Backgrounds

[Anthony Johnson]

As a new member on this forum, I have posted a couple of images and many of the comments I have received have concerned the background.
I could best be described as a birder who takes photographs rather than a photographer who shoots birds, and my re-touching skills are not the greatest. I am therefore keen to know how best to deal with problem backgrounds, such as “busy” shots with lots of vegetation and shots taken looking up into trees with bright areas distracting from the bird. I have attached a couple of small images to illustrate these points.
I understand that getting into the ideal position is the best option, but when birding, particularly in forests, there is often no chance to optimize the background, one just has to shoot and hope. Are there any general rules of thumb, or do I just need to improve my Photoshop techniques to deal with problems? I guess the ultimate choice would be to ‘cut-out’ the bird and completely replace the background, but in addition to being difficult, this would often loose the context of the image., particularly with small passerines and ground-dwelling birds.
I would welcome any comments, suggestions or pointers where this type of subject is discussed (any books available?).
Many thanks
Tony

[Diane Miller]

Hi Anthony, and welcome! Bird photography is challenging, as you've found. There is a real limit to what processing skills can do to salvage an image. A cutout can look very artificial and is difficult to do well. Cloning can fix some issues such as stray branches.

I don't find the owl background that bad -- there is a slight greenish cast and the bird could be brightened up with a Curves adjustment masked to it -- that would be a skill worth learning if you're not there yet.

If you're into shooting birds as you find them, you'll have a lot of non-ideal shots due to lighting and backgrounds. If you get more into the photography end of it, the highest percentage of good shots will be when birds are attracted with feeders or calls, into a location with a distant BG and good light (soft but bright enough). If you can get relatively close to a bird with the BG relatively distant, it will be more out of focus and less obtrusive.

Reading the posts here will give you a good education! If you want to learn to shoot birds in a setup, check out Alan Murphy's web site.

Looking forward to following your journey.

[Diane Miller]

Here's a quick correction on the owl. When I pulled it into PS I see you didn't embed the profile -- you should always convert to sRGB and tag the profile for the most accurate view by the widest audience. Check a couple of tutorials in the Educational Resources forum.

Are you shooting in Raw? A good converter will let you pull down blown out highlights to some degree, such as those on the limb behind the bird. And it also will let you bring up darks to some degree.

If you specify the camera, lens, settings and post-processing steps when you post, it will help people give you better information.

[Moe Ali]

For educational reasons, let me also say that there are 3 factors that significantly change your background sharpness (bokeh):

- focal length
- aperture
- distance of background to subject

So ideally for an out-of-focus background you want the objects behind the subject to be far away, you also want a longer focal length, and you want a smaller aperture. Like you noted, in a forested area you sometimes don't have much separation with your background. So you might want to try a longer focal length coupled with a smaller aperture. Sometimes it's luck, and you get a pocket behind the subject, but like Diane mentioned, in order to avoid luck you'll need a more controlled environment.

I personally prefer to wing-it (no pun intended) and hope for the best. There's a lot more satisfaction when I get a truly natural image. An obviously photoshop has a significant impact on the final image, so continue to build your skills and you won't be dissapointed.

[Doug West]

I think it also depends on your goals.

If you're happy being a birder who takes photographs, then don't worry about the backgrounds. Put the
attention into creating a sharp image. In the end, a sharp or soft image will make or break what you
just captured.

If you do want to improve your backgrounds, my additional suggestion would be 'no lead feet'. Some
times we get so excited we end up standing in the same place, never moving. Move to your left, move
to your right. Look for those different angles. The slightest change can make a big difference.

Doug

[Anthony Johnson]

Thanks, Moe.
1. I fully understand the need to physically separate subject from background as much as possible and do so whenever possible, but my type of birding rarely allows for a 'controlled environment'. I am typically in another country with only limited equipment.
2. I understand that in fact, if the subject image size remains the same, then at any given aperture all lenses will give the same depth of field, and
3. I think you mean a LARGER aperture to give a smaller depth of field?

I am certainly learning from this forum, and thank everyone who has responded.
Tony

[Lisa Stinnett]

Tony, it sounds like we are in the same boat. I am not a professional in any stretch of the imagination and am speaking on shear personal preference, but, I like to see the surroundings in some pictures. I think it give the photo a certain "feel" and emotion. And there are times when great bokeh is what looks best. I am learning a lot, as well.

[Anthony Johnson]

OK. This is my rework on the background of the Lesser Ground-cuckoo. I selected the background and reduced the saturation of the green and yellow channels slightly. This certainly de-emphasises the background. What do you think?
Tony

150133

Pentax K-5IIS + DA*300mm. f6.7 @ 1/500sec. ISO 200

[Diane Miller]

Yes, this is much better! You have salvaged a difficult (and common) situation very well.

Sometimes light reflecting on leaves is a problem and a polarizer can help, but it's often not a complete fix with leaves angled every which way.

Hope you'll keep posting!

[Warren Spreng]

Those are great Anthony. I'm not a pro either and am learning a lot from this forum. As already commented, I think there are many different ways to look at this hobby. In some cases I think it is nice to have a natural setting, and in others I like to feature the bird as the main focus point with a very diffuse BG, and maybe a "setup" perch. My wife likes stuff in the BG because she thinks it looks more natural! :bg3:

[Moe Ali]

Thanks for the correction Anthony, yes I did mean larger aperture (which means SMALLER f-stop). And I'm sure you understand the technical stuff behind this, I just like throwing that stuff out for others to consider.

I also like your re-post. De-emphasizing the background colour definitely makes a difference……. Photoshop is your friend :S3: