Bird in habitat vs fill-frame shots

[Octavio Campos Salles]

Most bird photographers seems to go after that "fill-frame" shot where the bird is clearly the main and only subject, perched against a perfectly clean background. Don't get me wrong, I go after that too and I only wish I could get some of the shots I see here. But quite frankly, I've been noticing that the photos that I like the most, or the ones that calls my attention readily, are those that shows the bird interacting with its habitat. It tells a story, it has a deeper meaning, it makes me want to explore the image, get in the scene. The "fill-frame" shots are mere portraits, they are getting boring (for me at least).

Yes the "bird in habitat" shot may not show nearly as much sharp details of the plumage, the bill, etc, but why do I need to see that? Don't you find it more interesting when the photo tells a bigger story? With the ease of use and greater quality of digital I think we are getting a bit obssesed with technical quality that the common viewer (the non-photographer) may not even notice. And believe me, when I say "we" I mean myself too! For the common viewer I guess the moment still is what really counts.

What do you think?

[Tell Dickinson]

I think you are 100% right Octavio, my first immediate reaction is normally for the frame filler but if I have time to think the 'animal in habitat' often is the better option, even to the extent that I am not very pleased if I get a flight shot with just a bird and sky, I much prefer a little hill or other bit of the surrounding in there as well to give it context.

[Alfred Forns]

Octavio I do like and try to make habitat images and find them much more challenging.

There is a difference between an image with a cluttered bg and what you are talking about !!! It is true that they don't get as many view as the others. I have tried posting some but have not done all that well ... but still do.

I go out with the attitude of making the best possible under the circumstances. If I can include the environment in a pleasing way its a treat but most often is isolating !!!

[Desmond Chan]

But quite frankly, I've been noticing that the photos that I like the most, or the ones that calls my attention readily, are those that shows the bird interacting with its habitat. It tells a story, it has a deeper meaning, it makes me want to explore the image, get in the scene.

Most of the photographs that people take - not just bird photos - are those that belong to visually pleasing kind. They are also the easiest kind to do. Photographs with content, could strike people emotionally, can connect to the viewers are more difficult to make.


The "fill-frame" shots are mere portraits, they are getting boring (for me at least) [snip]
Don't you find it more interesting when the photo tells a bigger story? I do. Personally I much prefer environmental portraits if it's a portrait photo. I have yet to see anybody who find his/her driver license photos interesting :D But a high school graduation portrait may, but it likely is because of the story behind and the person in the photo that makes that photo meaningful.



I think we are getting a bit obssesed with technical quality that the common viewer (the non-photographer) may not even notice. Isn't that funny, eh? But it's been like that since time immemorial :)

[Fabs Forns]

I prefer environmental images, but other than being a lot ore difficult to obtain, and I mean quality ones, they do not seem to fare very well in the forums, shame.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Interesting subject, and one I often think about. I don't think that technical excellence, subject sharpness and detail, etc. need to be lost in environmental/habitat shots.
There are numerous problems that make these habitat images so much more difficult than the standard bird/blurred background image. The need for simplicity is easily met in the bird/blurred background scenario, yet how can this be acheived with numerous elements?
Composition and the ability of creating order in a seemingly chaotic background are the key. This requires understanding of good composition beyond the "rule of thirds". Geometric relationships between elements seems to be the key. This composition, in large part, needs to be done in camera, while deciding when to capture the scene. Minimizing the number of discrete elements is helpful. Removing un-necessary elements post processing certainly can be done, but in complex scenes it is difficult. The bottom line is that randomness needs to be replaced by order.
I've included an image of a tricolored heron feeding. It might not be such a good example, but something I've recently been working on, and deinitely a habitat shot. The technique, involving Topaz Adjust/small details, and Topaz Cean2, would put it in the Out of the box category. In any case, on the surface it is very complex, yet actually pretty simple; bird/water/reeds.
regards~Bill

[Dave Mills]

In order to critique one must have certain criteria to base it on. It's the one who critiques that is open to "breaking of the rules" allowances who has far more lattitude in their thinking.However the decision is the viewers. At one time there was a rule in photo comps that I was involved in where the story telling took precedence over the image quality.(in nature comps) We finally changed that guideline and made image quality the first priority and story telling an enhancing element that should be considered. Reason being you could have a great story with a terrible image. Personally, my ultimate goal is a technically correct image with a story. If I can include the environment and still meet my personal criteria, I'm happy.
Remember, bird photography is one of the most challenging and difficult areas of photography to master. There are many obstacles in a photographers way in getting that great shot. Lighting, bird position, fast enough SS, DOF, backround, sharpness and I'm sure you could throw in more factors. The bottom line for me is...I appreciate a quality image regardless of the addition of environment or lack of it. I make no distinctions.

[Magnus Thornberg]

The more i photograph, more i like the birds in habitat pictures! I agree with Alfred that birds in habitat are much more challenging.
If you like Birds In Habitats look at this images!
http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/listpic.htm?authorID=1756

/M

[Dave Leroy]

Thanks Magnus for including this link. There are many beautiful photographs.
In some, it seemed I could both hear a loon calling and feel the coolness of the northern forest.
I am very glad to see this discussion taking place, because for me, there is room for both types of photos to be accepted as art. No matter what the "bird" subject, the photo will need to connect with some viewers and ideally all viewers in some way.
Dave

[Alfred Forns]

Thanks for the link Magnus Exactly what I was talking about They are a treat to see and can never get tire of looking. I do think it takes a different mentality to appreciate and I no one one is right or wrong. I like them better !!!

[Fabs Forns]

Hey Magnus, thanks for the link, beautiful pictures.
I'm sure you are familiar with this photographer too:

http://www.helleso.com/gallery.asp?h=274&cat=274&photograph=0

[Desmond Chan]

I'm sure you are familiar with this photographer too:

http://www.helleso.com/gallery.asp?h=274&cat=274&photograph=0

Wow, I see a butt shot here:

http://www.helleso.com/showpic.asp?pic=5170&owner=274


If I post something like this, the HAP gonna want my head :D:D

Now I don't feel that guilty anymore :)

[Magnus Thornberg]

Hey Magnus, thanks for the link, beautiful pictures.
I'm sure you are familiar with this photographer too:

http://www.helleso.com/gallery.asp?h=274&cat=274&photograph=0

Yes i am familiar with Terje! He is one of my favourite out there! He goes his own way!

/M

[Magnus Thornberg]

Yes i am familiar with Terje! He is one of my favourite out there! He goes his own way!




/M


If you are into fill-frame shots look at the 19 years old guy Daniel Pettersson http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/listpic.htm?authorID=61610 (http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/listpic.htm?authorID=61610)

http://www.fotosidan.se (http://www.fotosidan.se/) is Swedens largest photosite!

[Marina Scarr]

IMHO, the ultimate joy in photography is capturing the story...which could include the habitat, action, interaction and/or behavior. Some photographers become so obsessed with the perfect head angle and BG, that I feel they lose focus of what is really important (although in all fairness this may differ for everyone.) After attending seminars with Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting, I was absolutely blown away by the possibilities of photographing with the intent to "tell a story." It definitely takes more more time and work but, in the end, it can be well worth all the extra effort.

[Dave Taylor]

IMHO, the ultimate joy in photography is capturing the story...which could include the habitat, action, interaction and/or behavior. Some photographers become so obsessed with the perfect head angle and BG, that I feel they lose focus of what is really important (although in all fairness this may differ for everyone.) After attending seminars with Art Wolfe and Franz Lanting, I was absolutely blown away by the possibilities of photographing with the intent to "tell a story." It definitely takes more more time and work but, in the end, it can be well worth all the extra effort.

Exactly my thoughts. Nearly every photograph that resonates with me (either my own, or someone else) the subject (wildlife) is not filling the frame. There are exceptions of course, but for me - if it is "just a portrait shot", no matter how sharp and inclusive the detail is, if it doesn't tell a story - the photo doesn't work. The old line "a picture is worth a thousand words" - always an understatement in my opinion:D - still rings true. If all your photograph says is, "sharp detail, good head position, I have a big lens" - it's not a story. Sharp detail means you have technical proficiency. Good head position means you have timing. Big lens, well... I want a big lens too:D. But if your shot has a story... that's the extra dimension.

One added plus to doing "environmental portraits" (as I call them - including the subject in their environment) - you may not need a 800/5.6, a 400 or 500 f/4 might do the job.
Save money and make stories.

[Juan Aragonés]

Octavio I couldn´t agree more with you. It seems that you wrote exactly what I think about the topic ;)

I do like the “bird in a stick” (BIS) style with great perch, fantastic out of focus backgrounds and frame filling subjects and I try to made images of that kind because I love birds and I love to see very detailed portraits of them but I have an artistic side too and I love the environmental images, or “bird in habitat” (BIH) style. In fact I prefer to do and to see BIH images than BIS images. Of course, I think that there is room for both styles but instead of the fact that BIS is very successful in forums, BIS are not having a great success in the most important photography contest. If you have a look at the BBC Wildlife photographer of the year you will find that almost all the entries are BIH like.

No doubt, I prefer a less technically perfect image that tells an story than the opposite one. Of course, that kind of images are not easy to get, but are more refreshing, artistic, evocative and satisfactory to create for me.
The images included in the links that Magnus and Fabs posted are a superb example of what we are talking about, magnificent images, amazing from an artistic point of view and that tells stories.

In the past week we have had a couple of excellent examples that are in my opinion outstanding examples of creativity. The fact that it doesn´t have a lot of comments doesn´t means that they are not good but, probably, a greater preference by people in the forum towards the BIS style.

Daniel´s http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37712
Chas´s http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37653
Krijn´s http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37652

[Dave Mills]

I don't think anyone can make a definitive judgement on whats a better image (BIS) or (BIH). It's measured image by image and the photographers personal taste and what he's going for.IMO it's alot more difficult to come up with a strong image showing (BIH). That doesn't dismiss the difficulty of shooting a bird in flight,portrait or them eating something. All take skill, an eye and alot of work. As I said in my last post..just because an image tells a story doesn't mean it's a good image.

[Desmond Chan]

just because an image tells a story doesn't mean it's a good image.

Then you have to define what a good image is, or even what a good photograph is.

If a good imge is simply one that is sharp and clear, then a lot of digital cameras can do it for you. I personally don't think being sharp and clear is important for a good photograh nor a good image. If we look at the history of photography, I think we could find many that are considered good and important photographs don't meet that requirement. Some blurred photographs are good images, too. So, that seems to me that to be a good photograph or image, it needs more than technical perfection and, sometimes, that's not even a necessity.

Having said that, I think Octavio's concern is why so many bird-on-a-stick, eye-pleasing photos and not something else, good image or not.

[Dave Mills]

Desmond, Your asking me a question that no one can answer. That answer can only come from the viewer of the image and how they feel about it. However, this site has areas that are open for critiques. One enters their image knowing that. In order to critique one must have certain criteria they choose to look at to define the image. Some critics are more rigid than others and some have different guidelines that they reference. They are only passing along info "they feel" will improve the image or what to look out for in the future. You can either accept or reject what they offer. I find a good percentage of the info has value.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi All,
A litle late to the party......but here's my 2 cents. I see a tone here.......that birds on the stick are being looked down upon and the bird in habitat or artistic interpretations are not valued.......I strongly disagree with that assesment and feel the bird on the stick is just as difficult and artistic as the impressionistic ones! Why do we have to choose??? I do both as Juan does. You want story???.....a bird pooping is a story!.....want to see that?......hang it on the wall??? What I also find amusing/questionalbe.....is the post count of some of the people questioning this. You should be more involved and if you see an image you like....with a BG others may complain about....and comment on it! Remember.....there are other forums on this site also ...with very different opinions and comments. Staying removed and in the distance.....not commenting benefits no one and having to chose one or the other isn't what we are all about! Just look at the memorial day challenge in macro!......I had to go to f3.5.....and I'm never there! One thing I have learned in photography over the years......develope a thick skin!......if you think this forum is one sided......go see an editor!......you may never look at this forum the same way again!

[Jay Gould]

What I also find amusing/questionalbe.....is the post count of some of the people questioning this.

Roman, should that be a considered criteria?

I have a climbing post count; yet, I haven't for personal reasons posted many images - just lots of questions.

Frankly, I think Octavio has raised a very interesting question.

The Avian: Image Critiques Forum definitely has a "criteria" for what represents an acceptable - good - great - exceptional image. There isn't a sticky at the beginning of the Forum stating the criteria; nevertheless there is a definite criteria right down to HA a milimeter one way or the other. I agree with and support this exacting criteria.

My neophyte observation is that there are several gross Avian categories (those with hundreds and thousands of post will probably be more exacting): BIF, BIS - described by Juan, and BIH.

To judge each category there are common elements that can be applied (color, sharpness, noise, ...) and there are elements specific to the particular category. For example, the HAP do not belong in the BIH judging, e.g., when the bird is catching the fish we are not too concerned that the bird isn't also looking at us with a twinkle in its eye.

Since the HAP have been active with both BIF and BIS, perhaps the Avian category can be divided into two gross categories: Flying and Perched Birds AND Birds in Habitat.

Also, it would be nice for their to be some stickies setting for all of the criteria pertaining to each category. I know it can be gleaned from the posts over the years; however, perhaps it is time to bring it together. Which one of you "Oldie But Goodies" on BPN is going to point to the already written and existing criteria for BIF/BIS?

Artie gently indicated that there are "too many "Great shot" and "I love this image" posts." While a general discussion of the images is great, perhaps if there was some type of enumerated criteria then posters would have an outline/guideline of what could/should be commented upon as well as giving a general attaboy.

These are just thoughts of someone who has had a lot of time while recovering from three surgeries to read, consider, and ask lots of questions about lots of the threads.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Jay,
maybe I mis-stated......how many have you commented on? was my point?? We have plenty of posters.....but when an Image has 100 view....yet 3 comments.....I do have to wonder as to how much you care??? If you care.....you should comment more on all the threads....in every forum......that you feel so passionately about! That is all I was trying to convey!
PS Octavio is a new contributor....I am encouraging his comments if he feels this way!

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
maybe I mis-stated......how many have you commented on? was my point?? We have plenty of posters.....but when an Image has 100 view....yet 3 comments.....I do have to wonder as to how much you care??? If you care.....you should comment more on all the threads....in every forum......that you feel so passionately about! That is all I was trying to convey!
PS Octavio is a new contributor....I am encouraging his comments if he feels this way!

We are in total agreement! It is a bit disheartening to post an image as see that people have taken the time to open and look at the image and not provide a comment - more than an attaboy.

This is the most amazing forum I have ever participated in when it comes to genuinely helpful posters/professionals. It think it was Charles Glatzer that said if he had to give up all of his lenses the 300 f/2.8 would be the last to go; if I had to give up all of the forums I play on, BPN would be the last go go kicking and screaming! :D

As a super poster/moderator how do you feel about splitting the BIF/BIS and the BIH?

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hmmm....I must confess that I don't discriminate between BIF, BiS, and BIH......I look at an image as presented.....so i really don't care about the category.....but judge it on tech ability, imapct, and just pure feel! I will admit that it is not alays the case......but it is not the easiest of jobs, and I'm sure.....knowing many of the people on the site.....they try their best at this volunteer job!!! Could I do better???.....sure!!!...even I question some of the things brought up in this post......but as DMills stated....accept or reject the comments....but will add....learn from them!!!...either way this is a no lose situation and don't dwell on the other stuff!

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, Your asking me a question that no one can answer.

I knew :)

But thought your brought up "good image", you might want to elaborate on it.

I somehow don't think this discussion is about which kind of image is better or how, although some might have expressed their personal preferences. I also do not think this discussion is about critiquing photos. But I could be wrong, no doubt. :)

[Dave Mills]

Desmond,
You brought up the point about being obsessed with technical quality from your first post. More people chimed in and further elaborated their feelings. Thats how we got here.
I agree with Roman about not breaking up Avian into different groups. I don't see a need for it. Jay, your putting your own standards of critiques by suggesting what belongs where. Do we want critiques that will more suit the need of the photographer or honest dialogue.
Remember, as stated before, you can reject any unfavorable critique if you so choose. But one should always keep an open mind.....

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond,
You brought up the point about being obsessed with technical quality from your first post.

I have to respectfully disagree.



Octavio, the original poster, in his post said:

With the ease of use and greater quality of digital I think we are getting a bit obssesed with technical quality In my first reply to this thread, I agreed and said:

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
Isn't that funny, eh? But it's been like that since time immemorial :) Later on William Maroldo talked about why it could be difficult to make habitat images and the related composition issues. Right after that is your post which you brought up image critiquing and the use of criteria. After Juan's post, you responded with "better images" between BIS or BIH, and ended with "just because an image tells a story doesn't mean it's a good image." So I thought: "Well, what is then? Perhaps DMills would like to say more about that?" and since I also wanted to know what a good image is :)

Just to be clear, I was not the first one who brought up about obsessed with technical quality. In my first post, I was responding to Octavio's remark on that.

[Octavio Campos Salles]

This sure is being an interesting discussion.
I really don't want and don't try to categorize images. They are all bird photos. When I said about the "bird perched against a clean background" it was just an example of the kind of image the usually don't tell much. Even though they might be incredibly pleasant to look at and that alone makes it a very good photo. I have have one like that framed on my wall! But a poor bird-in-habitat shot may tell us even less. It's about capturing the essence of the moment.

The amazing photos, IMHO, are those that tells a deeper story or has more of an artistic side to it... I can't even put this into words correctly... it's just the kind of image that moves with your feelings somehow. It's not the difficulty factor that makes a good image, I could probably make a simple sharp, well exposed photo of a bird while standing upside down after a few tries... but that alone wouldn't make the photo any good, lol...

There's a good example on the forum right now, a photo of a Wilson's Snipe posted by Martin Isabelle. The bird is showing just half of its body on an alert stance. You can't see any details on the wings... it is framed by out-of-focus grasses in a lovely morning light. A rather simple photo one might think.. I think it tells a good story though, of a bird species that lives in grasslands and is rather shy, always alert. It tells quite a lot about that species biology.

[Dave Mills]

Octavio, I happen to like Martin's image. I think it is creatively handled. It has beautiful light,sharpness and a good composition. Its also framed by the grasses in a pleasing manner. These are alot of the factors that I would look at in an image. Personally I would not pick at an image like this for minor nuances. I would look at it in total and appreciate the whole. Regarding storytelling...this shows the subjects environment and can relate a story to the viewer. IMO its a subtle story and can have different meanings to different viewers.
I feel strongly that each image, regardless of the subject matter, should not be evaluated against another type of image but should stand on it's own and be valued for its merits.

[Jay Gould]

Desmond,
Jay, your putting your own standards of critiques by suggesting what belongs where.

Dave, I do not have any specific critique standards for each type of image :o; I am only suggesting that some of the standards applied to BIS/BIF might be different than the some of the standards applied to BIH. I don't really care if there are in the same category or broken into two categories. It was just a suggestion to address the concerns raised by the OP and the followup comments in agreement with the OP.

For example, are you going to apply the HA standard to a BIH image?


I feel strongly that each image, regardless of the subject matter, should not be evaluated against another type of image but should stand on it's own and be valued for its merits.That is really what this post is all about; recognizing that each image stands on its own merits.

Frankly, the sum and substance of this post for me is that BIH should be encouraged.

[Dave Taylor]

Hi All,
A litle late to the party......but here's my 2 cents. I see a tone here.......that birds on the stick are being looked down upon and the bird in habitat or artistic interpretations are not valued.......I strongly disagree with that assesment and feel the bird on the stick is just as difficult and artistic as the impressionistic ones! Why do we have to choose??? I do both as Juan does. You want story???.....a bird pooping is a story!.....want to see that?......hang it on the wall??? What I also find amusing/questionalbe.....is the post count of some of the people questioning this. You should be more involved and if you see an image you like....with a BG others may complain about....and comment on it! Remember.....there are other forums on this site also ...with very different opinions and comments. Staying removed and in the distance.....not commenting benefits no one and having to chose one or the other isn't what we are all about! Just look at the memorial day challenge in macro!......I had to go to f3.5.....and I'm never there! One thing I have learned in photography over the years......develope a thick skin!......if you think this forum is one sided......go see an editor!......you may never look at this forum the same way again!

Hi Roman
Every photograph has it's own merits - just as each person will react differently towards it. I think everyone can agree to this. Myself, I have a lower "post count" because of my schedule. I simply can not continue to check back on the forums frequently enough to rack up huge "post counts". But this shouldn't be a contest to see who can contribute the most, but perhaps the best. I attempt to make my posts (limited as they may be) constructive and insightful - just as you do, and many others on this forum. Currently, I am opening the doors on my new photo workshop business here in Alaska, moderating the Alaska Forum on NPN, working on 2 photography books, writing course curriculum & updating older ones for upcoming workshops, continually developing my website/Journal, dealing with marketing and networking opportunities to promote my business, scouting locations for the upcoming seasons for both my business and personal photography, and working a nearly full-time job on top of all this. I also contribute to 4 forums (because I think a varied community & various forums handle things better than others) on a somewhat regular basis. And there are people out there that have schedules that make mine look like a long weekend off.
After a military career and a few personal trials, I am one of those that have developed a thicker skin. I think that it is dangerous to hold participation over people's heads - they may be frustrated or threated by the implication that they are not as active as "the Jones's". But we need participation by a larger community, varied as it may be by schedules and other commitments.
Remember, quality over quantity. I am not disagreeing with your assessment Roman, mainly because I have seen mostly quality in your posts and comments - I am just trying to explain that there are many different kinds of photographers that visit this forum. Everyone has different priorities.

[Juan Aragonés]

In the past, I have read a lot of opinions, interesting opinions, about this matter in other forums and in conversations with friends and nobody, fortunately, can find an agreement. I have a personal background in the world of art due to my painting and sculpture activities and I have lots of friends in the world of avian art and we frequently talk about what is good and what is not so good in the world of wildlife art. The main conclusion we always reach is that there is not a standard for art and that definitions doesn´t matter... by the way, art standards are made to be broken ;-) A work of art is good or bad by itself and I think that exactly the same can be applied to wildlife photography. I love sharpness, perfect light, action, great poses, frame filling images, environment, perches, habitat and all those things but many, many, many times I find myself being excited by an out of focus image, a blurred one or just a photograph with lots of noise. Sometimes I find an image that tells no story but that goes right inside my soul. Art is very difficult to explain, the best way to understand it is just feel it.
I remember having read somewhere (I do not remember where right now) the comment of someone claiming that lots of the images that he see in National Geographic Magazine would probably receive very little feedback if posted in the forum (I totally agree with that statement) because lots of them has no critical focus or are not sharp enough or blurred and that many of the images being posted on that forum have much better IQ. In my opinion, with some exceptions, most of the images in NG are truly outstanding and they speak by themselves, tells amazing stories and I do not care if some of them are not perfect from a technical point of view. Some of them even are true masterworks of art.
I think that all the images have stories to tell but some of them speaks by itself and doesn´t need the explaining of the photographer. A standard BIS image tells us very few things about the habitat because the BG is very OOF and it is always made under determined light conditions (it is very difficult to find a backlight BIS image by the way), we only can have a glance of the habitat due to the perch and due to the color of the BG. Of course, there are good examples of BIS images that tell stories (i.e. the ones with two birds interacting in the same perch, or the ones in which a single bird is doing something interesting, more than simply posing). I think the same ideas can be applied to BIH images.
I do not see the need for splitting both styles in different forums. Why? I do not think that the number of comments would be different than it is right now. We all like to have our images wrapped with lots of comments but we know that, in many cases, there is not a direct relationship between number of comments and image quality. I have seen in this and in other forums breathtaking images receiving very few feedback and images filled with comments that adds nothing to wildlife photography because they meet a series of standard that make all the images looks very similar. In example, if we compare a series of BIS images we find that they have common features (light, OOF BG, perch, eye contact, head turn,…) but very few things that are different between images (the nature of perch and the species, basically). In BIH images differences between images are greater that similitude between images and that allows, from my point of view, a more creative approach. Of course, the people that prefer BIS have a very interesting challenge and it is to look for new ways to create images that meet the BIS style but that are different, with a personal style and that is a very interesting thing.

Conclusion 1: I love images of birds that has a personality, an own style, and I do not mind if they belong to this or that style.

Conclusion 2: A good artist/photographers can make good images of whatever the style instead of the fact that some good photographers are more confortable with one style and that is great, of course.

Conclusion 3: I would like to make that kind of images ;)

One last note. Sure that we all would like to have more coments on our images but the good thing in this forum is that maybe you have very few comments but it is for sure that none of them are of the kind "great shot" and that most of them gave a good advice about how to improve. That is the reason why I prefer this forum instead of the fact that I have been in forums that gave me more feedback. Like all goods things in life, quality is better than quantity :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Dave,
I see you are very busy but you yourself profess to have more posts on another site. You also took only one part of my statement on post count……just the number…..and forgot to add that I also said if people felt this passionately about BIH……then they should comment more on these types of images and make their feelings known. This act alone will bring up the post count as it has for you on another site. My whole point on joining this discussion was to not take sides…..I do all those types of bird photography……but to encourage people if they feel that passionately about a certain image. I see many images with over 100 views and very few comments. Do all the visitors not have an opinion? Sitting on the sidelines and not offering an opinion doesn’t help anyone. I for one would relish other viewpoints and often times find myself looking at the view count on an image and wonder…….why aren’t they commenting? Actually I find it quite sad for the original poster because I am sure that the visitors have an opinion, even if it is contrary to mine……..just wish they would voice it!

[Jay Gould]

Hi Dave,
My whole point on joining this discussion was to not take sides…..I do all those types of bird photography……but to encourage people if they feel that passionately about a certain image. I see many images with over 100 views and very few comments. Do all the visitors not have an opinion? Sitting on the sidelines and not offering an opinion doesn’t help anyone. I for one would relish other viewpoints and often times find myself looking at the view count on an image and wonder…….why aren’t they commenting? Actually I find it quite sad for the original poster because I am sure that the visitors have an opinion, even if it is contrary to mine……..just wish they would voice it!

Roman, I agree 100%!

[Dave Taylor]

Hi Dave,
I see you are very busy but you yourself profess to have more posts on another site. You also took only one part of my statement on post count……just the number…..and forgot to add that I also said if people felt this passionately about BIH……then they should comment more on these types of images and make their feelings known. This act alone will bring up the post count as it has for you on another site. My whole point on joining this discussion was to not take sides…..I do all those types of bird photography……but to encourage people if they feel that passionately about a certain image. I see many images with over 100 views and very few comments. Do all the visitors not have an opinion? Sitting on the sidelines and not offering an opinion doesn’t help anyone. I for one would relish other viewpoints and often times find myself looking at the view count on an image and wonder…….why aren’t they commenting? Actually I find it quite sad for the original poster because I am sure that the visitors have an opinion, even if it is contrary to mine……..just wish they would voice it!

I do understand what you are saying Roman, and for the most part greatly agree with your comments. I do try to comment as much as possible - especially on the photos that I have a passionate response to. But you misunderstood my message - I have no such goal to "bring up my post count" to match someone else's, to achieve a "high score". For me this has never been a contest, rather a mission to help people however I can. Constructively. Thus, when people say that image comments such as "great shot" or "amazing" (which, by the way, could be applied to many of your images) are worthless, I cringe. True - simple praise is less helpful than an explanation of why the image excels. But to dismiss praise all together in favor of criticism, constructive or otherwise, does not help the development of photographers or photography. Criticism, again constructive or otherwise, when heard over and over - is more damning than helping. If I see an image that I love - I am very likely to praise it - both on a forum or on my blog (with a link to the photographer who created the image). As educators, we have a duty to aid in the development of others. Sometimes this means constructive criticism. Other times it means inspiring confidence by unabashadly praising our students/clients/and peers.
You also mentioned that mis-quoted me by saying "...but you yourself profess to have more posts on another site...". If you reread what I said - "I also contribute to 4 forums (because I think a varied community & various forums handle things better than others) on a somewhat regular basis." Just a quick glance across the forums I am currently active in - NPN = I have made 40 topics & 164 reply posts, on FM = 287 posts, Naturescapes = 85 posts, and BPN = 109 posts. I am not what you would call an "extreme contributor" in the way of sheer # of posts. However, I strive to make each one count.
I am not responding to you in an argumentitive tone (hard as that can be to judge on this "series of tubes";). I am however frustrated by the widespread superiority displayed by some "power" users & often wonder whether or not their passion is for creating images or criticising others. This does not foster growth for individual photographers or the community as a whole. Again, I am not attacking you Roman - this is in response to other posters & not limited to this forum. Just a quick look at your past 10 posts - 9 of them are extremely helpful and positive towards the original poster.
I have gotten very off topic here, and I apologize. Regardless, just like you Roman, I shoot a wide range of shots - from birds in flight, to birds in natural habitat, to birds on a stick, and much more not related to birds. I like them all. I merely meant to explain (clumsily so I admit) that my personal preference (for wildlife) is for environmental "portraits". Like I say about sooo many things. What I say is not right, it's just right for me. I completely agree with you, if you view an image and have the opportunity to comment - PLEASE DO. Be constructive, offer constructive criticism, offer advice, and when all else fails - bow in the presence of an amazing image & passionate photographer. Roman - if I ever meet you (and I hope I do!), I'm buying you a beer:D

[Jim Neiger]

I didn't have time to read this thread, so please pardon me if my comments are redundant.

Most bird images are made using long telephoto lenses. This means that the field of focus is usualy very small. This typicaly means that surrounding habitat will be oof unless the bg/s are very close to the bird. Close bg/s often appear flat and distracting. It is very difficult to get pleasing habitat/ photos this way. Many wider angle images overcome this problem, but result in the bird being very small in the frame and not the main subject. If you can get very, very close to the bird and use a WA lens with pleasing scenery, this often results in pleasing images.

[Mark Fuge]

I didn't have time to read this thread, so please pardon me if my comments are redundant.
Most bird images are made using long telephoto lenses. This means that the field of focus is usualy very small. This typicaly means that surrounding habitat will be oof unless the bg/s are very close to the bird. Close bg/s often appear flat and distracting. It is very difficult to get pleasing habitat/ photos this way. Many wider angle images overcome this problem, but result in the bird being very small in the frame and not the main subject. If you can get very, very close to the bird and use a WA lens with pleasing scenery, this often results in pleasing images.

Jim et. al.,

Just finding this thread, like you Jim, I wonder if the value of the habitat should be more recognized in the posted images. I note in your post, only as you said it but all those who shoot portraits do it, that the long lens rules in bird photography. I agree, but why?

I didn't know there was a Canon 800mm until Artie started showing his images and others joined in for the $16,000 "cannon". I can remember when a 300 f/2.8 and 1.4 or 2.0x were the dream of most of us. Images came from them. However, having the 600mm - 800mm lenses, forces portraits, as well. It's hard to shoot Habitat with those lenses. No offense to those who have them, but it doesn't have to take over the way we view images.

<O:pI also agree with Al and others that habitat is difficult to shoot. I know, as it has been my realm for years, due to the lack of a 600/800mm lens. But when it clicks, it is beautiful to view, just like the portrait.

<O:pI see people being critiqued on including too much of the habitat, when portraits are posted by others. It is too bad the critique isn't on improving the habitat image and acknowledging the quality of a good one.

<O:pI find this site to be the best I have experienced. Most comments are well presented to the shooter. While sometimes it hurts, the intent of the critiques have always been fair and non threatening, that is awesome in this type of environment. I just feel we need to explore, as others have noted, the full range of nature photography and include the habitat comments in the same light. We don't need separate boards for that, just open minds and willing comments.

<O:pThanks to those who have offered this site, I have learned a lot as a long time shooter but very new to digital. Its fun and entertaining.<O:p

[Fabs Forns]

Thank you, Mark, that's our goal :)