Head Angle Philosophies....

[Arthur Morris]

I find the head angle for the night-heron more pleasing than the GBH head angle. The brightest yellow spot and the smaller one behind the head bug me a bit. I am trying to figure out why there is a highlight on the side of the eyeball away from the light as it would seem to be in shadow. I love that you got some light on the eye.

And yes, I have stressed from the beginning that there is no one best head angle that the proper head angle depends on the pose... But folks just love trying to put me in a box...

 

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

I am trying to figure out why there is a highlight on the side of the eyeball away from the light as it would seem to be in shadow.

I had wondered about it too. Is it possible that the light is travelling through the bulging eye and hitting that side? some refraction or internal reflection perhaps?

Thx for the feedback.

 

[Arthur Morris]

That's what I was thinking too. YAw

 

[Arthur Morris]

Here, http://www.birdphotographers.net/fo...45-An-oldie-Laughing-Gull&p=562416#post562416, Ofer Levy posted this:

"The repost looks good. I see no problem with HA. This whole obsession with HA looks nonsense to me. A good photo is a good photo. HA is just one factor in so many aspects of what makes a good photo. I have seen too many photos with "perfect" HA but they were mediocre at best. I have also seen many fantastic shots here and elsewhere with HA which is considered less than perfect on this forum."

I responded:

"Ofer, Don't blame BPN "the forum." Blame me. When a bird's head is turned either away from the viewer, away from the imaging sensor, or away from the angle of orientation (the angle of the bird's body to the imaging sensor), the image moves down a notch or two for me no matter how spectacular. I do of course agree that head angle is just one of many factors that make a good image. My view however is that HA is just as important as sharp focus (when you want it sharp), a proper exposure, and a pleasing composition and BKGR. And as you well know if any of those additional factors are no good, then the image is no good. You can't have a great image if the focus is off, if the highlights are blown, if the shadows are well underexposed, or if the COMP or BKGR don't work. Just one of those ruins an image. And for me, a bad head angle can ruin an image just as quickly as the rest.

Here even Blake agrees with me: "I'd LOVE if the HA was a few degrees more toward the "film" plane."

I would also note that pretty much all of your posted images feature pretty much perfect head angles. Nonsense I guess....."

 

[Arthur Morris]

Peter continued:

"Hi Artie, it is fine for us to have different opinions about this as it is all very personal.
I only speak for myself and everyone is free to do whatever they like.
For me, any technical factor like sharpness, exposure, DOF, and even composition is a must have. If one of these factors is not perfect - image goes to the bin as painful as it is. (usually it is deleted in the camera to avoid further heart aches... ). I will also put in the bin any photo that can not be framed as a 2;3 ratio or close to it.
As to head turn - this is a different story and it really depends on what is going on in the image. A simple head shot with a less than "perfect" HA - is not a keeper for me. However, an image like this when the bird is doing something - is fine in my book even if the HA is not "perfect".
In many behaviour shots HA is not "perfect" but they are still fantastic images. I really think people should concentrate on the factors they can control and less worry about HA."

And I responded:

"I agree of course that all opinions are personal. I have some square images that I love so we disagree there too As well as some killer panos. I agree that there are some images with less than ideal head angles that are fine. But it is rarer than rare to find an image with a less than ideal head angle where the photographer (as Blake recognizes with this image) would not have preferred a better head angle.

Here is where I disagree strongly in part: "I really think people should concentrate on the factors they can control and less worry about HA."

I agree that when you are photographing spectacular flight or action that you need to make a sharp image and worry about the rest later. But as we see on this and other forums every day, folks are far too often making portraits of birds with the heads turned away from the viewer. This is often something down out of ignorance. And it is something that they can control by learning to push the shutter button at the opportune time. And once folks become aware of head angle, they are in a much better position to do just that.

I have some mighty fine images that I deleted because the head was turned 1/2 of one degree away from parallel to the imaging sensor, but heck, that's me "

 

[Paul Randall]

Very interesting discussion. I am of the opinion (like many) that the context often dictates the perfect head angle.
Heres one that I posted a while ago in the "Eager to learn" forum. Its actually one of my favourite portrait shots of mine. The comp. leaves a bit to be desired I think but I liked the fact that the bird was looking away in a "thoughtful" manner.
Would love to know everyones thoughts on it. Please be honest, I have thick skin and understand if it is not to everyones liking

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Paul, You will not find this one in the statutes but for the pose and crop this head angle is pretty much the best available.... I do believe that the by-the-book square to the imaging sensor head angle here would be too much.

 

[Craig Markham]

I find the head angle for the night-heron more pleasing than the GBH head angle. The brightest yellow spot and the smaller one behind the head bug me a bit. I am trying to figure out why there is a highlight on the side of the eyeball away from the light as it would seem to be in shadow. I love that you got some light on the eye. ...

Hi Artie, and Kaustubh,

As you were thinking, the highlight on the right side of the eye is indeed from sunlight entering the left side of the eye, refracted through the cornea and projected onto the surfaces in and behind the right side of the eye. The highlight is an elongated image of the sun.

I like the quiet mood of your image, Kaustubh. The yellow spot above the bird's bill could be softened by lightly cloning some of the adjacent OOF greens over it at perhaps 20-40% opacity and 0 hardness.

Craig

 

[Paul Randall]

Hi Paul, You will not find this one in the statutes but for the pose and crop this head angle is pretty much the best available.... I do believe that the by-the-book square to the imaging sensor head angle here would be too much.

I agree, this image has more in common with a portrait that you might see of a human subject I think. Its a bit more of a stretch to imagine that the bird is being "thoughtful" though I guess. I think the soft side lighting would have missed the birds face if it had turned a bit more as well. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Paul Guris]

Question for Artie

Artie: I was reviewing this thread and I came upon two seemingly conflicting quotes from you. The first seems to say that eye contact is crucial, the second not so much. As a result, I think I'm missing the real meaning of your first point. If you have a chance, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "solid connection to the bird's eye or eyes". Thanks in advance.

QUOTE 1 (05/12/2010):

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."

QUOTE 2 (07/25/2010):

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.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Paul, I can to some degree understand you confusion. When I speak or write about "any fantasies about eye contact" I am addressing the fact that many folks seem to be impressed by the fact that the bird is or is not looking right at them.... I never have and never will be impressed by what it seems that the bird is looking at. That said, both eyes looking right down the lens barrel is often a great situation but in that case there is no fantasy needed; we know what the bird is looking at.

For me having a solid connection to a bird's eye or eyes is far different from what most folks mean by "eye contact" as I define it above. Take John Chardine's Osprey looking down image above. It is an interesting image, but as presented, there is zero connection to the bird's eye. In my repost, where I lightened the iris, there is a connection to the bird's eye for most viewers. Yet nobody would argue that there is direct eye contact, that the bird is looking at us.

So maybe I am blowing smoke or hiding behind semantics or maybe I have succeeded in explaining myself. In either case I still have never used the words "eye contact" in a critique

 

[Paul Guris]

"So maybe I am blowing smoke or hiding behind semantics or maybe I have succeeded in explaining myself."

Nope, makes perfect sense to me because it takes into account the cases where birds are looking down for prey, looking off into the distance, etc. Other than a sleep shot (and I have seen some real nice ones), I can't really come up with a case for not seeing a bird's eyes. Even most preening shots seem better to me with eyes visible.

Thanks for the light bulb.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Good Interesting that you mention preening shots. I have written and said 1,000 times: "Most great images of birds preening feature a clear view of the eye and the head and bill perfectly parallel to the back of the camera.

And my best sleeping bird image usually feature an open eye....