Left My Chain Saw in the Car

Let me preface this by saying that I have learned a lot in my 18 months here on BPN. I've learned a great deal on the Macro & Flora Forum and I've learned a lot on Avian Forum. While I can still improve in all areas, there is one thing that drives me crazy and that is busy backgrounds. I look up and down the posts and I see these stellar, clean backgrounds. I know some of it has got to be the result of setting up artificial shooting areas - perches, food, blinds, etc. And some of it is post-processing out distracting branches and such. And I guess some of you just live in very clean environments. But it just doesn't seem to happen out in nature, at least not here in Pennsylvania.

I have learned to walk away from many opportunities because the light isn't right or the background isn't right or for whatever the reason. But still what I am left with so often is still a lot of clutter.

Here is an example. My friend the GBH was perched up in a tree last night. It was impossible to get a decent shot, so I walked away. This morning, he was perched in another tree - closer, lower in the tree, in a nice vee made by two branches. I was across the stream from him. In order to shoot, I had to find an opening in a couple of brushy trees on my side that I could shoot through. Through that opening, I could see him clearly. Move to left and branches on his side were in the way. Likewise if I moved to the right. So I shot through the only hole that would work. But that left me with the background tree right behind the GBH. And without the chain saw, I couldn't go over there and cut down the tree to come up with an acceptable background. So what's the alternative? Walk away again? Don't post? Move to Florida where there seems to be trained birds and wide open spaces? Yes, I'm frustrated and just needed to vent.

By the way, here's one the images from this morning. See what I mean.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...Area_050-E.jpg

I go through the same thing here in Maine Ed! Sometimes I just go out for a walk with my camera, or a ride in my kayak, so it seems. :)

We up here in the North East have to be very choosy, much more so than the lower southern states. For instance; this is what I often come across in a local pond near my home in the deep woods of Maine.

Hi Ed,

Good topic. Let's not forget there are SEVERAL PRO's outside BPN that have a successful carrier photographing wildlife in a not so perfect environment. Take a look at Art Wolfe's website (http://www.artwolfe.com/) a lot of his wildlife images and subjects are "centered" in the frame with a "lot" of natural and real environment/habitat. However, the images are priceless IMO and represent true nature.

There is nothing wrong with perfection either and I guess that's what we try to achieve.

Good topic, let's see what others have in mind!!

Hi Ed

You bring in some good points. Here in South Florida we don't always have the bg you are talking about but I'm sure we do have more.

One solution is incorporating the bg and make it looks pleasing which btw I find harder to do. Another to close in and isolate the bird or part of the bird. One solution which I would will not agree is taking out the entire bg or "very heavy" cloning. You get what you get !!

I'm sure there are other photo opportunities which you can exploit. btw on the lower bird you did a nice job of placing in the best location without merging branches coming out of the head etc From your position you made the best possible image.

Ed,

Being originally from central PA I know exactly what your talking about, those amazing woodlands with all their diversity make for some hard and busy backgrounds. I'm now out in Colorado and some of our meadows and other landscapes offer very clean backgrounds ops but I still have to work hard to position everything for those great pics.

Personally I think it all comes down to mindset, I take pictures for different purposes. As a wildlife/nature educator I'm looking to capture great behaviors, or rare/odd species. Those documentation images may never make the grade on the forums but they clearly and beautifully communicate my messages very well during my presentations.

Other times I see a moment and I want to take a wall hanger image. That is when I strive to meet and exceed the standards of these forums and my own tastes. I honestly have maybe five or six pictures in my entire collection that I truly feel I could not improve. Much like dog or horse shows, that perfect animal does not exist, and I see critiques along those same lines for achieving that ideal of perfection in photography, which does not really exist. Post any picture and someone will have something to critique. Photography is really about how humans emotionally relate and communicate with images, so no matter how perfect some folks will never connect.

That however is the aspect that makes photography enjoyable to me. For those wallhanger shots its a constant challenge of the nearly unattainable. When all the stars align and you get thee shot, its special and heart pounding moment which is memorable. Its the image and the memory that keeps me going, hiking for miles with a heavy camera on my shoulder, passing by shots or repositioning, often waiting for subjects to do something just right.

So to end my rant what I tell all my clients during workshops is keep shotting learn from every moment when things aren't just right and be ready for when the stars do align. In the end its not about only taking shots of a lifetime, its trying to have a lifetime of shots and memories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Vatza

But it just doesn't seem to happen out in nature, at least not here in Pennsylvania.

---

Not where I am either. In fact, I think not in many, many other places :)

Quote:

---

I have learned to walk away from many opportunities because the light isn't right or the background isn't right or for whatever the reason. But still what I am left with so often is still a lot of clutter. [snip]

So what's the alternative? Walk away again?

---

I'm afraid so.

Quote:

---

Don't post?

---

Why not? But I guess you know what kind of comments you'd get anyhow :)

Quote:

---

Move to Florida where there seems to be trained birds and wide open spaces?

---

Some did do that, I guess.


I think you should not believe that there is only one kind of photograph and only one way to shoot photograph (especially if you want to develop your own style). If you can do that, then you may not be that frustrated (but also see my reply to your "Don't post?" up there :D:D ).

Ed,

Very interesting discussion. I can totally relate to this problem! My attempts at bird photography are almost always plagued by busy backgrounds and often busy foregrounds as well. It's very frustrating, but I remind myself that it is possible to get good results if you persevere and keep trying. And when I do get a good bird photo, I feel a big sense of accomplishment!

This is one of my favorite Spoonbill images.

Not exactly a pure color background. However, this image does show the bird's natural habitat.
Two hours later when the tide was lower and I would have walked away. The lower tide exposed all kinds of elements I did not want in my image like trash, sticks and green clumps of macro algae.

IMO a photographer must decide what we wants to create. A portrait or an environmental / habitat image.

While birds are much more approachable in Florida, I still see images that come from here with less than "clean" backgrounds.

IMO the clone tool has replaced the geometry of nature photography.

I know it is not always possible, but it is amazing what subject to background distance, subject to image plane distance, aperture size, focal length and moving up/down and around can do for a background.


Maxis said " Let's not forget there are SEVERAL PRO's outside BPN that have a successful carrier photographing wildlife in a not so perfect environment. "

I say "Let's also not forget there are SEVERAL PRO's inside BPN that have a successful carrier photographing wildlife in a not so perfect environment. "

James

Ed,

It's not hard to understand your frustration. I usually don't even try if the BG would require major PS work. Here is an image that is most likely not to everybody's liking but in this case I don't mind the busy perch.

http://www.pbase.com/axelhi/image/10...7/original.jpg

Some sticks even add interest :)

I think it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer some habitat in the background and feel clean backgrounds can sometimes be a bit sterile.

Hey everybody,

I appreciate hearing from all of you. I knew I was alone but sometimes, looking at the posted images, I felt like I was. Alone. The only one with littered background issues.

And yes, once in a while you do hit the proverbial home run. Everything falls into place. But it just doesn't happen often enough in these parts. And some days, I just get tired of talking my camera for a walk.

I know the bias on this board is toward the clean backgrounds and wonderful portrait shots and that shouldn't stop. But maybe we could include some more images with more of the environment included (as Fabs has done today). Sticks can be cool too.

And that said, I would like to hear a critique of the backgrounds beyond "its too busy." I'd like to see some feedback as to how to make environmental background betters. Apparently, many of us have these images tucked away and don't share them here because I rarely see them.

Just a thought.

Ed, I totally understand your frustration and I have learned not to hate busy BG's in some instances. Are they clean of trash and debris and other generally "yucky" stuff? Is the lighting pretty even-that seems to really make a huge difference for me. If the lighting is uneven or harsh it REALLY makes that busy BG so much worse. Also, can you make the most prominent part of the busy BG become part of the geometrical equation of the image? If the bird is on the lower left can you get the big ugly tree to balance out on the upper right? You get my drift...

I think James is right, too, in that the focal distance and other factors make a huge difference. Some will soften the busy BG and some will make it way worse.

I battle this all the time here in the Midwest. My parks are so strewn with litter it is a virtual impossibility to get a clean image unless the bird is up high and, even then, I have plastic bags and old kites to contend with. It's so maddening I can hardly stand to go to my favorite haunts any more. People who leave trash in a public park or lake need to be strung up by their heels... Okay, I'm getting off topic.

In other words, find the happy medium of what you can live with and what you can't - and yes, I think stronger, more detailed critiques are in order for those busy BG's. What would make them better? We won't know if we aren't taught. I totally agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Vatza

I know the bias on this board is toward the clean backgrounds

---

Not just here, I'd say. May not be biased but seems to be preferred by many.

Quote:

---

And that said, I would like to hear a critique of the backgrounds beyond "its too busy." I'd like to see some feedback as to how to make environmental background betters.

---

Good check out some paintings.

HI ED...I hear ya...I live even further north than you...I suppose for me its gotten down to not posting images (unless I feel the background, lighting, sharpeness is suitable, which isn't often, even though it may be a decent photo of the bird)....I am sometimes just happy to have a bird to photograph, I don't even pay attention to the background...which I suppose, I should be.

Before BPN came on the scene, the only place you could go to get some critiquing of photos was POTN or Nikonians, and it was always "great shot", "beautiful photo"..."excellent work" no matter how crappy the photo was, most of the critiquing in BPN for me at least has been very helpful and in some instances makes me think before, I press the button.
People close to me, who've seen the progression of my photos have noticed a great improvement in the last year...

But I never walk away from a shot....just because of background.....beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it may not sell many magazine covers or conform.....but it still looks great in my (your) album....and will be a wonderfull memory for years to come...
Paul Lagasi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Lagasi

But I never walk away from a shot....just because of background.....beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it may not sell many magazine covers or conform.....but it still looks great in my (your) album....and will be a wonderfull memory for years to come...

---

Well said.

I'm just flipping through the March/April 2009 issue of the Wild Bird magazine. Many of the photos there many would find the background too busy or with quite a few distracting elements. The cover shot though has a "clean" background. But for cover shot I think you need room for the magazine title and other stuff printed on top of your photo.

BTW, Artie has an article called "Bigger is not Always Better" in that issue.

Yup! We've all been there more than we like. However, I think that the BG does sometimes add to the realism of an image. Sometimes we get to copy traditional styles with smooth clean BGs and then we are not creating new art, but in fact reproducing that which has gone before. So, I think it depends on the subject and BG presented.

Ed, you are definitely not alone with this frustration. I, too, often envy photographers who seem to have easier access to their subjects, but in the end it is what we do with the opportunities presented to us that matters. I'm sure we've all seen less than perfect images come from rookeries and observation platforms.

Living in southern California, I have to go hunt down my subjects, and they are more often than not surrounded by brush and twigs, but that's where they live so I try to find an exposed perch somewhere and just wait for a bird to land on it. For every image I submit for critique, I have hundreds that I won't submit because I already know what the critique will be. That certainly doesn't prevent me from enjoying the fresh air and sunshine while I plug away at getting the "great ones". It is also interesting (and heartening) to note that you can find lots of images in guidebooks (like the Audubon Society books) that feature busy backgrounds, no feet, sub-optimal HA, and so on. Those images worked fine for publication because they show good field marks, colors, etc.

Here is one of mine that has lots of things "wrong". Would I submit this one? No. Do I consider it a failure? No! :cool:

Interesting thread! Some very interesting points brought up and I'm going to add my 2 cents in. Let's address the first issue with Ed......you see....if I posted every day in AWF......what you would see is 365 images....all carefully controlled and selected. I won't send any of those images to BBC...well maybe 1 or2...but still.... I present for BPN just a fraction of the 10,000+ images I take a year......and trust me....not all are clean.....but I will hit the delete button for those that I find the bG distracting and not complimentary. You see a very carefully controlled submission.

I look at Axel's, Fab's and James post above......and find the lighting and BG complimentary......all work together.....I don't consider them busy at all! I can show you plenty of images from a while back.......that had less than nice BG's....but it was the best I had at the time.......once I improve on it......it goes in the discard pile! I have 1000's of landscape images.....that are technically sound......but because the light was nothing special......they found the trash bin. I have become much more critical over the years of my own work! There are many outlets for our images......all with different standard of acceptance.....the key is realizing what our target audience is....whether it's publisher or stock or other.......I tailor my images to that! I'm sure Art Wolfe has throw aways.....as do all other pros......he carefully tailors his images to the audience also!
I look back at images I took 10+ years ago....and think....what was I thinking....and realize.....that was the best I could do at the time! I continue to grow as a photographer every day......and things that appeal to me today....may not tomorrow.....and it may not even work for publications or stock either in the future....but I always satisfy myself first! If your livelyhood depends on it......you may think otherwise!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Vatza

. . . So what's the alternative? Walk away again? . . .

---

Nothing wrong with that. On a foreign trip recently, I expected the best opportunity of the day to be a blind overlooking a Royal Albatross colony (we were still on route to the best destinations). But at the blind, it turned out the closest albatrosses were far away and the whole place was fronted by non-opening dark glass (so as not to "disturb" the birds--though a researcher walked through the colony with no disturbance whatever) that sucked up about five stops of light. What to do? After five minutes I was back outside, a hundred yards down the hill, photographing beautiful gulls bathing and drinking in a mud puddle. Why make an image you know in advance you won't like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Beittel

Why make an image you know in advance you won't like?

---

Only if deleting practice is needed...:D

Well, I could write a book or two of comments here but I will strive to be brief here.

#1: Selling bad images is much easier than creating good images. Want proof? Just look in any magazine. Selling images is much more about how hard you work than about your style or the artistic quality of your images.

#2: My work at times has been criticized for being "too clean, too graphic, too bird on a stick." My response has always been "when the background/habitat is beautiful, I will go out of my way to include it. When the bckground is busy, cluttered, annoying, I will do out of my way to minimize its impact on the image (or walk away)." I have even been blamed for popularizing the clean o-o-f BKGR style. I gladly accept that blame. I really do not care what type of images you like to create and I have never tried to get folks to emulate my style. I just make images and show them off. Most folks like them and my style so they try to emulate them. It is best for each of us to try a variety of styles and then develop a unique one.

On a side note, Cliff Beittel who rarely (if ever?) posts images here but comments in the various discussion forum is a former student and still a good friend. He has very successfully emulated my style and regularly takes food off of my table (by selling great images to various magazines and book projects).

#3: Sticks can be a nice background if they are pleasingly arranged and juxtaposed and if the light is sweet. A pleasing stick BKGR in soft light can be beautiful while the exact same image in harsh light can be butt-ugly.

4: Yes, there are lots of tame birds in Florida but there are lots of cluttered, ugly backgrounds; ever been to Shark Valley????

5: I have photographed all over the county and the world. The geography excuse is just that, an excuse. Look at Axel, he lived by the coast and made great images of ducks for one, easy to get clean BKGRs on them. But then he moved to Who-Knows-Where in the middle of Pennsylvania. Doesn't know the birds or the area. Goes out in the dead of winter and makes a series of great images of Snow Buntings, Horned Larks, longpurs, and the rest, all featuring lovely BKGRs and all presumably made in a deserted farm field. I live in NYC for the first nine years of my bird photography. I for one am not buying the geography excuse.

6- Those who wish to create images of birds in God-awful light with the afore-mentioned butt-ugly BKGRs of tangled sticks with branches coming out of the bird's head and then defend their images by saying, "It's what was; it shows the habitat," need simply to realize that making bad images is a choice.

Up here in New England there aren't a whole lot of places (actually none that I know of) to get the kind of clean images I'd like to get of great blue herons nesting...plus they nest about 75 feet up in the air. I'm already scr*wed by the angle. Should I / we simply give up on these subjects?

Same with great egrets....while they roost in large numbers in specific places in trees, it's the same sort of situation...typically dead standing trees without lovely or open backgrounds.

Certainly I we / whomever could concentrate on only those species which frequent uncluttered areas or areas with nice backgrounds

In your opinion, does this mean that photographers who live in areas such as my neck of the woods should actually forego a species based upon the habitat it frequents? Only capture flight images and pretty salt marsh images and forget about one of the most important aspects of the creatures existence?

I'm not trying to be argumentative.....just honest.

Perhaps I should have simply not responded :)

I hear you Jim! Boy does it ring loud and clear.

The image I posted above is not intended for sale, although several have bought it and quite a few, hundreds, use it and a lot of my other images I do not intend to sell, for screen savers. But that image does represent what you see here in Maine of Blue Herons. If they are not hidden by sticks or about 1/4 mile in the salt marsh in Scarborough Marsh, you don't get an image. Now that isn't to say you can't under any circumstances get a super clean image or flight shots. you can, but it is a lot harder here than in those areas of lets say Florida's Anhinga Trail or Alligator farm and Gatorland. And I know those areas have difficult spots in them too.

But lets be fair; in the wild woods of the North East, you work a lot harder for your bread and butter than most realize. Case closed on that point. I know, I have lived here in Maine for 21 years and longer in Florida. That statement is not a whiners way out either, just the facts as is. And every day we lose habitat up here to posted landowners, development, pollution etc. I am also quite certain we lose pristine land in Florida as well for the very same reasons. I should know, I go down every year and every year more land is lost for our use.

I appreciate Ed's posting this thread. Your not alone Ed. My goal is to make pleasing images for others to hang up and enjoy, create and foster awareness of the creation around us. Hopefully my efforts will make a difference. And along the way maybe my skills will grow as well.

I have seen this same general topic covered from many different angles on many different forums and I think
what gets lost in the shuffle and causes some disconnects is that different bird photographers have different
goals with their images.
By its very nature, bird photography has a natural history/biology component, a technical
component, and an artistic component. Most photographers here strive to perfect the technical component and
most agree it is an important aspect of what we do. However, many of us differ in the weight we put on the
natural history versus the artistic aspect of what we do. Both of these aspects are important but they often
conflict. I think most would agree that the ideal situation is where all of these components come together in a
technically perfect, visually pleasing image of an interesting and dramatic piece of natural history combined with
enough natural environment to give a sense of place. I think most would also agree that, unfortunately, this does
not happen very often.

Critiques tend to be an individual's expression of how well a given image meets that individual's view of an ideal
image. What typically goes unstated is a description of that ideal. I think many of the critiques that are done
here tend to be from an artistic viewpoint and so there sometimes seems to be a disconnect to those who put
an equal or greater emphasis on the natural history component. And, of course, there's the age old issue of each
individual's view of what constitutes art ...

So, as to the questions that have been raised regarding what one is to do in situations where birds are found in
areas with cluttered backgrounds or at bad angles? The answer depends on the goals of the individual
photographer. If your main objective is to create aesthetically pleasing images that exploit the natural beauty
of birds as the main subject, you would probably move on. However, if you also have an interest in documenting
the biology and behavior of various species in various environments, then this may be an ideal situation for you.
There is no one answer to the question of what one "should" do in this type of situation.
It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Each of us have different interests and we each put varying degrees of emphasis on the artistic versus the
natural history component of what we do. But, I think the fact that many of the critiques done here seem to
emphasize the artistic aspects should not come as a surprise on a site where one of the founders has a business
called "Birds as Art" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fenton

Up here in New England there aren't a whole lot of places (actually none that I know of) to get the kind of clean images I'd like to get of great blue herons nesting...plus they nest about 75 feet up in the air. I'm already scr*wed by the angle. Should I / we simply give up on these subjects? . . . does this mean that photographers who live in areas such as my neck of the woods should actually forego a species based upon the habitat it frequents? Only capture flight images and pretty salt marsh images and forget about one of the most important aspects of the creatures existence? . . .

---

Jim,

It's your choice, of course. Personally, I don't want shots I don't like, and either adjust accordingly to the situation or walk away. You say "only capture flight images, only capture habitat images"? What's wrong with either? There are a couple of heron rookeries here in central PA. At the one I shoot most, the nests are 30 to 70 feet up in Norway Spruces. I've never made a nest shot, as you can barely make out the nests. But when the nest location, sun, and wind are in alignment, I can have a bird repeatedly flying almost directly overhead with nesting material. One of my favorites images of all time was made just that way--a closeup of the bird's head and wings are on the left side of the frame, with a green leafy branch sticking way out in front and ending just short of the right edge. The sky was mostly overcast, but normal processing to make the bird look good turned the sky pale blue. Another local place I shoot has congregations of Snow Geese (as many as Bosque) and Tundra Swans. There the birds really are distant. You might get a close flyover occasionally, though not every trip. But shots of pairs and larger groups, distant shots of multiple birds against winter woods and ice, and huge flocks swirling in kaleidoscopic patterns at sunset are also some of my favorite images ever. Go to Florida, of course, but also make the best of what you have locally.

Good advise by Cliff. And many excellent points raised by Mike. When I critique, I do so from from all three perspectives: artistic, technical, and natural history(though surely with the first as my major concern. A fourth possibility would be to judge images as to their commercial value....