PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[Borek]

Microadjustments are just disabled.

 

[Andre]

Are you sure? After selecting the adjust, you enter the function with the info button.

 

[Borek]

I am sure - they were disabled, I have played with the settings, then cleared data and disabled again. Now I am trying to take a picture with focusing in live mode, from what I understand it focuses using max contrast, not phase detection, so should be more accurate for not calibrated lenses. Trick is, batteries in my flash are almost dead and it takes forever.

 

[Borek]

Wow!

 

[Borek]

Everything else as before, upper part - 400D, lower part - 7D with live focusing.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I have a problem here:

Same prime lens (100mm 2.8L macro), same ISO, both pictures taken from the tripod standing in both cases in exactly the same position, with the same external flash, distance about 2 meters, ISO 100, 8.0/200 - the only difference is a body. One is 400D other is 7D. Both crops 1:1. "Standard" picture mode in both cases (which means slight automatic sharpening).

7D is much less sharper. I would say surprisingly less sharper. Does it mean it is defective? I have no idea how they should compare, but I don't like what I see. From the 1:1 crops Andre posted I felt like the image should be crisp sharp, but it is obviously not a case.

Interesting. I found this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page21.asp

Which compares the 7D to the 50D. There is a clear difference in sharpness (the 7D comes out sharper), but it's not clear how much is due to in-camera processing.

 

[turbo]

Congrats, Borek! Nice outcome.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Since I've gotten my camera and my primary interest in photography is astrophotography, I thought I'd post some of my first astro images here. I do know that there is a thread in the Astronomy forum dedicated to Astrophotos, but I feel these are better here.

All of these photos were taken from my home, a small farm in south eastern Saskatchewan, where the skies are about a Bortle 3. The photos were taken with a non-tracking tripod, ISO 1600, exposure times from 10-30 seconds, with the Canon T2i Kit lens, 18-55mm.

No processing has been done on the photos either(other than what my camera does itself); I am not too good at stuff like that yet.

Very nice! I'm jealous of the clear skies and good seeing.

 

[Borek]

Interesting. I found this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page21.asp

Which compares the 7D to the 50D. There is a clear difference in sharpness (the 7D comes out sharper), but it's not clear how much is due to in-camera processing.

Thanks, I have seen this comparison, I was just on able to find it fast (while playing with tripod/lenses/three cameras and two computers). That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

PS I have abused my superpowers and undeleted your post - it is perfectly on subject!

 

[Borek]

Here is a crop of the Mizar-Alcor system from the photo above.

I am no longer able to see them both with a naked eye. I am afraid of checking if I can see them in my glases

 

[Andre]

...That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

But is the focus problem with the phase detection solved now?

 

[Borek]

But is the focus problem with the phase detection solved now?

Not yet - so far I was just able to take a nice, sharp picture by other means, so at least I know sensor is OK. I will play with calibration later today.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks, I have seen this comparison, I was just on able to find it fast (while playing with tripod/lenses/three cameras and two computers). That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

PS I have abused my superpowers and undeleted your post - it is perfectly on subject!

:) I wasn't sure.

FWIW, I found it helpful to "go manual" for a while: manual focus, manual f/# and exposure selection, turn off all 'enhancements', etc. When I got my Sony, I realized how sloppy I could be with the point-and-shoots and still get good results. Going to a larger sensor and higher quality lenses really highlights user error.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I finally got a day to relax in the lab- here's some of what I got- first, some "things". I grew up calling them 'gumballs', they are fruit from Liquidambar styraciflua, and we would often throw them at each other for fun:

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8199/dsc4411a.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5416/dsc4414a.jpg

I like the texture of the images- the gumballs are very spiky, and the images bring that out (IMO).

A colleague lent me a video "shapes of the invisible"

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7011568

and it gave me some good ideas. So, I went into the basement, dusted off my No. 5 jack plane and took some swipes of different woods: oak and maple.

Here's the endgrain of oak:

[PLAIN]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2425/dsc4421i.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4786/dsc4429l.jpg

And here's the sidegrain:

[PLAIN]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/7426/dsc4433.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9330/dsc4436d.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/5373/dsc4441.jpg

Notice the shiny dots on the interior- I'm not sure what they are, but I was able to get some close-up shots on the microscope:

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/910/dsc4466m.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5322/dsc4470.jpg

Here's a shot of maple, looking at a 'bird's-eye' defect:

[PLAIN]http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/9200/dsc4446.jpg

Most of these images were taken with the 63 and 25mm luminar and are full-frame, the microscope images were taken at 32X and 160X, and cropped in the center.

 

[turbo]

Nice, Andy! You might want to look at a very thin shaving of oak so see what you can find. Oak is pretty self-repairing. If a cell gets damaged, and the sap-pressure is lower than that of adjacent cells, the pressure difference forces a web of material in the inter-cell channel toward the damaged cell, and it forms a seal that becomes permanent. This is the reason that it takes a couple of years of seasoning to get oak dry enough to burn with its maximum heat content.

As a process chemist in a pulp mill, I spent what seems like years looking at microscopic samples of wood chips, and correlating chip moisture (feeding the Kraft digester) with digester yields. The upshot? Feed your digester fresh wood chips to maximize liquor penetration and yield. And if you're getting loads of oak, don't stockpile it - chip the logs and feed the chips ASAP for the best yield.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Good suggestion- I currently have a pile of shavings to look at.

Feed your digester fresh wood chips to maximize liquor penetration and yield.

Heh- I feed my digester fresh Wild Turkey to maximize liquor penetration and yield :)

 

[Borek]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.

To some extent this is comparing apples and oranges - L class prime lens and zoom (at 100mm), bottom left corner of the image, fully opened aperture. Still, I wasn't aware 18-200 performs that bad. Even my old 28-105 works better at 100 mm.

Sigh.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.To some extent this is comparing apples and oranges - L class prime lens and zoom (at 100mm), bottom left corner of the image, fully opened aperture. Still, I wasn't aware 18-200 performs that bad. Even my old 28-105 works better at 100 mm.

Sigh.

Wait- hang on. You were using different lenses the whole time? I thought you just swapped camera bodies?

Or did I completely miss the point... which lens/camera took which image?

 

[Borek]

I was comparing BOTH bodies and lenses. First it was about bodies (400D vs 7D with 100/2.8L macro), later it was about lenses (100/2.8L vs 18-200, with 7D). I see snapshots of the ongoing tests that I posted could be confusing.

 

[Andre]

Obviously it makes clear why some lenses costs a lot more. I was somehow expecting to see degraded performance of my cheap 70-300 as well on the plethora of pixels when I got the 550D but I was a lot more pleasantly surprised.

 

[Andre]

Anyway, the sunset of this evening at a little local lake, all made with the 70-300mm on the 7D.

Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

 

[Andre]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.

The sharpest you can get for a ridiculously low price is the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II. Nice for studio work. Also as said I'm quite happy with the 70-300. But it seems that there is some variation in performance in this lens.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Anyway, the sunset of this evening at a little local lake, all made with the 70-300mm on the 7D.

Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

I think my favorite one is the ducks- good color, texture, and composition.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

for some composition aesthetics

How was this attempted and is there a more expansive explanation for why it was?

 

[Andre]

...Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

How was this attempted and is there a more expansive explanation for why it was?

Ah certainly. the rule of thirds is maybe better explained here or here.

Note the description of the rule here by John Thomas Smith, 1797.

here is and example where I placed the musician's head in the upperleft "strong point" (1/3 to both sides) and his hands in the lower left. But that was the objective of the challenge in which it was entered

Here you can see how a bulls eye shot -subject in the middle, can be cropped that it obeys the rule of thirds:

So the first picture, that Andy liked the most, I placed the coots in the lower right strong-point, while in the others I sort of placed the sun close to one of the strongpoints, but that should be further refined by proper cropping.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Does this explain why this may be aesthetically pleasing?

According to the link given, Smith, an engraver, first wrote the term, quoting 'a 1783 work by Sir Joshua Reynolds, in which Reynolds discusses, in unquantified terms, the balance of dark and light in a painting.[6]. Smith then continues with an expansion on the idea, naming it the "Rule of thirds":'

And further according to your wiki link, “he does not discuss the now-common idea that intersections of the third-lines of the frame are particularly strong or interesting for composition.”

It has been referred to elsewhere as a “sloppy” version of the “golden section”,

e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411195

and as related to Arnheim’s “centre”,

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/LEON_r_00064 .

It is probably not beyond many at a physics forum to comprehend the less "sloppy" versions.

Additionally, the rule of thirds has been used here as a guide to placing areas of focus at an intersecting “strong-point”, rather than as a guide to proportions.

However, this paper published showing empirical tests suggests the rule of thirds, without other considerations, is not a particularly aesthetically pleasing compositional guide, anyway.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~plab/pdf/PalmerGardner&Wickens-1.pdf

 

[Andre]

That's interesting indeed, thanks Fuzzyfelt.

Reading Palmer et al. I'm not sure if experiment one, figure one (page 424) is a valid refutation of the rule of thirds. If you present a symmetrical figure in a symmetrical frame, the aestical preference would logically be the point of symmetry, hence the middle. So that biasses the outcome, I would think. What if they presented an assymetric triangle, rather than a circle?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Was there an argument in favour of 'The rule of thirds'. Did you link to one? I don't see it.

 

[Andre]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

The “Rule of Thirds” one of the first things that budding digital photographers learn about in classes on photography and rightly so as it is the basis for well balanced and interesting shots.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

Firstly, a query-

is the support for this claim

I see many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

really the quote of some guy who

“In November 2002, while working as a part-time minister, for an online department store, and as a casual laborer,[2] Rowse started LivingRoom.org.au, a blog about living in Australia, religion (mainly the emerging church movement), politics and other topics that he found interesting.[3]”

and whose“likes” include movies, photography and food?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Rowse

If so, he might have some interesting opinions on aesthetics, like most people might, and it makes my reference to, say, Arnheim-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Arnheim

“Rudolf Arnheim (July 15, 1904 – June 9, 2007) was a German-born author, art and film theorist and perceptual psychologist. He himself said that his major books are Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (1954), Visual Thinking (1969), and The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982), but it is Art and Visual Perception for which he was most widely known. Revised, enlarged and published as a New Version in 1974, it has been translated into 14 languages, and is very likely one of the most widely read and influential art books of the twentieth century.”

seem a little OTT, but is the link in any way relevant to the claim about professional photographers?

 

[Andre]

Well, for substantiating...

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

...how about:
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Actions/RuleOfThirdsPro.html

The general idea of the Rule of Thirds and Golden Mean is that you get pleasing compositions when you place your main compositional elements at certain places in your photo.

http://havemap.blogspot.com/2010/11/look-like-pro-rule-of-thirds.html

Ever wonder what makes professional film or photography better looking than your pictures or videos? Well it's no secret anymore. It's the RULE OF THIRDS.

http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/shoot-like-a-pro/rule/

The Rule of Thirds is a principle of composition used for centuries by painters, photographers and other artists

http://www.photoble.com/photography...-rule-of-thirds-in-photography-with-examples/

The Rule of Thirds is a simple guideline to help you produce a photo that is more likely to be visually stunning based on how you compose and frame your subject.

http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html

The Rule of Thirds.
One of the most popular 'rules' in photography is the Rule Of Thirds. It is also popular amongst artists.

http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_rule_of_thirds.html

You can use the rule of thirds as a guide in the off-center placement of your subjects

Although most beginning artists resist following "rules" - fearing they will hurt their creativity, there are indeed many rules and guidelines that help. One rule in particular is really essential: the Rule of Thirds.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

And to reply,

No new information there.

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

To answer a previous question-
Much of the paper deals with objects that don’t share all the symmetries of a circle, and still suggests the rule of thirds, without other considerations, is not a particularly aesthetically pleasing compositional guide.

But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

I see composition has already been discussed in the Opening Post of a thread-

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460071

where you advised-

“How to make compositions. You could go and take a course for that, but reading a few books on the subject will certainly help too or browsing around on internet finds lots of sites like this.

To quote from the site you linked-
“Rather than placing your subject in the middle of the frame, place them at one of the four intersecting points on your imaginary grid. This will usually produce a more compositionally pleasing result.”

Although composition wasn’t discussed much after that OP, but other things like link accuracy were, e.g. post #9.

 

[Andre]

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

Should I? I apologyze if I have given a wrong impression. I'm not intending to promote things that cannot be substantiated. I just want to learn what is considered to be an aesthetic compostion. I just observe that the rule of thirds is adhered to on a large scale.

 

[Andy Resnick]

And to reply,

You haven’t presented an argument in favour of the rule of thirds.

Aesthetics can't be written as a rule. There is no universal standard of beauty.

The 'rule of thirds' is a guideline that produces images that appear to be well-balanced to the eye. There are many design guidelines: horizontal lines appear tranquil, diagonal lines produce a sense of motion and action.

http://www.yangsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/metropolis2.jpg

Pay attention to the composition- the figures divide the frame into thirds, but there also a diagonal line connecting the line of sight between Rotwang and the robot- and more, that line runs parallel to the line of Rotwang's arm (and his hair). The inverted Pentagram behind Rotwang also introduces a compositional element- like a perverted halo.

The sum total is to produce an image that tells a story. Even without knowing anything about the movie, you can invent a story that relates the two figures.

*None* of that is accidental. Everything in that image is carefully posed and lit- and that's single frame from a movie.

To be sure, artists understand the rules well enough that they can violate them and still produce work that looks pleasing. I don't have that skill, so I use the 'rules' to frame the image.

 

[Andre]

Andy, the point is that the intuition of unbiased test persons in Fuzzyfelts link for aestitics did not support the rule of thirds.

As far as I understand it, it suggests it is much more important that the direction of a subject, (moving/looking) is inwards, so idealy a right oriented/looking subject should just be placed off centered to the left (average mean 42/58%), where left to right writers appear to prefer this setting while right to left writers prefer the opposite.

there is also a strong preference to place a forward oriented/looking object in the center.

Unless of course there is a good reason why to deviate from the principles.

I'm just not happy with the small sample size and I'm toying with the idea to construct a poll to reproduce these results or not

 

[KrisOhn]

I am no longer able to see them both with a naked eye. I am afraid of checking if I can see them in my glases

They're a pretty nice sight, what I find hard to believe though, is that there are reports of naked eye sightings of the star in between Mizar and Alcor.

Very nice! I'm jealous of the clear skies and good seeing.

Thanks! Yea, I love being away from any serious lights and light pollution, my home still doesn't compare to a Bortle1 site though... having the Milky Way cast your shadow on the ground is a pretty awesome experience.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andy, the point is that the intuition of unbiased test persons in Fuzzyfelts link for aestitics did not support the rule of thirds.

As far as I understand it, it suggests it is much more important that the direction of a subject, (moving/looking) is inwards, so idealy a right oriented/looking subject should just be placed off centered to the left (average mean 42/58%), where left to right writers appear to prefer this setting while right to left writers prefer the opposite.

there is also a strong preference to place a forward oriented/looking object in the center.

Unless of course there is a good reason why to deviate from the principles.

I'm just not happy with the small sample size and I'm toying with the idea to construct a poll to reproduce these results or not

Yikes... that article is tough to make sense of.

 

[Andre]

Ah so it's not only my limited command of the language.

But another factor is, that if one is told/taught/indoctrinated that the rule of thirds is the ultimate in aesthetic composition, maybe one may tend to dislike compositions that do not follow the rule.

So I have a test/poll in mind to be given both to artists/photographers and complete lay people at the other side to see if they have different opinions in practice about the aesthetics of compositions that do and do not follow the rule of thirds

 

[Andy Resnick]

So I have a test/poll in mind to be given both to artists/photographers and complete lay people at the other side to see if they have different opinions in practice about the aesthetics of compositions that do and do not follow the rule of thirds

That seems tricky- how can you eliminate your own bias in selecting images? But I understand what you mean.

 

[Andre]

No I won't need to do that. I will just create a bunch of crops of a few images with different properties and ask to judge which is the best and the worst.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's what I was thinking of as well.

But I think the real issue is the whole idea of a 'rule' in the context of art. Consider music- the idea of playing a certain time signature, like 4/4. Switching time signatures (to 3/4, for example) may sound good or bad depending on what else is going on. If performed deliberately, it can sound very pleasing. Or, it can make everything degenerate into arhythmic noise... which could *also* be deliberate!

So for me, the 'rule of thirds' is more like a 'rule of thumb'- a good place to start, but definitely not the end.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Aesthetics can't be written as a rule. There is no universal standard of beauty.

The 'rule of thirds' is a guideline that produces images that appear to be well-balanced to the eye. There are many design guidelines: horizontal lines appear tranquil, diagonal lines produce a sense of motion and action.

http://www.yangsquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/metropolis2.jpg

Pay attention to the composition- the figures divide the frame into thirds, but there also a diagonal line connecting the line of sight between Rotwang and the robot- and more, that line runs parallel to the line of Rotwang's arm (and his hair). The inverted Pentagram behind Rotwang also introduces a compositional element- like a perverted halo.

The sum total is to produce an image that tells a story. Even without knowing anything about the movie, you can invent a story that relates the two figures.

I think people, generally, unless they haven’t held a camera before, or have really no idea what they like, tend to have some ability with composition. I think this is at least the standard of photographs shown at this forum. But, if not, then maybe the rule of thirds would help where there would otherwise be no structure to speak of.

As the rule of thirds is about one aspect of many aspects of composition, it is usually required to work with other aspects, and they with each other, etc. The paper I linked to attempted to isolate it and some other aspects, and didn’t go on to test the impact of more aspects. But as other aspects affect the success of composition, it would seem worth mentioning these when discussing composition.

I believe quite a number of photographers here seemingly consider many aspects of composition and seemingly show a familiarity with different ways these may be successfully used, beyond a more basic natural ability. With their understanding they are probably in a good position to judge whether or not rules in general, and rules about particular aspects of composition work for them in combination with other aspects, or not.

Andy explained how the rule of thirds worked for him. He explained his views and shared a small critique of a linked photo. There could be other aspects of composition in the photo that could have helped or masked the effects of the rule of thirds, but he was able to offer a reasonable explanation of how he finds it successful. I agree, I think it is successful and believe there are many things working well together.

But for those who are looking to improve on natural ability, concentrating on one aspect of composition could skew a natural feel, and without regard for other areas of composition, impact detrimentally on success. To my (possibly tainted) eye, such photos are amongst the least successful serious photos I believe I’ve seen as the whole of the composition together may not work. This was why I wondered if there was a reason why that rule was noteworthy, and also why it was linked to elsewhere regarding compositional advice, aside from the word of blogs, as, for me, it doesn’t seem to work very well without other considerations. I think Andy has offered a reasonable explanation for why he would use it, although, I still don’t believe it is good basic advice without taking other factors of composition into account.

I think in such cases it would be more successful to start with the consideration of various areas of composition and how they work together and can impact success. Then, broader rules could be considered with an understanding of how they can be used while retaining a feel for over-all compositional success. Then concerns about varied placement can be explored if desired.

 

[Andre]

Well, if unbiased people don't have a natural tendency to prefer rule of thirds compositions, one may wonder about it's basic validity

I shot this earlier this afternoon, and cropped it until if felt good for me.

As a result I see that the eye is roughly on the centerline and the center of gravity of the body looks closer to the centerline than the rule of thirds would prescribe.

Details: used small jpg have to process the CR2 for posterformat print. Furthermore, flash used EX430II camera in manual mode Shutter 1/100. Lens 70-300mm at 135mm F 5.0 (full open) ISO 200. It was inside a barn hence the limited light.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This discussion has been very timely- a cable station (AMC) has been playing all of Sergio Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns"- Fistful of Dollars; The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly; High Plains Drifter; etc.

I have benefited immensely from our discussion- I can see, much more clearly than before, how Sergio was able to make such compelling imagery, and his ability to direct my eye as the camera pans.

A good example- near the end of "For A Few Dollars More", there's a standoff scene- for a minute or so the film just cuts between extreme close-ups of the two men's sweaty, grungy, faces. Then a drop of something (sweat?) comes into the frame, and the camera tilts up a fraction- just enough to tell that it's not sweat, but a *tear*. Sergio was able to hold together that scene- no dialog, no movement, nothing- then get me to focus on that small drop: the only movement in the scene. And in addition, have that drop be *significant* to the storyline- the bad guy is revealed to be not such a bad guy, after all. Genius.

 

[Andre]

Nice Andy,maybe we can do some more exploration of aestetic techniques.

Meanwhile I did some cropping, that could be a question of the poll, what is the worst and what is the best compostion?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Nice Andy,maybe we can do some more exploration of aestetic techniques.

Meanwhile I did some cropping, that could be a question of the poll, what is the worst and what is the best compostion?

Personally, I like two- the 'inside crop' and 'intuitive crop'- because on both, my eye is naturally drawn out from the beak into the rest of the photo, and so I become curious- what's there? What is the bird trying to get?

Also, the 'intuitive crop' centers the eye of the bird- what did you center in the 'centered'?

Just my (untutored) opinion...

 

[turbo]

When shooting a bird or mammal, I try to leave extra frame-space in the image in the direction that they are looking, aside from the thirds-rule. It helps establish a sense of "flow" in a static image.

Having spent many years shooting film and composing with the viewfinder, I catch myself doing that with the DSLRS and the pocket-cam. You can easily lose a great shot by doing that, and I have to discipline myself to "shoot wide and crop-to-suit".

 

[Andre]

I agree Turbo, the same for me. Have to redo all the butterflies and allow for cropping space

Andy, the (estimated) optical center of gravity of the bird is centered in the "centered" crop, the lighter spot.

Personally I would chose the intuitive crop, the one third is just too unbalanced for me. But I have the impression that the rule of thirds would only work when there is more than one subject, or when the subject is shaped more complex

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I agree Turbo, the same for me. Have to redo all the butterflies and allow for cropping space

Andy, the (estimated) optical center of gravity of the bird is centered in the "centered" crop, the lighter spot.

Personally I would chose the intuitive crop, the one third is just too unbalanced for me. But I have the impression that the rule of thirds would only work when there is more than one subject, or when the subject is shaped more complex

I'd go for something in between the "intuitive" and "centered" crops, as I feel that the tail of the bird is uncomfortably close to the edge of the frame in the "intuitive" one. I agree that having more space in front is good, but I'd like a little space behind too.

 

[turbo]

I'd go for something in between the "intuitive" and "centered" crops, as I feel that the tail of the bird is uncomfortably close to the edge of the frame in the "intuitive" one. I agree that having more space in front is good, but I'd like a little space behind too.

Personally, I'd favor the "centered" version and drag out the right-hand side of the frame a bit to leave more space there.