Where to put the grass line?

[alvinyap]

<p>Hello nature forumers!<br>

I hope it is alright to ask this kind of question here. This weekend I went to Bushy Park (UK), had a great time shooting deer. However, the landscape there has a very harsh grass/tree line in many of my photos, and I'm not certain how to place them. Any comments on how to put the line? I think I prefer the one on the left (monopod at minimum height) - but it bisects the image, and the one one on the right (my standing height) puts it at the rule-of-thirds line, but bisects the head? :(<br>

Thank you!<br>

Alvin</p><div></div>

[vincent_peri]

<p>I like the first photo best. My feeling is, so what if the grass line cuts the frame in two. It doesn't bother me one bit.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I prefer the one on the left. The lower camera angle makes the animal look taller and bigger. The fact that the grass line is interrupted by the animal makes it less annoying.</p>

<p>The grass line on the right is actually more annoying since it goes all the way through. You seem to be shooting from above the animal's eye level, thus giving the impression that you are looking down towards the animal.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>The image on the left gives a much more comfortable feeling than the one on the right... something about the dark foliage pressing down visually from so far above the animal is disturbing. I think that having almost one-third of the image devoted to a blurry grass background detracts (I'm not sure why that would be more bothersome than a blurry dark foliage background, but it is). This arrangement might be worth playing with in other circumstances, but in this instance, the highlighted area on the animal's back dissolves into the grass background, while in the image on the left it 'pops' out in good contrast.</p>

[SteveH]

<p>So how about this? One thing I noticed is that the grass/tree line is quite bright, so I darkened it a bit in Lightroom. Also cropped as you can see. I think if you can make this line less distracting it will make the image stronger. I agree that the left one seems better. Cheers.</p><div></div>

[gary_c4]

<p>As someone who lived minutes from Bushey Park for many many years I can say that the one on the left stirs the emotions for me. Many happy times remembered, thanks </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I agree. Grass line should cut through anything other than the antlers/head/neck.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>Alvin, I prefer the first picture is the best but which on do you prefer?</p>

[stp]

<p>Definitely the one on the left. I like how the foreground grass extends into the body of the animal, making it better appear to be standing in a field of long grass. As Thomas said, I don't like the extent of blurred background grass in the second photo. The line cutting through the antlers on the right doesn't sit well, either.</p>

[aeaster]

<p>The first one is the better, however it is still your decision. Put it anywhere you like.</p>

<p>If you want you can put the grass line on the bottom. Someone who can PhotoShop a fake large format film border around their digital image (presumably to make people think you used a large format film camera), should be able to PhotoShop a fake grass line anywhere they want.</p>

 

[randall ellis]

<p>I suggest that you forget the rule of thirds in this instance (and that fake border too - if you need gimmicks to make you image stand out you need to go back out and shoot more). The deer is lost in the light colored grass, but stands out in contrast from the background quite well. When I look at both of these images, my eye seeks the parts of the deer that stand out. If you want people to look at the deer, try to increase his contrast with the surrounding image content.</p>

<p>Just me 2 cents...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hey there,<br>

It's my usual lunch time check up on pnet :) Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate the keen thoughts on what works and what doesn't work for each image. I think I will be removing some of my uploaded pictures when I get back tonight.</p>

<p>@Steve Henry: That looks much better! The line indeed pulls my the eye to it, with the darkening, it works pretty well... Now let me see if I can pull that off in Bibble Pro 4 :) Perhaps a composite may be better, as a global adjustment in the raw converter to pull those hilights down will pull the hilights around the head and legs as well I think.</p>

<p>@Tim Knight: I like both of them, for different reasons. The main reason why I did not put it online in my photo collection is that technically the overexposed areas is not being processed well by my raw converter, it has this odd color to it. Some raws show it, some don't. :( Though however, after the crits I would probably not want to put it up anyways :)</p>

<p>@Andre : Loads of online photographers don't like it, however most people on the street I show my prints too are generally more interested in the content and subject matter, and I seriously doubt many on the street/zoo/park/nature reserve would even know what large format slide film/camera looks like/is. I didn't even know it until people told me. I just thought it was a really nifty looking film border that came with my plugin. This particular border comes included with a plugin for Bibble Pro, called Matty Pro: http://nexi.com/172</p>

<p>I understand rutting season will be starting soon, I will probably create another post to ask for more advice on do and do nots/safety advice for photography of deer in season if I can't find a older post.</p>

<p><br /> Cheers all!<br>

Alvin</p>

[william-porter]

<p>I agree with everybody else that the picture on the left is more pleasing. I agree that breaking up the subject's head (or antlers) is seldom desirable, for simple esthetic reasons. But this is especially true when we're photographing people, because with people, we think heads and faces are SO important. I'm not sure that a deer's antlers are really meaningful to us in quite the same way. </p>

<p>I would note also that, in the photo on the left, the deer's head is turned in a more attractive way, and I think that contributes to the appeal of the photo.</p>

<p>And here's a third, slightly different thought to consider. As a general rule, I find that photos of animals (whether pets or wildlife) and also photos of children TEND to be more interesting when taken from the animal or child's eye level, rather than from above.</p>

<p>In the photos of the deer, the one on the right seems to have been taken standing up - camera slightly ABOVE the deer. To me, this angle seems to emphasize that the photo was taken at a safe distance. In the photo on the right, the deer seems to be aware of you - tail is up - and so there is a real sense of distance between deer and observer in that photo.</p>

<p>The photo on the left, on the other hand, seems to have been taken from a lower "altitude," and this gives the impression that you're really INSIDE the deer's world. The deer doesn't look alarmed in this photo - tail is down.</p>

<p>In short, I think the photo on the left is a more interesting photo for multiple reasons.</p>

[snommisbor]

<p>Sometimes when shooting wildlife you have to take what you can get. But the fact that both photos have good bokah which helps separate the background from the subject is good. With animals that have antlers you want to have that be your focal point so the line does take away from that. </p>

[dean_kasic]

<p>Agree with others,but only if you look the image with "grass" on your mind first,angle is definetly <br>

better in left image because in right image highlight area is without detail or any tone dynamics<br>

and is too bright,destructing.Eye contact with animal and overall balance is better in right one,for me;eye contact is strong enough to keep my attention from antlers ,so cutting antlers doesn't bother me here.Well,just one opinion more,it's your image and depend how you feel about it.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>The left one is better. In the right side image the grass line dominates, and it has no business doing so.</p>

<p>In the right side image the grass line is a strong compositional element because it is so prominent, but it's an element which conflicts with the subject. It's drawing the eye but has little to offer the eye. It's competing for attention, so it is a distraction. It also creates a fore-and-aft competition between the subject and background, exacerbated by its strong light/dark contrast. Its slight tilt adds nothing and has nothing to balance it, so is also a distraction and unsettling.</p>

<p>Breaking up the grass line reduces its significance in the photo, pushes it to the background where it belongs, and makes the tilt less obvious. Placing it behind the longest part of the body maximizes that, and the fact that's it's out of focus keeps it separate it from the body. I think it's fairly well placed along the midline of the body; maybe slightly lower would have been better.<br /> I like Steve Henry's cropped version even better. It calms and evens out the brightness of the grass line and improves its color, making it much less distracting. Also, removing extraneous foreground information fills the frame better. That all means less competition for the main subject and an improved image. It's a nice picture.</p>

<p><em>Regarding the "rule of thirds", you've misunderstood its primary function.</em></p>

<p>First, remember it's not really a "rule" which <em>must</em> be followed. It's a guideline; a compositional tool.<br /> It indicates approximately the best positions for the important elements in a balanced composition. It can be applied to anything in an image, but applies primarily to the more important parts.<br /> Many excellent images don't follow the rule or they break it outright. Also the elements don't have be exactly on the lines vertically or laterally for the image to appear balanced, only in the vicinity. Good composition is something you can sense, and the rule of thirds is most useful to remind people to compose, not just center the subject. At best, it only covers one aspect of composition.</p>

<p>Composition is more than just placing objects in a frame. Many factors are balanced to make for pleasing compositions. Some examples are: lighter and darker tones; bright color and muted color; complementary colors; large and small; important and unimportant; in focus and out of focus; and combinations of these.</p>

<p>Anything that draws the eye, whether object, brightness or color, will tend to add "weight" to its location and affect the balance of the composition. Other elements are then positioned to bring the composition into balance. A small mass of bright color can have the same compositional "weight" as a large mass of muted color, a single in-focus eye, or a peculiar expression on a face in the corner of the image.</p>

<p>Parts of a composition can lead the eye to an important element, complement it, balance it, give it context, etc. Lines draw the eye, and should either draw the eye to something important in the frame, or be a strong element in the composition; perhaps even the "theme" of the image. I've stated it like a "rule" and it can and should be broken when warranted. A picture of a shack with an electrical line running to the edge of the image can be a fine picture, even though it leads the eye along the line and out of the picture.</p>

<p><strong>So back to the rule of thirds.</strong> <br /> Why do I say you've misunderstood its primary function?<br /> Because the left side image actually DOES follow the rule of thirds much better than the other. Remember the rule applies to <em>important</em> elements in the composition. Using it for unimportant elements draws the eye to the wrong things. So what's most important? The deer's head or the background line? You know the answer.</p>

<p>If you look at the left image the deer's head is very close to the proper position for the rule of thirds, both vertically and laterally, and the eyes are almost exactly on it. In the other image the head is much closer to a line bisecting the image.</p>

<p>In Steve's crop, the eyes are lowered in the composition from the "ideal", but the image still looks right because of the visual "weight" of the ears and the interesting way the the antlers come together at the head, drawing the eye to... well, look at that!... an area about one-third down from the top.</p>

[savagesax]

My eye went directly to the first one. I also like Steve Henry's adjustment. Nicely done Steve. It really pops out.

[alvinyap]

<p>Hello mates!<br>

Thanks once again for the insights, and I really appreciate Jeff's breakdown of the photos. That's given me quite a fair bit to chew on. :)<br>

Cheers!<br>

Alvin</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>There is a third option - lie on your stomach and get a clean oof background of the trees.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Hey Alvin,<br>

One thing I forgot to mention- in the left side picture, note the out-of-focus bits of blue sky. They pull your eye and are a distraction. Composing tighter crops them out, making a more even background. Steve's combination of cropping and toning down makes them much less of a problem.<br>

My own philosophy of composition is "If it hurts the composition, exclude it. If it can't be excluded, manage it. If it can't be managed, find a better composition."<br>

Even after 35 years I have to remind myself sometimes. Especially when adhering to it requires extra effort or getting dirty. = 8^/</p>