Head Angle Philosophies....

[Joel Eade]

Thanks to Joel for posting this in Avian. It lead to an interesting discussion on head angle.

All are welcome to visit the original Head Angle Police thread below or here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7781

All are invited to post head angle images or questions here as well.

later and love, artie......... Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

BAA Site Guides, Digital Basics File, Mark III User's Guide, APTATS, Wimberley products, Lens Coats, Leg Coats, Mongoose heads, Delkin Products, Gitzo Tripods, and tons more: http://www.birdsasart.com

Mark IV and 7D Users Guides; see the Bulletins for details. Learn everything that I know about digital nature photography here: "The Art of Bird Photography II" (on CD only)

Joel's original post:

From my recent fishing trip to Texas, hand held from my bass boat.

1d mk iii
300mm 2.8L + 1.4 TC
manual mode
1/2500
f/5.0
iso 320
metering pattern at zero

 

[Daniel Cadieux]

Nice image design and comp, and I like the high-key effect you achieved. Not crazy about the inner border, and do wish for a better HA. Seems like there is an ever so slight magenta cast (check your BG compared to the forum's white column at left).

 

[Arthur Morris]

Ditto Dan with a double ditto on the head angle. Folks need to learn to press the shutter button while considering the head angle.... It is the single biggest problem in the bird photos here on BPN.... Once you are aware of it, you should do much better.

 

[Joel Eade]

I do understand and have read the posts about head angle, but in this case I was just cruisng past and took a quick shot and the HA isn't perfect. I agree, but I also sometimes think that bird photographers may be too keenly focused on head angle. Although I agree with comments, I honestly have never heard any comment about head angle when showing my pics to non-photographers. Of course, I'm not making a living by selling photos, so maybe I'm just wondering are we overly concerned about head angle?

 

[Arthur Morris]

For me, just me, a poor head angle ruins most images including this one. That's is my personal preference based on 28 years of experience in the art of bird photography. I state my opinions often and freely. As far as showing your images to friends, it's great if they like them. And there are plenty of magazines that publish images of birds featuring poor head angles. In both of these instances, folks simply do not know any better. BPN is here to educate folks and to help them to create better images (and here you agree that the head angle "isn't perfect." I guess the simple way to explain my position is to say that when the head angle is less than ideal (there is no one perfect head angle--it varies from pose to pose and image to image), that the photographer has failed to capture the bird's soul or it's true spirit; without a solid connection to the bird's eye or eyes, something huge is missing, even when you are "just cruising past."

So to answer your question, no, I do not feel that the group as a whole here at BPN is overly concerned about head angle. In fact, I do believe that the amount of concern shown here is perfect; but then, I am a lover of what is.

ps: Thanks for your interesting comments and question. I am sure that this is the first time that I have thought about why head angle is so important to me and written about it.

 

[Daniel Cadieux]

Although I agree with comments, I honestly have never heard any comment about head angle when showing my pics to non-photographers.

Hey Joel, thanks for your thoughts on the HA issue. I agree with what you say above...most non-photographers will oohh and aahh at any good bird photo, good HA or not (I know from experience too). For me, though, it is about perfecting my art and my growth as a bird photographer. If I know a better HA looks better, then this is what I will strive for. I most likely would have taken this image too, but I would have hoped and prayed for the heron to turn its' head a bit more, and if it did then this one would have gone to the delete bin (sorry to sound harsh here).

Show non-photographers two images of the same bird, first one with a slighty off HA and then another with a perfect one, and most will pick the one with the better HA as their favorite...and probably without being able to put the finger on why.

Your image above is good, but a with better HA it would have been great!

P.S. Artie and I were typing at the same time but I guess he's quicker on the keyboard!!

 

[Joel Eade]

Thanks Artie and Daniel for sharing so freely your decades of experience and knowledge. From my (relatively inexperienced) perspective, it just seems that a slightly less than perfect HA doesn't completley "ruin" a shot, while the optimum HA and good eye contact certainly does improve or enhance the capture.

This is one of my very first GBH pictures. My experience shooting birds is only about 1-2 years and 90% in my back yard, so I sincerely appreciate getting feedback like this. Thanks guys.

 

[Rob Miner]

Joel, Lots have been said about HA on this forum. I believe that Arthur Morris has correctly explained HA down to the percentage point correctly.
my perspective is eye contact with the subject of the photo and the viewer of the photo is of prime importants. The eye contact will give the viewer a feeling (an emotional response) to the photo. HA directions in this forum are an attempt to get you to achieve this emotional response in your photography. Please study forum participant Jan Wegener's two photos of a lesser Scaulp on a previous discussion on HA in this forum. Jan's photos aptly demonstrate this point.
Your GBH capture is very good, but the forum would be negligent not to point out those things that could make your capture GREAT.

Rob...........

 

[John Chardine]

It is certainly useful to bring-up these oft-mentioned topics for a full airing.

One of the most important things I have learned at BPN is about head angles, and I agree that there are far too many bad ones in magazines, books etc. However, I think we could ease up a little for the following two reasons:

1. Some poses, activities etc are just not biologically possible and still have the correct head angle. Take an osprey hovering over fish- the bird will be intently looking down at prey below and will not look up towards you. Or how about an eagle just before it lands on a perch- it will be looking at the landing point and sometimes produce a sub-optimal head angle. The attached image of a Red-winged Blackbird is not possible with a good head angle- the bird just won't bend that way during this display. If I had been at a different angle to the bird I might have captured a good head angle but not such as good image of the underside of the bird with all its amazing textures. Maybe this means the image should should have just gone in the trash, but I personally think this would have been a waste.

2. A friend/BPN member and I recently had a chat about this and he mentioned that in the "old days" the great bird photographers shunned direct eye contact with the bird because it suggested that you were intevening in the naturalness of the scene (I hope I've got this right Dan?). Good eye-contact and good head-angle are talked about in the same breath at BPN as if they were almost one and the same but maybe there is such a thing as a good head angle and no direct eye contact? However, perhaps most good eye contact produces direct eye contact because of the "Mona Lisa Effect" where she/the photo subject follows you around the room with their eyes.

I would like to see a further exploration of this subject for educational purposes with a challenge to produce an excellent wildlife image with a less the optimal head angle- maybe it can't be done, maybe it can?

 

[Daniel Cadieux]

John, thanks for adding your thoughts.

1. In the examples you mention those would be perfectly acceptable head angles. The issue is not if the bill is pointing downwards or upwards. It's that it is pointing away from parallel to the camera's sensor plane. That is the issue with your posted example too...the bill pointing down is OK with me, but the fact it is angled away from us is what is making this image not as strong as it would had it been angled at least parallel to us (BTW, great exposure and love the soft overcast light!). I've dug out an older image of a RWBB I took in a similar pose as yours but with a "correct" HA. ***Keep in mind this is from my personal archives and I do not necessarily like the image for various reasons...but it does however illustrate the good HA issue***:

2. For me, "eye contact" and head angle are two different beasts. I've personally never understood the "eye contact" thing in bird images because in most images with a correct HA the bird is really not looking at us...it is rather looking at something way left or right of us. For me an example of good "eye contact", when it comes to birds, would be an owl looking straight down the barrel of a lens. For most birds, however, this is not their most photogenic pose anyhow with their eyes placed at the side of their heads...whereas many mammals look great head-on (IMO)

 

[John Chardine]

Thanks Daniel. By way of example, here is the sort of image I was talking about. IMO the HA is less than ideal here because of zero eye contact, but that Osprey is just not going to look up while it is fishing like this.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Just for the record books, Joel's (please quit taking it personally Joel) original GBH image is ruined for me because the bird is looking away while I like John's RWBB image.

 

[Arthur Morris]

As for John's Osprey, I like that image too. It could have been improved as seen here with some Eye Doctor work and selective sharpening of the head, all as described in detail in Digital Basics

 

[Daniel Cadieux]

The Osprey looks great, and I have no isues with the head angle on it (it's actually perfect for this hovering pose)!

 

[Tom Wilberding]

I just stumbled on this thread, maybe I am too late, but I like the original image. Great Blue Heron as noble sentinel, like one of the foot guards at Westminster or the honor guard at the Tomb of the Unknown in DC. Their instructions are to look straight ahead like a stone lion and ignore the common rabble, something like that. So that's the way I appreciate this image. No personal connection or soul, but beautiful none the less.
The hovering Osprey also shows that eye contact or friendly head angle is not necessarily required for a beautiful bird image. I agree with Artie, but also like the idea of rare exceptions to the rule.
Just my beginner's opinion.

 

[Craig Markham]

HA is a major factor determining the impact of an image on the viewer because we instinctively react personally to a look or glance from another entity. We are acutely attuned to the direction of another's gaze, and to that of photographic subjects. Granted that there are often optimal HA's for a given subject/situation, I think that dogged insistence on having a HA of x degrees toward the film plane of a camera can lead to galleries of nice cookie-cutter bird images. Although we enjoy the fantasy that WE are are of particular interest to our photographic subjects in the wild, or in a photographic image, most of the time they really have better things to do. Sorry about that.

What I want to do as a photographer is capture a moment when the beauty, charm, excitement, or drama of a subject and its activities is especially strong and affective (i.e., they provoke feelings in the viewer). HA and eye visibility often factor into the affectiveness of an image, but I agree with earlier comments that context determines the importance of HA. If in the middle of preparing to dive, John's lovely osprey turned and mugged at the camera it might produce a good HA (HA-HA!), because that would be downright goofy in context. To me, the importance of John's capture is the sheer beauty of the bird, its exquisite position, and the hunting behavior it represents -- this is what ospreys do, and John got it.

As for Joel's heron, I like the image for its detached, dreamlike gaze that takes me beyond the frame of image (I could do without the black line, however). If the head were turned a couple of degrees toward the film plane, it would intensify the illusion that the heron is connecting with me personally. However, the image would lose my original feeling imparted by the posted image. The differing HA's would simply create images that have two different affective qualities. Neither one is "ruined" as far as I'm concerned -- just different, and interesting in their own right.

Congratulations on a lovely image, Joel, and thanks for setting off this interesting discussion.

--Craig

 

[Arthur Morris]

Just for the record books the head angle in John's Osprey image is perfect.

 

[Arthur Morris]

As for the original GBH image, had the bird had its head turned say 45 degree away I could buy the looking off into serenity story....

 

[Arthur Morris]

Craig,

re:

I think that dogged insistence on having a HA of x degrees toward the film plane of a camera can lead to galleries of nice cookie-cutter bird images.

As the guy who brought HA to everyone's attention I have never doggedly insisted on anything. I critique each image as if it were my own and give my honest opinion. I have never told a single person what to do. You might say that I have led by example.

Although we enjoy the fantasy that WE are are of particular interest to our photographic subjects in the wild, or in a photographic image, most of the time they really have better things to do. Sorry about that.

My thoughts on HA have never had anything to do with any fantasies about eye contact with the bird. I am often puzzled when folks speak of eye contact. My head angle philosophies have everything to do with how the light strikes the birds face. I have never once used the words "eye contact" in a critique.

What I want to do as a photographer is capture a moment when the beauty, charm, excitement, or drama of a subject and its activities is especially strong and affective (i.e., they provoke feelings in the viewer). HA and eye visibility often factor into the affectiveness of an image, but I agree with earlier comments that context determines the importance of HA. If in the middle of preparing to dive, John's lovely osprey turned and mugged at the camera it might produce a good HA (HA-HA!), because that would be downright goofy in context. To me, the importance of John's capture is the sheer beauty of the bird, its exquisite position, and the hunting behavior it represents -- this is what ospreys do, and John got it.

Again, the head angle in John's image is perfect and has zero to do with the GBH image above.

 

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Excellent thread. I agree with Artie that when the bird is parallel( to sensor) and if the light is hitting it nice and sqaure, a slight head turn towards the camera makes a big difference. As light angle, bird's angle and the pose change, different head angles work well too. Especially in hunting poses like the Osprey above or waders concentrating on the fish in water.

Artie, you said "As for the original GBH image, had the bird had its head turned say 45 degree away I could buy the looking off into serenity story....". So does the following work in your opinion? I think it does but would love to know your take on it. Thx in advance as always....for all the wonderful advice you provide. I had posted the one with the traditional head turn in Avian when you were in Galapagos.