Is static really boring?

Hi Folks,

Many times I (and also some of my friends) receive a comment (especially from Europe ) that static birds in a frame is boring and there nothing is to be excited about. I have different view on it as I think myself a documentary bird photographer rather than an action shooter. It might be due to the lack of nice lens for BIF images. In any series of a good action there are some static frames. Should I throw them away? I don't see sense of it.

What does action means actually? A feeding bird? A walking bird? A singing bird?

Looking forward to your comment on it.

Cheers, Szimi

How do you like your driver license, passport photo?

Should I laugh on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyorgy Szimuly

Hi Folks,
In any series of a good action there are some static frames. Should I throw them away? I don't see sense of it.

---

That depends on who you are trying to please!

Even a "static" subject (that is, one that is not moving) can have a dynamic pose. It is "implied" action, a hint that something is about to happen. A turn of the bird's head for instance, or an expression, can be very compelling in an otherwise stationary bird. The classic "looking back over the shoulder" is an example of a dynamic pose. You could also try composing in a more dynamic way, avoiding the center of the frame, for instance.

Then see what comments you get.

Alternatively you could just ignore the comments........

Marie

I think the european/scandinavian styles are much different to the american style! In Scandinavia we almost never use flash in bird photography! More natural light and less bird close up photography! More habitat shots with the bird small in the frame! It is a matter of taste i think! In Sweden where i am from it is very difficult to get close to the birds! We always have to work with blinds and cammo!
But if we could get closer to the birds mer easely i think our pictures would be more like the american! I know that many Swedes don´t like flash look and they are against that people clone out stuff in the image! But i think we are little behind americans in that part!

/Magnus

Each style has its merits and boring or not is a personal opinion. Action shots are going to be appreciated more because they are more dramatic....no doubt about that. A cheetah leaping at a gazelle is going to get more 'WOW's than a cheetah sitting on a mound. Same with a bald eagle catching fish with his talons.

But static shots can also be dramatic and great even when they are not dynamic. There is a perception out there that getting static shots is easy. Probably that is why there is criticsim about the 'bird on a stick' style. Nothing can be farther from truth though. There is nothing easy about crawling in mug trying to get close to a sandpiper with a big lens. On the contrary, because of digital, getting action shots has become easier( or cheaper if you want to look at it that way) than in the film days.

Personally, I am a fan of everything...static bird-on-a-stick, clean BG, habitat BG, action, silhouettes, groups, birdscapes....everything.

my 2 cents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnus Thornberg

I think the european/scandinavian styles are much different to the american style! In Scandinavia we almost never use flash in bird photography! More natural light and less bird close up photography! More habitat shots with the bird small in the frame! It is a matter of taste i think! In Sweden where i am from it is very difficult to get close to the birds! We always have to work with blinds and cammo!
But if we could get closer to the birds mer easely i think our pictures would be more like the american! I know that many Swedes don´t like flash look and they are against that people clone out stuff in the image! But i think we are little behind americans in that part!

/Magnus

---

Hey Magnus: You just described my shooting style and I was born and raised in middle America! I don't even own a flash. You just never know........

Not boring at all for me ,
No doubt I love actions shots, but static bird image are pleasant enough. Such images can show beauty of the bird , plumage details and are very helpful who wants to know more about bird ,

Just my 2 cents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaustubh Deshpande

Personally, I am a fan of everything...static bird-on-a-stick, clean BG, habitat BG, action, silhouettes, groups, birdscapes....everything.

---

Kaustubh,
My views exactly.

I would also say that in my opinion, there are boring BIF shots too. Lighting,composition and subject are much more important than if the subject is static or in action.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rnclark

Lighting,composition and subject are much more important than if the subject is static or in action.

---

Some would even suggest lighting could be the most important among them. Just check out some inner landscape photos and one should be able to conclude: it's not about if the subject is moving or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Some would even suggest lighting could be the most important among them. Just check out some inner landscape photos and one should be able to conclude: it's not about if the subject is moving or not.

---

I am one of those people. That is why I listed lighting first. But there are always exceptions. I have been developing an article on lighting, which seems particularly misunderstood by photographers (and even printed in photography books).
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ition.subject/

Roger

felt like chiming in some more. One big appeal of photography is seeing something the eye cannot. That is why we like things like good bokeh. And that is why action shots get appreciated more. It is something the eye is not able to see frozen...a splash of water, diving bird frozen in air, bear catching salmon jumping upstream. With static photos that is not the case as one can see them that way through binocs. Hence, they must be getting branded as boring by some.

Gyuri

I don't personally think that static is boring. Not to me. Agree with Magnus. I feel that most folks here get conditioned into shooting the "American" way. I am certain that there's more to bird photography than "domesticated" egrets, birds on sticks and cloning - not that those are not exciting but after a while they all start looking alike. A bit like McDonald's franchises. :)

I think that dynamic images are generally viewed more favorably than static images where wildlife is concerned. That's apparent from the results of most photo contests, and even from the entries in the Image of the Week and Image of the Year forums on BPN. But that's not to say that a static wildlife image cannot be interesting and special.

Static images that capture the behavior of wildlife, for example, are often striking. Examples would be the green "eye shadow" and erect plumage of the mating great egret, the breeding plumage of the great blue heron, or a feather or a twig in the beak of a bird poised near its nest.

And of course technical excellence will increase the interest in any image, whether static or dynamic.

Norm

"Static" images can look very nice....as a matter of fact a passport photo can be good too, Desmond.:-) Birds are beautiful creatures and with the beautiful light and great BG and all the other components they make a great subject without any special "action". Seeing a few of your images Szimi, I don't think there is many in the unseen ones you'd have to throw away.

I confess-I love action pics or a pic where a bird/animal is doing something. With that said I shoot a lot of portraits of birds, but I never thought of using the word "static".

Thanks for your feedback. I have a wider view now.

Szimi