I can do cute

[JBW]

Tree Frogs are cute. A Tree Frog sleeping on a Tree Orchid is seriously cute

ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed 0.2s. ~ F/16 ~ Natural Light ~ Sony Alpha a58 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E

[Wavelength]

Lovely

[JBW]

Lovely

not to bad for before coffee

[Manfred M]

This image would have worked a lot better without the distracting elements (vines?) in the foreground and middle ground.

[JBW]

This image would have worked a lot better without the distracting elements (vines?) in the foreground and middle ground.

I think you are referring o the tree orchid stems and possibly the wire that was used to tie the coconut to the tree. They are an integral part of the shot. It just doesn't get any cuter than a tree frog lying on a tree orchid. I could as easily and as wrongly say your avatar would be better without all the distracting colors splashed all over you

[Manfred M]

I think you are referring o the tree orchid stems and possibly the wire that was used to tie the coconut to the tree. They are an integral part of the shot. It just doesn't get any cuter than a tree frog lying on a tree orchid. I could as easily and as wrongly say your avatar would be better without all the distracting colors splashed all over you

The question that needs to be asked is are these elements adding to the image or are they taking away from the main subject. The wire is definitely a distraction in my view. Some of the dried yellow stems, same thing; they draw the viewer's eyes away from the frog.

[CormacD]

I can see the merits of both sides of this debate. I did however grab this beautiful frog photo and crop out the wire and the frog's eye ends up closer and in the top third point of the photo, worth having a look I think, Brian.

[Manfred M]

Brian - a really quick & dirty edit:

[JBW]

Brian - a really quick & dirty edit:

not that quick and dirty. To me it is less authentic but that's only because i know what' missing. (National Geographic would not approve) On the other hand if you want the frog and nothing but the frog ...

[Manfred M]

not that quick and dirty. To me it is less authentic but that's only because i know what' missing. (National Geographic would not approve) On the other hand if you want the frog and nothing but the frog ...

Actually Brian, it has nothing to do with "nothing but the frog", but rather "what is not working in this image". Things that are distracting and taking away from the subject is what I was referring to. In your latest post, the two vines that are sticking out of the frog's head are distractions.

You are right about Nat Geo, but on the other hand, I suspect the photographer would have taken the shot so that those distractions were not even there. I did not think that you were doing a photojournalism type shot where that would matter. On the other side, if this were a nature competition image, your original version would have been disqualified because it had the wire in it and nature images do not allow "the hand of man" to be shown, but my edit would have been allowed as no man-made objects were visible. If this shot came from your garden and you planted the pumpkins, the shot would not be allowed either, because the pumpkins are not growing naturally, but were planted by man ("hand of man" again).

[JBW]

Actually Brian, it has nothing to do with "nothing but the frog", but rather "what is not working in this image". Things that are distracting and taking away from the subject is what I was referring to. In your latest post, the two vines that are sticking out of the frog's head are distractions.

You are right about Nat Geo, but on the other hand, I suspect the photographer would have taken the shot so that those distractions were not even there. I did not think that you were doing a photojournalism type shot where that would matter. On the other side, if this were a nature competition image, your original version would have been disqualified because it had the wire in it and nature images do not allow "the hand of man" to be shown, but my edit would have been allowed as no man-made objects were visible. If this shot came from your garden and you planted the pumpkins, the shot would not be allowed either, because the pumpkins are not growing naturally, but were planted by man ("hand of man" again).

Actually Manfred, What it has to do with is what you think is a distraction. The frog was sitting on the coconut that held the orchid. It was tied to the fruit tree by the wire.

There was no way other than to combine tight cropping with cloning to not have everything that was in the shot in the shot.

To you there were distractions. To others there was a story. Fair enough. For me and quite a few others the image worked as it was. For me and quite a few others the image also works as version 2. There's a story in either shot.

For the record there was no physical way to remove the distractions that would not have also removed the frog. Nor was there an angle that would not show them.

Have a good one, Brian

[ScoutR]

Hi Brian: I do think your frog is cute, but that wire or stick is most certainly a distraction. It does not tell a story as I have no idea what it is or why it is in the shot, except that you could not get the shot without the stick, but it's still a distraction, and a much nicer shot without it.

I get it that sometimes things can't be gotten around, and that's always unfortunate. If this shot actually showed me what the diagonal thing was doing then it might have a story behind it. I don't mind the leaves and twigs behind the frog, that's part of the scene, but that ugly diagonal stick thingy cutting off one corner of the shot... Hmmmm

I like Manfred's edit, but what I really like is the second shot. Your cute little frog is so relaxed and he even looks like he has a little smile on his face. Maybe I noticed that because I was not looking at the ugly stick.

Just my 2 cents

Wendy

[Manfred M]

Actually Manfred, What it has to do with is what you think is a distraction. The frog was sitting on the coconut that held the orchid. It was tied to the fruit tree by the wire.

There was no way other than to combine tight cropping with cloning to not have everything that was in the shot in the shot.

To you there were distractions. To others there was a story. Fair enough. For me and quite a few others the image worked as it was. For me and quite a few others the image also works as version 2. There's a story in either shot.

For the record there was no physical way to remove the distractions that would not have also removed the frog. Nor was there an angle that would not show them.

Have a good one, Brian

Brian - CiC is a photography site, with a key goal of photographic learning. What I generally comment on are the what and why an image either works or does not work, purely from a photographic standpoint. The history and nature of your garden can be quite interesting but usually has little to do with how well the final image turns out.

If an element in the image does not contribute to the image or worse, is a distraction, that should be pointed out. If the image is a specific genre (photojournalism, nature photography, minimal processing, etc), then this should be taken into account, but it will not change how well the image works. It just adds a level of complexity for the photographer to deal with when taking the shot.

Just as an aside, when one is judging a photo contest, the judges are only shown the image itself for somewhere in the 10 to 15 second range. They have to quickly identify what works, what doesn't and assign a score, and move onto the next image. They are not given any other information on the image, including the title. Images are scored on technical aspects of the image, the organizational aspects and the emotional impact.

The second part of the judging process is publicly critiquing the images. Here the judges are given more information on the image and sometime that is the point where we finally understand what the photographer was trying to do; too late to affect the scoring though. At that point, we give a review, very much like the comments I make in #4. The photographer does not have to listen to the judges opinions (there are usually three judges), but if he or she wants to get better scores, then understanding the critiques is definitely worthwhile.

The second image is stronger than the first one you posted.

[xpatUSA]

Taking a hint from the title, the cuteness could be that the frog found a comfortable place amidst all that "clutter", albeit distracting or not.

2cts.

[JBW]

Taking a hint from the title, the cuteness could be that the frog found a comfortable place amidst all that "clutter", albeit distracting or not.

2cts.

precisely

[JBW]

Brian - CiC is a photography site, with a key goal of photographic learning. What I generally comment on are the what and why an image either works or does not work, purely from a photographic standpoint. The history and nature of your garden can be quite interesting but usually has little to do with how well the final image turns out.

If an element in the image does not contribute to the image or worse, is a distraction, that should be pointed out. If the image is a specific genre (photojournalism, nature photography, minimal processing, etc), then this should be taken into account, but it will not change how well the image works. It just adds a level of complexity for the photographer to deal with when taking the shot.

Just as an aside, when one is judging a photo contest, the judges are only shown the image itself for somewhere in the 10 to 15 second range. They have to quickly identify what works, what doesn't and assign a score, and move onto the next image. They are not given any other information on the image, including the title. Images are scored on technical aspects of the image, the organizational aspects and the emotional impact.

The second part of the judging process is publicly critiquing the images. Here the judges are given more information on the image and sometime that is the point where we finally understand what the photographer was trying to do; too late to affect the scoring though. At that point, we give a review, very much like the comments I make in #4. The photographer does not have to listen to the judges opinions (there are usually three judges), but if he or she wants to get better scores, then understanding the critiques is definitely worthwhile.

The second image is stronger than the first one you posted.

Indeed CiC is a learning group and I have learned a fair bit here.

You fail to apply one of your stated rules to my shot. This shot was NOT placed in a competition, nor was it offered to a magazine or even posted under nature photography. I posted it under Cute.

You are correct that my second version is stronger. Possibly even strong enough to enter in the monthly competition. However, it's no longer cute.

So in summation: I understand your critique. But I still like the cute version. Perhaps even more than than the strong version.
Brian