Wildlife context ... How much is too much?

[DsD]

This is a 85% of Z9 full resolution frame. I wanted context and colors but is it too much?

The wind shifted and forced me to a different location both above and to far away from the bears.

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

 

[JAJohnson]

These decisions are always subjective, and there are no hard and fast rules.

To my eye, I’d prefer a composition with the subject larger in the frame, but that may not have been possible under the circumstances.

 

[DsD]

These decisions are always subjective, and there are no hard and fast rules.

To my eye, I’d prefer a composition with the subject larger in the frame, but that may not have been possible under the circumstances.

Thanks JA. Yes I would have liked to have been way closer, not the location I expected to have been in. Looking at the Raw file I think the detail will hold up to a much tighter crop. Part of me is trying to get away from such tight crops when I can't fill the frame.

 

[Charles Loy]

Consider the tighter crop, and place the subject more to the right - as to appear the bear is looking at something in the distance. Just my thought.

 

[DRwyoming]

This is a 85% of Z9 full resolution frame. I wanted context and colors but is it too much?

To me it depends a lot on what's in the rest of the frame and whether the looser crop helps tell a better story. In this case I'd say there's too much environment and most of it doesn't help the visual story. Including some of the cornfield and foreground grass might help establish place but to me there's way too much of it and the main subject is too small in the frame.

IOW, the more visual interest the surroundings provide the smaller the main wildlife subject can be including the extreme case of figures on a landscape type shots where the landscape is most of the image.

I also agree with Charles above, cropping to place the bear further right in the frame so he's looking more into the frame and less out of the frame could help.

 

[DsD]

Consider the tighter crop, and place the subject more to the right - as to appear the bear is looking at something in the distance. Just my thought.

Thanks Charles, yes I will do that when I play with it. I also envision less above the bear so it appears that I am more on it's plane.

 

[DsD]

To me it depends a lot on what's in the rest of the frame and whether the looser crop helps tell a better story. In this case I'd say there's too much environment and most of it doesn't help the visual story. Including some of the cornfield and foreground grass might help establish place but to me there's way too much of it and the main subject is too small in the frame.

IOW, the more visual interest the surroundings provide the smaller the main wildlife subject can be including the extreme case of figures on a landscape type shots where the landscape is most of the image.

I also agree with Charles above, cropping to place the bear further right in the frame so he's looking more into the frame and less out of the frame could help.

Great insight Dave, thank you! My gut agrees with your and Charles feedback.

 

[bleirer]

I like the alternation of the browns to the greens and back to the browns, but I think you could tighten up and still have that.

 

[DsD]

I like the alternation of the browns to the greens and back to the browns, but I think you could tighten up and still have that.

Agreed Bill and thanks.
Oh, there was no need to edit out the blurry blob of a subject. No offense was taken. Filling the frame is best, I know, but sometimes you take what you get. I ended up with 3 bears moving about and was pinned down and feared getting busted.
The Raw file seems to show that the near eye is in focus and sharp for a 100 yard or more picture. Details might hold up to a heavy crop. I might have used single point without subject detection on that one but was playing between modes.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

There is no boundary between the following but it helps me think about what I want to capture. Animal portraits where the subject fills essentially all of the frame. It may be so close only the head and shoulders show. Animal Environments where the subject is still the main draw into the picture but the subject may only be 20 to 40% of the frame. The rest is the rocks a sea lion hauls out on, the tree a bird is perched in or the river and falls where a bear is fishing. Naturescapes are more like a landscape with animals included. The animal may only be 5% of the frame. The setting is the story. For this specific image, the environment around the bear is not adding a lot to the story. I agree a tighter crop would be better if you have the resolution to allow it.

 

[DsD]

There is no boundary between the following but it helps me think about what I want to capture. Animal portraits where the subject fills essentially all of the frame. It may be so close only the head and shoulders show. Animal Environments where the subject is still the main draw into the picture but the subject may only be 20 to 40% of the frame. The rest is the rocks a sea lion hauls out on, the tree a bird is perched in or the river and falls where a bear is fishing. Naturescapes are more like a landscape with animals included. The animal may only be 5% of the frame. The setting is the story. For this specific image, the environment around the bear is not adding a lot to the story. I agree a tighter crop would be better if you have the resolution to allow it.

Thank you James. The majority agrees and I do as well. While the colors and lines are interesting I admit that it doesn’t enhance the story. Interestingly I just reread Brad Hills descriptions of various animal photo types which echos your thoughts.