Little Wings

[Brownbear]

Well, I haven't been able to capture any decent shots of my little Tree Swallows in flight since my last attempt! So another day for those...

Following are a few images that I like of these cute little guys and gals.

#1.




2.




3.




4.



No questions except I would like others to share their thoughts on the use of negative space (something I need to learn about) on the shots that are less cropped....

Thank you.

[Shadowman]

You can get away with a animal shot using either negative space or natural environment, one will appear more artistic and one natural, both leave the viewer wondering if the bird is captive or free.

[FrankMi]

Hi Christina, negative space can be used to put emphasis on the positive space, usually the subject.

Here I feel it 'could' be quite effective if it wasn't for the bird's feet. The feet? Yup. My eye is drawn directly to them as I wonder why the bird's head is sharp and clear but it's feet stand out because they don't match. I keep looking for the reason for the haze and as a result, my vision gets stuck at the feet. I know, it sounds kind of weird doesn't it?

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

Thank you but I don't understand what you are saying. In these images I suspect but I'm not sure that the cropped in closer versions work better because their is less negative space (the blurred sky, lake and pier) but that negative space is pretty (in my mind) but it really doesn't add anything interesting to the image but pretty, except to give a sense that the tree swallow is somewhere mysterious.

If I have misinterpreted the meaning of negative space please explain, and also let me know if you prefer the less cropped or closer cropped versions, and why.

Thank you.

You can get away with a animal shot using either negative space or natural environment, one will appear more artistic and one natural, both leave the viewer wondering if the bird is captive or free.

[Brownbear]

Hi Frank,

Please see my reply to John.

Yes, for some reason the swallows feet do grab attention. I got down low and close to blur the background away and I suppose the effect is a bit odd. But the feet are not the brightest part of the image... So?

As another example, I have an image with a pelican with its wings spread wide at the very top of the frame, which leaves the bottom 3/4 of the image blue sky, and another image the exact opposite... ie; tons of sky above... Photographed this way on purpose during a creative moment but admittedly an odd composition... The sky is negative space and I'm trying to figure out why at times lots of negative space works, but usually not.

Thank you.

Hi Christina, negative space can be used to put emphasis on the positive space, usually the subject.

Here I feel it 'could' be quite effective if it wasn't for the bird's feet. The feet? Yup. My eye is drawn directly to them as I wonder why the bird's head is sharp and clear but it's feet stand out because they don't match. I keep looking for the reason for the haze and as a result, my vision gets stuck at the feet. I know, it sounds kind of weird doesn't it?

[TonyW]

These are nice shot and I quite like negative space. To me, the balance is better in #4 than in #2. I tend to agree with Frank's comment.

I have a slightly uncomfortable feeling about these because the bird seems to be extracted from its natural environment. I think I would prefer a less abstract background even if it does interfere a little with the picture of the bird.

The bird does look good though. I like the way it is looking at the camera.

[FrankMi]

Hi Frank,

Please see my reply to John.

Yes, for some reason the swallows feet do grab attention. I got down low and close to blur the background away and I suppose the effect is a bit odd. But the feet are not the brightest part of the image... So?

As another example, I have an image with a pelican with its wings spread wide at the very top of the frame, which leaves the bottom 3/4 of the image blue sky, and another image the exact opposite... ie; tons of sky above... Photographed this way on purpose during a creative moment but admittedly an odd composition... The sky is negative space and I'm trying to figure out why at times lots of negative space works, but usually not.

Thank you.

A couple of suggestions (and there are others on CiC that have a better grasp of this than I do so hopefully they will chime in as well).

If the entire Tree Swallow was sharp and clear, and possibly what they are sitting on as well, then they would look more as expected. This is where using Layers and Masks to selectively keep the subject sharp while letting the remainder of the image go hazy should be very effective.

The best use of negative space is to place emphasis on the subject so if the Tree Swallow as uniformly sharp and clear, you could likely use even more negative space to make the Tree Swallow really pop even though it would occupy less of the total image.

I'm not sure that a pelican with its wing spread would work near as effectively but it could, depending upon the composition and colouring differences between the negative space and the subject. Learning how to use negative space effectively is a bit of arcane magic and art rolled into one so it takes a while to master.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

For me I far prefer the two which are less cropped, No 2 & 4.

As for the use of negative space, being artistic, surroundings or whatever some call it for these shots, they simply look more appealing to me personally. At times I wonder why we try to categorise and associate so much with rule or style that can apply so differently to any subject and picture we take.

Out of interest, was there a specific purpose or reason with these images for the 'misty' lower quarter.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

The only two images that have what I would call negative space are #2 and #4. Both work very well because they involve the classic use of negative space; the animal is looking toward it. There is a little bit of space at the top of #1 and #3, but not enough that I would refer to it as negative space. I would prefer less space at the top, but that's to be expected considering my affinity for relatively tight crops.

Considering the discussion of bringing out the detail in the whitewater of your other thread, I have to mention that you did a nice job with the white feathers here. I think you can pull out a little more detail but you've probably already got at least 90% of it. Well done!

I am unsuccessfully trying to figure out what is causing the look at the bottom of each image. It's almost as if there is a gradient of gauze beginning at the bottom with the least amount of clarity. What is causing that? (I don't think it's your post-processing; I think it's something that you photographed.)

[Brownbear]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your feedback. Truly appreciated.

Here is a screen shot of one of the unprocessed images. Photographed at a pier on a lake, marsh with a forest. The green lake water in the background creates the colour, photographed up close to blur away the background on purpose to place the attention on the bird. Definitely something for me to think about.



Thank you.

These are nice shot and I quite like negative space. To me, the balance is better in #4 than in #2. I tend to agree with Frank's comment.

I have a slightly uncomfortable feeling about these because the bird seems to be extracted from its natural environment. I think I would prefer a less abstract background even if it does interfere a little with the picture of the bird.

The bird does look good though. I like the way it is looking at the camera.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Grahame, Frank and Mike!

Frank... When I try this again I will lessen the effect so that more of the bird and the pier is in focus. The pelicans are sharp... After I find something to read about negative space I'll review again.

Grahame... I wanted to create a dreamy bokeh with all of the attention on the bird, a dream like image. Hence the misty lower quarter (I was lower than the bird) Thank you for the feedback on the crops... The closer crops were made in mind with following the rules.

Mike... Thank you. Yes, the negative space I was referring is in the 2nd and 4th image. They were not processed very much but I did my best to keep/bring out the detail, and I did set the white and black points. It is hard not to clip these little guys.

The hazy effect is because I was close and low down... Apparently I got a little carried away.

If you can refer me to any links discussing negative space that I could read about I would be most appreciative.

[Digital]

Enlighten me, how does being up close, and low down create the haze in the lower portion of the bird? Basically, I am wondering how you achieved this effect.


Bruce

[FrankMi]

If you can refer me to any links discussing negative space that I could read about I would be most appreciative.

I just used "Photography Negative Space" and look not only for textual material but also a number of examples where it is used. The more examples you can find, the easier it will be to visualize the way negative space can impact an image in a positive way. Hope this helps!

[Brownbear]

Hi Bruce,

It is only because the lake is misty during the early morning hours and when the sun shines on and through the mist, it is like fog.

Enlighten me, how does being up close, and low down create the haze in the lower portion of the bird? Basically, I am wondering how you achieved this effect.


Bruce

[Digital]

Christina, thank you for your explanation.


Bruce

P.S. Did you see this effect through your viewfinder when your were photographing the bird?

[Mike Buckley]

If that really is mist, fog or whatever, it detracts from the image for me.

[Brownbear]

Thank you to everyone for your feedback. I'm heading out but later this afternoon I will go through this set and find a normal shot to post to compare.

Bruce... Yes, I could see the soft effect through my lens but of course not with the detail of the posted image.

Mike... Thank you for your honesty. At this moment I still like what I think is a dreamy like image but I can see that most don't. Probably impossible to change with post processing. I will visit this locale again next week and give it another try. Something to learn from.


Thank you to all!

[Suzan J]

Hi Christina: This is a very pretty bird. The shiny teal colour is just lovely. I tend to agree with most posters that the foggy effect is not flattering to this little fellow. I hope you will post some other shots of him minus the haze. As to the "negative space" question, I find that my personal taste tends to lean toward including at least some space in most bird shots. I think that too close of a crop seems somehow claustrophobic, almost as if the bird is trapped in a way. For this reason, I prefer the compositions in numbers 2 and 4.

[John 2]

Christina, these are lovely birds. Their colouring is just wonderful. To me, wildlife should be photographed as a record of the whole animal unless you are deliberately trying to be creative with the bird as just one element. Consequently, the haze seems out of place for me. These would be wonderful shots without it. I hope you have some because the subject is really worth it. As to negative space, I'm afraid I am of the "if it looks right, it is right" persuasion. Too much analysis sometimes detracts from the real issues.

[Brownbear]

Hi Susan,

Yes, they are very pretty. Thank you for your feedback. Truly appreciated. Although I really liked the effect at the time I can see that it feels odd to most folks, so a very good thing for me to know and learn. I will post some shots right after this one. However the ones I really like are #1 & #2, the others even without the haze just don't compare... However these little guys are around all Spring and I know where to find them, so I will try again! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on negative space. Truly appreciated.

John... Yes, they are... Thank you for taking the times to share your thoughts and for your honesty. Yes, reading about negative space has not been very enlightening. I like your analysis! Thank you.