That photo was part of "The Family of Man", great book. This was no ordinary picture, he was wounded on the job and this was the first photo he published.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What makes a great picture?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In all due respect capturing that frog was a challenge from as far away as I was. It could only be captured with my Powershot because of its powerful zoom. Some frogs do not jump away when you move but most do so capturing one is challenging.
Wildlife photography is challenging and a lot of the best guys don't necessarily use big lenses to get their best photos. Instead, they effectively become "hunters" who stalk their subjects(with a camera rather than a gun or bow) and get as close as they safely can to take the photo rather than just standing safely back. Look up Moose Peterson for one.
That's also why the sports photos that make the newspaper(or its online equivalent) are taken by people with permission to stand at the edges of the field, and if you watch a good sports photographer at work they're moving with the action rather than staying stationary. Chances are they're going to have something much better than what you'll have sitting at your seats in the stands. Good wedding photographers are standing in the middle of the aisle facing the bride as they walk down the aisle and moving all around the sanctuary/whatever other venue during the ceremony, not sitting at their seats like the typical guest.
Things like this are all part of the package with any photography, not just wildlife. Quality equipment helps, but nothing beats being in the right place so that you can frame it more normally.
I have taken better shots with cheaper cameras of frogs in the past because I got close to frogs that did not jump away when I approached. Every frog is different but most just jump away when you move.
Sure. But likewise, with all due respect, you asked what makes a great photo and he provided an answer. He didn’t say whether it’s easy or hard to achieve just offered constructive criticism. That constructive criticism may have been unachievable for you in this particular scenario but that doesn’t mean it’s not still valuable advise for situations where you can be mindful of it and achieve it in the future.
Save your breath (or typing finger)…
OK, I took the bait (this thread): a lucky shot can also make "a great picture" 
Following the rules of photography is fine, but "exploring" can be quite interesting.
Following the rules of photography is fine, but "exploring" can be quite interesting.
Last edited:
What it comes down to is some individuals will always be offended as they look for reasons to take offense. I am guessing the OP is a member of that group.
BTW some photographers have made a solid living getting in close to wildlife to take their images. Bruno Engler was one of these.
So I rarely critique photos on this site as people here are too wide range in terms of both knowledge and desire. However, I think this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion, so I will offer some of my opinions both on the OP's photo as well as my own.
For the OP's photo (which AFB attached earlier in this thread), the biggest thing that stands out to me is the use of on-board flash. It is what is causing the weird blown out bits and the garish colors. I know that the frog is likely brightly colored itself, but the lighting is not helping matters.
AFB also mentioned the composition. In the original image, the frog is pushed to the left side, giving the viewer the impression that it will leap out of the frame. Our eyes naturally follow that path, and there is nothing left in the image to hold our attention. If the OP had stayed in his exact position but rotated a few degrees to the left with his camera, he could have put the frog on the bottom right Rule of Thirds and given the image more breathing space, and likely added more to the story. Of course, this is easy for me to say given that I don't actually know what was in that space; perhaps it was a railing or wall that added even less to the story. But I have done a little PS magic to extend the canvas to envision what it "could" have looked like. It doesn't help the lighting, but it does help a bit with giving more space and context to where the frog is.
I do like the hint of reflection under its head and like that you can see his whole body both in and out of the water.
To me, the original image's biggest weakness is the lighting. Photography literally means "drawing with light" and the lighting breaks this image for me. Second is composition.
In the spirit of fairness, I am including my own frog image (I suspect he's actually toad, but that's neither here nor there at this point). I love frogs and toads and played with them a ton growing up as a kid in the country, but unfortunately I haven't seen many as an adult. We found this one in our yard a number of years ago. At the time this image was taken I was shooting raw and manual mode, but for less than two years, so still had lots of things to learn (over ten years later I still have lots to learn).
I like this image because it gives scale to the frog inside a child's hand. I also like that lone piece of grass and the dirt on the hand. It's a bit of storytelling. It is well exposed and the eyes are in good focus, and the light is directional, which gives shape to the bumps of the frog.
The image would be much stronger if the child's hand wasn't cut off on the right side of the frame. I would also have preferred a greater depth of field; I like the hand going to soft focus, but the frog would be better if his back were also in focus. That blown bit of dirt under the child's hand is a bit distracting as well, although could be cloned out. At least the light on the frog is clean and even.
This image's biggest weakness is composition. Second is depth of field.
This is also a case of "the best gear is what you have with you" unless it doesn't make the shot. I appreciate that the OP's image was taken with his Powershot on zoom mode vs his phone and agree that his phone was unlikely to have been able to capture what the Powershot did. But if you are wanting to reveal details and get close, then a "big" camera and good lens blow that point and shoot out of the water. My image was taken with a Canon 5Dii and a 100mm macro lens, which reveals the fine details on the back of the frog/toad.
I find frogs much easier than birds in flight. Here is another.
"professional" lighting and gear make a world of difference here. 🙂 as much as we like to say gear doesn't matter, oftentimes it really does. but also your vision for how these would end up guided your choice of gear, and that is important too. having gear with no vision doesn't make for great photography.
The professional gear defiantly made a difference for these images. Pro lighting, backdrops and a proper DSLR and Macro lens made them work. Although the red eye frog is just shot with a speed light and soft box. Not that expensive these days.
I did not use flash. Your picture appears to be of a toad not a frog as frogs are water creatures while roads are land animals.
i suspect your flash went off without you realizing it. it has all the hallmarks of on board flash. if not you were standing right next to a lamp of some sort.
That's a beautiful image! I agree with Apple fanboy that your photo tell a nice story, unlike the other photo of the frog being talked about.
Last edited:
Beautiful images of frogs!
By the way, if the OP thinks that it is was challenging to take a photo of frogs because they can jump away when one moves: I was looking a photos of very dangerous jumping and wandering spiders taken a close range with a Camera and the canon 100mm Macro lens. The photographer is from Brazil.
Last edited:
I did not suspect flash - my guess is that it was late in the day and the sun was not that far off from the lens axis, causing a similar flatness to an on-camera flash. Could as easily have been early in the day, but my guess is late
Unless of course, the EXIF says flash fired, but I did not check to see if EXIF was present.
unfortunately there was no exif. but there are weird spots on the lily pad also that seem like flash water drops. 🤷🏼♀️ not to mention the frog catchlight both in his eye and reflection.I did not suspect flash - my guess is that it was late in the day and the sun was not that far off from the lens axis, causing a similar flatness to an on-camera flash. Could as easily have been early in the day, but my guess is late
Last edited:
Which is another good reason to avoid the "auto" and "Scene" modes.
In many cases, they will fire the flash if the camera thinks it necessary-whether to freeze action or in a high contrast situation.
My D600, which was the last consumer-ish level camera I had with "auto" and "scene" modes would SUGGEST using flash(by flashing the lighting bolt in the viewfinder) if you were in a "creative" mode and it thought you'd need it, although I always ignored it
. The D8xx cameras, even though the D800n and D810 have pop-ups, I guess assume if you're using them know what you're doing and don't even suggest flash. The only times I've bothered with the on-camera is if I wanted to do impromptu remote with a SB600 and/or SB800. I've also used it a few times when I realized the batteries in my remote trigger were dead at the wrong time and I threw a peanut slave on the power pack to trigger the flash. I never liked doing it though, as even under the relatively powerful studio lights I could still see the effect of the on camera even cranked down to its lowest setting. When using as a trigger for studio lights, I prefer to use a flash in the hot shoe and point it over my shoulder both where it doesn't have as much effect on the overall lighting and also triggers more reliably.
I don’t think this is very constructive. I don’t see any need to be rude to the OP. Getting better at something, regardless of what level you are already at, requires passion and I encourage the OP to post their pictures, ask for advice when wanted and enjoy the hobby of photography and not get discouraged by negative remarks. That is to say, constructive criticism should not be bundled together with negative remarks - Listen to and absorbs constructive criticism, but let’s all be encouraging about it. The comment I wrote you were quoting here was not intended as a jab at the OB - On the contrary, it’s well meaning and while the OP’s original photo wasn’t “the perfect photo”, it also wasn’t the worst photo ever. Advice has been given for improvements and that’s to my mind the value of this thread. And we can all, no matter our existing level, learn from each other and take on board the ideas and mindsets proposed by others, experiment with and conditionally apply what we, in each moment, agree with. Whether someone chooses to be open about it or not, as far as I see it, isn’t worth petty arguments, only encouragement to take things to heart
Remarkable reframing, Molly. Completely changed the feeling of the photo. A lot more breathing room and a sense of open curiosity rather than the more trapped sense of the tighter framing. I think I would personally push the frog just a tad up and to the left still, - I haven’t checked but I feel like you’ve put the top of the frog’s eye in the lower right third, where I’d have pushed it up just a tad so it’d be the bottom right corner of its eye there. That said I haven’t actually tried it out so upon seeing it I might prefer your version anyway, haha. Regardless, really good illustration of the difference it can make - And really seamless “Photoshop magic”. If I didn’t know the source and you hadn’t said anything I wouldn’t have noticed that the composition had been moved around to fit the new framing. Did you actually just move the existing background manually or is there a Photoshop tool at work here? If the latter, do you know if there’s an analogue for Affinity?
Had never really pondered the etymology of the word photograph before but that makes a lot of sense. That’s pretty awesome
Before I wound up a programmer and computer science student I tried getting into film school. There it was always said “The gear does not define you as a filmmaker. The ideas you can execute well do. The gear defines the scope of the ideas you can execute”
Yep. same here.... aspiration only at this stage. In fact I caught myself a while back consciously thinking about the base image from which edit rather than trying to realise what I saw in front of me as much as possible reducing laters stages to tweaks. I think the biggest contributor to my hobby in the recent memory is improving my photoshop capabilities not taking better shots at source...
Or you are shooting on a physical sensor with a given aspect ratio say 3:2 and you want a square for example.
Not buying better gear?
Nope not even trying Nikon helped
as much as actually learning how to use photoshop....