body in flight Sandhill cranes. I got bored with that and started playing with parts of the bird, the wings and face, taken from shots where I missed the mark of the full body. What do you think about partial body shots of Sandhill cranes, if not these shots then in general. And what about these shots, hit or miss the mark? It's an experiment.

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.

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

 

[Patrick M]

nice crops. Personally I'd like a mix of the close up with some of the full birds for context. Hope you don't mind me saying.

 

[Viathelens]

nice crops. Personally I'd like a mix of the close up with some of the full birds for context. Hope you don't mind me saying.

Not at all, I threw in the critique section to get that type of comment. I just got bored with full-body birds and had some partial body birds so started to play around with them. I often forget to get that close-in shot that focuses directly on something I like. For cranes I love the wing detail in particular. I think It's hard to figure out sometimes when a partial body shot might work for an animal. Thanks.

 

[EricBowles]

I like them as part of a mix of images. I understand what you mean - sometimes the similar full bird photos become repetitive. As part of a mix I'd like some environmental shots, groups, full birds, landing, etc. I assume you have those shots and they are not what this post is about.

You might also look at crops from images that are good as full shots - not just because you missed the mark on a full body. I found myself looking at the bird's head, shoulder and wing position and would avoid using photos where the bird has already slightly passed you or turned away. Pick the ideal positions - not photos that you consider "okay".

Of these, I like the first two better than the last one.

 

[Viathelens]

I like them as part of a mix of images. I understand what you mean - sometimes the similar full bird photos become repetitive. As part of a mix I'd like some environmental shots, groups, full birds, landing, etc. I assume you have those shots and they are not what this post is about.

You might also look at crops from images that are good as full shots - not just because you missed the mark on a full body. I found myself looking at the bird's head, shoulder and wing position and would avoid using photos where the bird has already slightly passed you or turned away. Pick the ideal positions - not photos that you consider "okay".

Of these, I like the first two better than the last one.

Eric, thanks!

 

[BAL Land]

I too would prefer a mix of crops/poses, makes everything more interesting.

 

[JAS]

I agree with the other commenters that these images would look good as part of a set including other whole body shots to give us different views of the whole bird. Well done!

 

[Anjin San]

What Patrick and others said…in a blog post or whatever the mix of shots is a nice contrast.

 

[thedesertratz]

There is a lot of negative space in the first shot since their necks are so long, IMO I think the first shot should be the whole bird but your second shot works well with crop. Nice captures.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Conceptually partial body shots can work well. Particularly if the bird/animal is so close that it doesn't fit in the frame. In those cases you can often capture incredible detail. But placement of the animal in the frame is still important as it is with a full body shot.

With that in mind IMO neither of these shots work well. The first/second one is a good idea but just an awkward composition. IMO it can be improved simply by cropping it to a 2:1 format that removes a lot of dead space and works better with the long neck of the bird. The dead space is reduced and the bird's head ends up fitting rule of third's placement in the frame. Hope you don't mind I cropped it and posted below. I'll remove it if so desired.

As for the last image I'm not a fan of overhead shots in general. They can work work in some situations such as with a raptor looking down at the camera. But this one just doesn't

 

[Viathelens]

Conceptually partial body shots can work well. Particularly if the bird/animal is so close that it doesn't fit in the frame. In those cases you can often capture incredible detail. But placement of the animal in the frame is still important as it is with a full body shot.

With that in mind IMO neither of these shots work well. The first/second one is a good idea but just an awkward composition. IMO it can be improved simply by cropping it to a 2:1 format that removes a lot of dead space and works better with the long neck of the bird. The dead space is reduced and the bird's head ends up fitting rule of third's placement in the frame. Hope you don't mind I cropped it and posted below. I'll remove it if so desired.

As for the last image I'm not a fan of overhead shots in general. They can work work in some situations such as with a raptor looking down at the camera. But this one just doesn't

Thanks for your comments. I don't mind you cropping the shot as I put it up for the fun of discussion. I do need to work on getting close up shots and maybe something to think about this year so comments are helpful. As for cropping in general, I most often keep to original ratios in case I decide to print something (I buy mats in bulk) or put it into a slideshow, printed book or other presentation as it makes it easier when all images are similar in size. But this one could definately work in a different crop. Thanks again.