Partially based on input from my readers I’ve been thinking more about styles in my bird photography.
Everything else being equal, BIH (bird in habitat) images are my preference but they’re not easy to pull off because other elements in the image so often obstruct or compete with the bird. At the other extreme are birds in flight (BIF) against a plain background (such as blue sky) which can almost seem sterile. To my eye each of these two images show both the potential advantages and disadvantages of each style.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 500, Canon 7D, 500 f/4, several twig tips poking into frame edge removed, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed this Rough-legged Hawk this past Christmas Eve Day at Farmington Bay. I like the mottled colors provided by the ice and open water in the background and I think the side-light on the hawk works well. And even though the bird is well isolated from the bush I’m less enthused by the jumbled branches in front of the hawk, especially because I didn’t have enough depth of field to get them all sharp.
1/2500, f/6.3, ISO 500, Canon 7D, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in
This image is at the other extreme – another Rough-legged Hawk but this time in flight against an uninteresting background. The wing position isn’t very dramatic but for my tastes the excellent eye contact and the vole in the talons help to make up for both shortcomings.
Nature photography is nearly always a trade-off unless you’re willing to “photo shop” your images to within an inch of their life by adding and removing background and foreground elements, cloning out imperfections and drastically altering contrast and colors in subject and setting. But to me such images become nothing more than demonstrations of processing skill and are less than honest if the manipulations haven’t been disclosed, as is very often the case. And at some point they cease to be nature photography.
Yes, I’m rambling this morning but I just went with the flow to see where it would take me.
Ron
Ron, thanks for letting us in on your “ramblings”. As always, it generates interesting discussion.
The images in this post are simply wonderful to me. Superb photographs technically and great pictures of a gorgeous raptor. Toss in a healthy dose of nature photographer ethics and the result is a near-perfect mix of enjoyment for those of us less-proficient who resort to living vicariously through your art.
I am slowly arriving at the conclusion that I’m really more of a birder than a photographer. The miracle of digital photography has allowed me take an occasional passable image but, so far, I’m not willing to go through the processing required to turn them into really good pictures. I only use Adobe Lightroom for processing and typically only perform minor adjustments to make a shot look better to my untrained eye. I think I’ll continue in this mode for awhile and hopefully not offend too many with my “soft” focus, poor composition and photos taken at other than the “golden hours”.
Again, “for ME”, it’s all about what’s natural. Your photographs have always been exactly that! The extra care you take in performing your craft just happens to elevate your images into the world of fine art as well. It’s okay – I’ll still try to enjoy it all!
(See, you’re not the only one who can ramble!) 🙂
I think that both shots are extremely well done!!
Charlotte
I love these! I really love the first one because it shows the “sweetness of face” (because of the eye-to-bill size ) that I associate with the Rough-leggeds. For me, the “out-of-focus branches” are analogous to areas that are more lightly sketched in a drawing or only lightly indicated in painting–a common mechanism used by wildlife artists to direct the viewer’s focus to the subject rather than the surrounding area. I don’t see them as a distraction at all.
I do appreciate the in-depth analysis of your images that you share with us. It helps me to understand your process–an intimate insight into the mind of an artist who has mastered his medium. It shows me additional ways to look at my own work.
I love your Rough-legged hawk in flight. Because of the sharpness and intensity of the eye, you almost miss the vole at first. Then when you notice it, it’s a nice surprise.
I’m one who loves the habitat photos. If I didn’t know it was you, I would have thought the second one was a beautiful painting.
I’m not a bird photographer by any means, although I do love taking their pictures when I get a chance. I have captured seagulls against a bright blue sky, but they definitely did not look like paintings. lol
You make good points about cloning – Sometimes I will clone out part of a branch here or there if it obstructs the view of the body or head but really,are birds always out in the open with nothing in the way and totally neat when they are eating or do they have bits of seed on their bills..when is enough, enough and when does it get totally fake.
Where to draw the cloning line can be a difficult and very much an individual call, Jane. I almost wish the cloning tool had never been developed…
Hello,these are one of the most beautiful hawks for me.. The branches I would say are habitat for the hawk and it’s prey..I enjoy seeing images like these… I read where Dick Harlow is from Vermont,well I am too. Born and raised in South Shaftsbury.. I moved to Ny,a couple year ago,but the tug of the Green Mountains are calling my name… peace gary
Thanks very much, Gary.
Picky, picky, picky. I hope that while you are indulging in a little self-flagellation about your image quality you remember to keep the other hand free to pat yourself on the back. If push comes to shove I think I prefer your ‘habitat’ shots because it broadens my understanding, but I love them all.
Stunning images, and oh the expression on that poor vole!
I like to think of it as ” objective analysis” rather than being overly picky, Elephant’s Child but perhaps you’re right…
I have a friend who only shoots manual focus and slide film, he says digital and autofcus are “cheating”, so the line is drawn by the individual. I also know someone who will not stop even once on the roadside in fear of bumping a bird off a pole, so each person has their ethical boundary as well. Personally, if a dust spot is in a photo I am submitting for sale, I clone it out every time, or if I can make a composite to compare 2 birds side-by-side for an ID article, I’m happy to.
I’m not sure what you are referring to, what needs to be photoshopped in the second image especially? Or first?
99.9%….no make that 100% of the photographers out there would love to be out every day photographing birds and getting images like these. Ron, are you fishing for compliments on how ethical you are or how wonderful your photography is, because I’ll compliment both!
No, Jerry – not fishing for compliments, in either arena. Just stating my stance on both. Others have differing opinions.
I don’t think anything “needs to be photoshopped” in either image but many would do so – things like cloning out major parts of the branches in the first image (I’ve often seen even more drastic cloning jobs than that) or selectively changing the color/brightness in the background in the second.
I wouldn’t touch a thing Ron…they look naturally great! Are you unsatisfied with the second image’s background? I love it!
Thanks, Jerry. The background is natural and I like it for that reason but I do find mostly featureless skies as background rather uninteresting after a while. Personally, I prefer out of focus habitat back there…
I agree about the degree of art in nature photography. I also love the elements of surprise or unexpected drama in your shots. The little imperfections are what I love to see, they are what I think of as reality in art and your photography, making it so easy to relate to and understand. These are wonderful shots.
“The little imperfections are what I love to see”.
A very interesting perspective, Tana. I think you make a valid point that I may have underappreciated in the past.
I’m one that loves your shots REGARDLESS!! However, I have to admit I really enjoy your habitat shots, or with prey shots, probably they are my preferred ones. I truly enjoy the fact that you do NOT usually change anything in your pictures. It makes me feel that it is even possible to get one or two myself.
Going on a citizen Snowy Owl Blitz with my camera this Sunday! Snowy Owls have erupted here in Vermont in record numbers and we are doing a blitz for our county so as to get some accurate numbers.
Dick, If I change anything significant I’ll disclose (other than removing dust spots or something like that) but it will always be minor if I do it.
I’m jealous of your snowy’s – we had one show up last winter but I (barely) missed it. None have been reported this year. Good luck tomorrow!