Nature photography in general ?

[jann1033]

went to a juried nature art show last week and i started wondering about this...most of the photos, various photographers( some local,most not) were a photo of bird centered, photo of cheetah centered ect.. the price tags were in the $$$-$$$$ for framed photos.anyone know what the "rules" are for nature photos? is it the point to just show the animal and forget the composition? just wondering since that was what most were and i was kind of shocked. i have a friend who does nature photos ( sells them for the upper hundreds) and his are the same way so guessing that is the accepted format for nature photos? anyone know?

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

I'd think the composition would be key regardless what the subject was. I'm currently reading Jim Miotkes "Guide to digital nature photography" and he has a section on composition and using the Rule Of Thirds.

I suppose if your subject is filling the entire frame then it is ok if it is centered

 

[zackiedawg]

I'd agree - in general the rules should be followed, with the occasional break of the rule if the photographer wants to, and the exception being for closeups of animals in which case the centering is OK.

I shoot alot of wildlife/birds, and try to stick to the rule-of-thirds in my compositions whenever possible, only intentionally breaking the rules if it strikes me, or if I'm doing an extreme closeup.

 

[MontanaZoo]

Nature photography has to follow composition rules but they are also portraits and have to follow those rules. So you need focus on the eye, an expression, etc and for wildlife photography there's also behavior elements (like are you seeing the animal exhibiting natural behaviors like nursing, courting etc) and rarity of the subject. I think if you have a picture of something like a cheetah that's centered, excellent exposure, expression in the eyes and sharp and was captured in the wild and not in a zoo, that probably does qualify it for more $$.

 

[gulf breeze]

Could be too that the people buying the picture doesn't know about the rule of thirds... I've shown people pictures taken with the "rule" or creativly cropped and they're like "can't you get the thing centered"?

 

[jann1033]

Could be too that the people buying the picture doesn't know about the rule of thirds... I've shown people pictures taken with the "rule" or creativly cropped and they're like "can't you get the thing centered"?

could be but i figured the judges should know the difference . many/most of these were birds, not rare, but could be due to size had to be close ups. i happened to hear one of the photographers talking to someone( ok was ease dropping, i'll admit it) and he said he didn't crop at all so figured he must take them so they are centered, even though some were missing a wing tip or two . the cheetah/wild animal types from the background i could see looked like in a zoo to me rather than in the wild.( i didn't stick my nose up to them but looked a little to manicured for real life)

 

[TheLionKing]

Nature photography has to follow composition rules but they are also portraits and have to follow those rules. So you need focus on the eye, an expression, etc and for wildlife photography there's also behavior elements (like are you seeing the animal exhibiting natural behaviors like nursing, courting etc) and rarity of the subject. I think if you have a picture of something like a cheetah that's centered, excellent exposure, expression in the eyes and sharp and was captured in the wild and not in a zoo, that probably does qualify it for more $$.

 

[Groucho]

I would suspect that the photos are being judged as much (or more) on how interesting the subject of the photo is, not how the photo is on a technical level. Ie, a pretty bird, nice sunset, etc. A poor photo of a great subject would probably win over a great photo of a poor subject, I bet.

Then again, I'm one of the ones that isn't particularly interested in "rules" to tell me if a photo is any good or not. Only your eye and brain can tell you if a photo "works", you can't measure photo quality with a ruler.

 

[MontanaZoo]

I would suspect that the photos are being judged as much (or more) on how interesting the subject of the photo is, not how the photo is on a technical level. Ie, a pretty bird, nice sunset, etc. A poor photo of a great subject would probably win over a great photo of a poor subject, I bet.

Then again, I'm one of the ones that isn't particularly interested in "rules" to tell me if a photo is any good or not. Only your eye and brain can tell you if a photo "works", you can't measure photo quality with a ruler.

That probably is true for that contest. Also, nature photography also depends on the perfection of your subject. If you have a enormously interesting photo that photographers drool over of an animal that isn't a completely spectacular specimen, the average photo of a spectacular specimen will sell for more money.

 

[jann1033]

That probably is true for that contest. Also, nature photography also depends on the perfection of your subject. If you have a enormously interesting photo that photographers drool over of an animal that isn't a completely spectacular specimen, the average photo of a spectacular specimen will sell for more money.

that's interesting. so i am guessing babies , something like that probably is worth more...it seems it is a little different then, i mean rather than selling a photo just on artistic impact .