Does Adding Surroundings Along with Bird Image Itself Add or Detract from this Image? D. K. Prathap, bird photographer from India, recommends adding some of the background to bird...

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

D. K. Prathap, bird photographer from India, recommends adding some of the background to bird images to aid in telling a more complete story. In this particular image, there are leaves in the back ground; a twig in the foreground and a suet cage underneath the bird. My own personal artistic tastes like the three dimensional effect the surroundings give to the image. Since I don't have a client yet, that is all that matters. But because I want to improve in general, I would appreciate hearing from excellent photographers on UHH whether they like or dislike the surrounding items in this particular image. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

(Download)

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

Shooter41 wrote:

D. K. Prathap, bird photographer from India, recom... (show quote)

Not quite sure what you mean by adding background. Are you referring to background replacement ?

Rae Zimmerman Loc: Pine Island, FL

I feel that context helps a picture, so long as it is natural. Showing details that reflect the (unnatural) hand of man, such as a feeder, nesting box, structure, is a distraction that decreases my appreciation of the photo. But showing details such as a nest, leaves, natural terrain increases my interest and makes the photo more attractive to my eye.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Background/foreground elements should be classified as bad only if they're distractions. If they add context they should be seen as positive, and if they don't add to the storytelling but aren't distracting they should be seen as neutral. We should be wary of over-sanitising images by removing everything except the essentials or by cropping too close. The only time context would be a bad thing is if it was completely overdone to the point where the subject/s or the storyline become hard to discern. Where foregrounds are concerned, just about anything is better than nothing, with the exception of attention-grabbing distractions.

John Maher Loc: Northern Virginia

Shooter41 wrote:

D. K. Prathap, bird photographer from India, recom... (show quote)

Great photo.

I really like the 3D effect with some (twig and some leaves) in-focus in addition to the subject. And I like the bokeh background.

Generally, I would try to keep bait like the feeder out of the picture -- maybe have a limb above the feeder. However, that may vary with the audience.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Context is fine, and helps tell a story, but human elements, especially feeders, are a definite negative.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The foreground twig is the most offending .... and, the under exposed bird.
.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Context is everything. A cut out bird on a white background has about the same appeal as a background cluttered with man made objects. If the bird is the object of the picture put something natural around and behind it.

druthven

I agree with keeping non-natural attractants out of the photo. I an going on a bird shoot in south Texas next week on a ranch where I know baits are reasonable and used but the last thing I want is a photo of a Crested Caracara next to a limb with a piece of raw meat tied to it. South Texas is a birder's paradise with species rarely seen elsewhere and some, including the Green Jay and a couple of orioles, seen nowhere else in the United States.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

Rae Zimmerman wrote:

I feel that context helps a picture, so long as it is natural. Showing details that reflect the (unnatural) hand of man, such as a feeder, nesting box, structure, is a distraction that decreases my appreciation of the photo. But showing details such as a nest, leaves, natural terrain increases my interest and makes the photo more attractive to my eye.

Dear Rae Zimmerman...When I first started photographing birds I mistakenly thought that just the bird and bokeh in the background was the goal. Later I began adding the branch and leaves under and behind the bird as my goal. Now I am at the point where I enjoy a 3D effect of natural items behind; beside and even in front of the bird if the bird's eye and body is in excellent focus. I don't really like to see the feeder in the image, but there are times that one of my shots is so excellent that I decide to include a tiny portion of the feeder rather than throw the image away. The enclosed portrait of a Grackle is an example of such an instance where the bird is still the subject despite the corner of the feeder showing.(I realize the majority of bird photographers on UHH will vehemently DISAGREE!) Won't be the first time I thought my wandering outside the box ain't always bad. I often wonder, who makes up these unbreakable rules anyway.

(Download)

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

John Maher wrote:

Great photo.

I really like the 3D effect with some (twig and some leaves) in-focus in addition to the subject. And I like the bokeh background.

Generally, I would try to keep bait like the feeder out of the picture -- maybe have a limb above the feeder. However, that may vary with the audience.

Dear John Maher...Your comments and suggestions are well taken. I find myself hesitant to throw images away that are in focus on the birds eye and properly exposed even if a tiny bit of a bird feeder is included. I am not against man made objects, but prefer they be left out if possible. Here is one image I love and cannot get rid of just because the corner of a feeder had to be included.

(Download)

Rae Zimmerman Loc: Pine Island, FL

Dear Shooter41,
I quite agree with you that sometimes the shot is too good to pass on, just because there is an artifact in the scene that is not natural. And sometimes an unnatural context may be the reason for the picture. (I have in mind a photo I took of a ring-necked dove who chose to nest on an outdoor light positioned 2 feet from my front door. The nest was very cozy, contrasted with the attentive dove, light fixture, and the red brick.) My point was meant to express my general personal preference on what I like to see in a photo. But rules ARE made to be broken, lol!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my humble opinion and I am not a frequent bird shooter the image should please the person making the photograph. I believe this is good rule also for general photography.
Aside from that, taking pictures of birds or animals create more interest in the viewer and tell the story when the surroundings show their natural habitat.

In the OP image I have nothing against it regarding the surroundings but I wish I could see better details in the birds which to my eyes appear to be underexposed. Regarding showing the human hand I have mixed feelings. Some of them are very good to my eyes while others to me lack interest.
The image posted by Shooter 41 is an interesting shot in my opinion in spite of showing part of the feeder. If the bird comes frequently to feed in that particular place we got the story. This particular image is very sharp and that catches the eye. I wish I could see branches behind the bird to make it to my eyes even more interesting.

These are only my opinions.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

I agree with Rae Zimmerman. I am not fond of "zoo shots." The background adds interest and does tell a little more of the story but i find that feeders, food spiked on a tree to attract birds, cages, etc. to be distracting.

boncrayon

I think environment enhaces the bird(s)