![]() |
Cow Moose; Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, USA (36mp) Not a very good image, but good for this illustration |
The above image, admittedly not a very good image, is one that is good for illustration of this point. The cow moose (along with her calf that is out of the frame but too far away to include in any way) was eating in this small pond in Grand Teton National Park. A nice scene that any of us would want to capture and show our friends as a record or reminder of our trip. The top image is how I photographed it. I wanted to include the water, the trace of blue sky and the yellow leaves of the aspen trees. My aim was to show the moose in the totality of her natural environment. But it doesn't work. Why? Because the main subject is the moose and she is just a tiny part of the overall image. This is a classic case of me trying to include too much in the image.
Photography is an exercise in exclusion. What do I mean by that? We have the whole world in front of us. We have 360 degrees of view in every direction. But we can't faithfully record everything around us. We get fooled by our emotional attachment to a scene or the subject matter before us. This is true especially if we arrive at a place in which we have never been or a grand scene from nature is before us with all its beauty. Our brains kick into high gear and we, emotionally, want to capture it in our cameras exactly how we see and experience it. It doesn't work that way.
Your job, when standing there, is to understand this, then detach yourself from the scene emotionally and clearly try to find a part or parts of the scene that you would consider your main subject. You can make more than one image of a scene, each with its own main subject and more detailed than an overall scene. Once you have determined what you think you main subject should be, then you need to "exclude" and narrow down, cut out, crop out, whatever you want to call it–you want to make your main subject the focus of the image. Not just a little part of it. Additionally, you want to eliminate distractions in your image that take the viewer away from your main subject.
![]() |
Same image cropped; Now 6.5 mp; A huge loss in quality! |
The bad thing about fixing an image such as this is that you have to crop heavily. Cropping eliminates pixels, accentuates focusing errors and decreases the quality of your image. It is much better to get it right in the camera than to fix it during your editing process. In my illustration, the top image is 36mp and the cropped, better composed version is only 6.5mp. By being sloppy, I have lost most of my available pixels. Try to avoid that.
This same phenomenon is common with people in photographs. How many times have you seen an image with a tiny person in the middle of this vast photograph. In most cases, you cannot even tell who the person is! But, again, you have to think about what you are photographing and who or what is the main subject. There is nothing wrong with photographing the person up close with some of the background showing, then make another image where the overall scene, the light, the texture or quality of the light, the color, or whatever you determine, is your subject.
This is not a complicated issue so there is no reason to drone on. Just detach your emotions from whatever exciting thing is before you and think it through. We all do these kinds of common mistakes. It is not anything to be ashamed of. Just be thankful that you have the ability to be out there and taking pictures in the first place.
Thanks for looking.
Dennis Mook
Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com. Please pay it a visit. I add new images regularly. Thank you.
All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Dennis, How true it is. I like to use my zoom lens to "soft crop"... that is, give myself a little extra room with some fine tuning cropping in post. Yes, I do lose some pixels but it is nice compromise for me. It appeals to my fear of cutting off too much at the time of capture. For example in the cropped image above, I would like to see how it would look if I included all of the bush on the right. The other thing, is that I find since digital images are free, the advantage of a zoom is you can take the big shot (the first one) , then zoom in for closeups. Sometimes seeing a series of say 3 shots getting progressively more zoomed in (or the other way around) makes a nice presentation on an ipad.
ReplyDeletePeter F.
Peter, I often crop loosely so there is room to straighten verticals, etc. I find it helpful to have a little extra around the edges for fine tuning the image. Also, I'm an old forensic/crime scene photographer from many years ago. In my younger days, I had photographed literally 1000s of crime scenes. In each, I would take "establishing" shots, mid-range shots as well as close-ups. Back then, I zoomed with my feet as we were required to only use a "normal" lens, usually a Super Multi-coated Takumar 50mm f/1.4! Those old screw mount Pentax Spotmatics, with "potato masher" Honeywell Strobonar manual flash units did yeoman's duty for us for years. Ah, the old days! Sue am glad for the "new" days of today.
ReplyDeleteThat's very interesting. I am so grateful for today's crop of zooms. By using them I have develped a style or system of shooting wide and then going in for the kill with the final shot... just as you descibed with your crime scene photos. Just to share a bit about the past, my "zoom with my feet" camera was my dad's Retina iiiC rangefinder, a German made Kodak from the early 1950's. Slow Shneider lens at F2.8 compared with your fast f1.4. I was perfectly happy with it and was in heaven when 25 ASA Kodachrome was replaced by Kodachrome 64. We picked up about a stop of speed!!! Yippee.
Delete