I know that's a provocative title, and a strange one for this nature photography web site. But it is a question that has been troubling me for the eight years I've been posting avian images on the web.
At the heart of my question is the popularity of Bird-on-a-stick (BOAS) style photos, and the comparative lack of popularity of Bird-in-habitat (BIH) shots.
My intention is not to change the world and make others shoot the way I do, but rather to get everyone to think a bit about their preferences and prejudices in photography, and consider other styles. I also hope that novices, especially, will think about what they really are hoping to accomplish with their photography, and why. Ultimately, I'd like to see more people looking at BIH posts, taking the time to actually see the content, and only then commenting about the good and the bad as they see the image.
To gauge the degree of this issue all anyone needs to do is look at the number of comments on BOAS photos and then try to find any BIH posts with the same degree of response. And it's not just the number of comments, but also the content of these comments. A smooth, clean, monochrome background will almost always be praised, while a natural background will seldom be praised. If there's any "stray" twigs or leaves intruding into an otherwise clean background there will likely be suggestions to clone out the "offensive" material from the frame. Other "helpful" suggestions might include applying Gaussian Blur to get an even more uniform look to the background, or even complete replacement of the "imperfect" original. These suggestions may be helpful to some photographers, but they are offered up indiscriminately on many posted images as if all photographers wanted to achieve the sterile look.
What's more, some photographers are so committed to the BOAS style that they take whatever steps are necessary to achieve this goal and make outdoor studios where they have maximum control over most of the content of their images. This includes hand selected perches, artificial backgrounds, and artificial lighting. All that's left to some degree of chance is the bird itself, and even that is controlled as much as possible by placement of feeders, use of bait or water drip, or even the playback of a taped call. Although the results of these efforts can look very nice, showing a high degree of technical skill and image quality that approaches perfection, the results are also often sterile and essentially interchangeable. In fact some photographers are so skilled at this that it matters little where they go to take photos; their results from Texas, or Arizona, or Michigan, or New Jersey, or Washington, or California, etc. differ only in the species shown on the hand selected perch. The background, the camera position, and even the catchlight occur with assembly line precision in many of these images.
An alternative to BOAS is BIH, in which the subject is shown in a natural setting of its own choice, going about its daily life uncontrolled by the photographer. Any naturalist knows that wildlife and environment are closely coupled; exploitation of a niche is a driving force of the natural selection behind our species diversity. Photographs that show this relationship, or at least hint at it, are so much more interesting that the boring sterility of BOAS photos, which at best show the pretty colors and feather texture in field guide splendor.
Is the esteem in which BOAS images are held because people think it is the ultimate demonstration of skill; that BOAS is somehow more difficult than BIH? I hope not, because I don't think that is true. BOAS is all about imposing control on Nature in advance of actually making the image, and the skill of BOAS is tied to exercising that control. With BIH photos such control doesn't apply. Instead, the skill comes from knowing the behavior and preferences of the subject, finding a way to incorporate habitat into the composition without allowing it to dominate the frame or appear simply as distracting random clutter, and capturing the subject in a natural setting and behaving naturally. And this means the subject is free to move about, in and out of the natural light and the vegetation. There is a lot more chance involved, and the photographer needs to be able to deal with that element of chance and live with the consequences of it in the final image. It takes patience, attention, and quick reflexes in order to react when all of those elements of chance come into alignment for a fleeting moment in front of the camera.
I see more people willing to shoot BIH these days than I did eight years ago, even including people who used to favor BOAS and have since "discovered" the BIH style and all its challenges. And yet some of the people who shoot BIH and do it well still seem embarrassed by it, feeling compelled to apologize for it by including the phrase "in habit" in the title of their posts. This may be an attempt to ward off all the "helpful" suggestions generated by the assumption that the photographer didn't really mean to take the image this way, but I think it is past time that BIH photographers stop feeling bad about this style and start asking the BOAS shooters what they have against nature in the first place.
Richard, in your comments you are preaching to the choir in my case, although I find a bit of the drama of overstatement in your title.
I've been a birder since 1973, and have been hard at work as a nature photographer for the last five years, part of that time spent as an avian photographer.
After about a year of capturing avian images and concentrating pretty hard on BOAS around my feeding station, I got bored with it. My backgrounds were natural, my perches natural, my setup careful, my images quite nice. But it couldn't hold me for long.
Now, when I see people who work very long and very hard to capture and post those types of images, even those it very sweet light with a great pose on a great perch with that lovely background bokeh, I am tempted to think of it as studio photography, and wonder when folks like that are going to graduate and move on to something . . . well . . . moving.
But then I remind myself that my way of seeing the world is only my way, not the right way. There's nothing wrong with anyone who dedicates perhaps even his/her whole live to BOAS photography. It's a way of self-expression, and is there a wrong way to do that?
I'll use wedding photography as a parallel.
While I like a certain number of posed wedding photographs, my strength and preference is in taking advantage of natural circumstances to capture spontaneous moments of emotion. I equate studio portraiture to BOAS, and I don't care for that. I like to catch my birds on the wing, if you will.
But different people prefer different expression. There's an excellent, truly gifted longtime wedding photographer in my area who does excellent and inspired studio photography to accompany the wedding work.
And then there's me. People who look at both our work gravitate toward one or another based on what they like and what they want.
Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" in our approach, it is merely an approach that reflects our values and preferences. It is the essence of our art.
BOAS vs BIH is no different. No right, no wrong, just individual expression.
Frankly, the more people who focus on BOAS the better, as far as I'm concerned. That leaves a more open market for people who want to express the bird's lifestyle along with the bird. And there's absolutely no doubt that BIH images sell much better as prints than BOAS images.
Well, OK, maybe I had a sneaking suspicion you did. And as I think I've told you, I respect your views on "setup" shots, baiting, etc.
I think there are 2 considerations. First...is money part of the issue? For bigger commercial sales, it's been my impression that BOAS photos are often more favored than those with more habitat. Think magazine usage...it's a lot easier to work with a BOAS photo for placement of text and the like than it is for a photo with a more complex background.
Second issue...the challenge? I don't know about other avian photographers, but I get a LOT of pleasure out of "bagging" a species for the first time. Maybe it's the same with BOAS...folks that focus on that style of shooting might view that as their personal challenge, to build a collection of BOAS photos.
How about "BOAP" or "BOBW" photos? That would be "Bird on a Post" or "Bird on Barbed Wire" shot. I know too that there are many times when you post out here that you're criticized for an "unnatural" perch. The question is...what the heck is "unnatural"? God knows in my part of the world, fence posts and barbed wire are the perch of choice for many species.
If that represents natural behavior, why should someone be "dinged" for posting a photo of a bird on a fence post? Don't remember who, but someone recently posted a beautiful G.H. Owl, sitting in a rectangular barn opening. I thought it was stunning, but there were still comments about the "unnatural" perch. I'm sure the Owl was quite comfortable where he was, and didn't think it at all "unnatural"!!
I've got a fairly firm view on this based on other genre's of art as well as photography. Not pointing fingers at anyone by any means, but maybe acknowledging human nature. Once a subject matter or genre gets really saturated with lots of work, afficianados start picking at the fine details, mostly in an effort to improve. But somewhere along the line the art can become pretty stylized, with variations from the "accepted" standard attracting lots of negative reactions. Frankly it all starts looking pretty much the same to me, headed towards boring, no matter the great technical skill involved in producing them.
Funny, but I was just thinking about this myself. Someone has posted a picture of a Peregrine in the UK section. It`s a close-up portrait, but the photographer has used a smallish aperture so the background is slightly in focus, giving a sense of the habitat in which the bird lives. It`s one of the things I found most interesting about the picture. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the first comment was from some unimaginative person telling the photographer he should have used a smaller aperture to render the background completely OOF - thus giving yet another boring studio-like shot without a hint of the wild. Half-a-dozen or so other commenters immediately chimed in saying exactly the same thing! This mania for BOAS images against a single-toned background has almost become analagous to Richard Dawkins` concept of a meme - an idea, sometimes irrational, spreading like a virus through a population; in this case, the `habitat is bad` idea in the bird photography community. I blame Arthur Morris! Even on this side of the atlantic (U.K.), many aspiring bird photographers seem to have read `The Art of Bird Photography`, and this success, plus the author`s presence on various photo critique forums, has spawned a plethora of immitators. (Nothing wrong with this style at all, but it`s not the only way!)
As a superficial dabbler in bird photography, I have found it far more difficult to obtain satisfying images of birds in their habitats - where the habitat is adding to the composition and not distracting - than to obtain BOAS-type shots.
Kudos to Mr. Ditch for the skill continually displayed in his chosen genre!
I love a good BOAS! I'm sure Artie is the one to blame for spreading the disease.
However, life would be really boring if that is the only "acceptable" style for bird images!
Great post Rich!!!! You've been preeching this for years! When I first started photographing birds I fell into the BOS trap. That was just they way it was done. Period! I now strive for habitat appropriate images. To me the habitat is just as important as the bird and adds tons of character to the image. BOS shots are just plain boring IMO but I will take them if the opportunity presents itself or there's no other alternative.
For me I think whatever works for you! When I see an image posted by a photographer I like his/her take on the situation! For me there is no right or wrong, just how you want to communicate to your viewer I suppose!
I’m happy shooting any bird that comes my way and try many different styles to keep the flame alive! I love enviro shots (BIH) as much as I love a bird on a stick (BOAS)! I just love being out watching birds and sometimes I take my camera too! I’m a naturalist first, photographer second! And I just adore NATURE!
I'm relatively new to avian photography - a year and a half into it. When I first started, shooting BOAS was my training wheels. I still shoot them occasionally, both for the practice and for the images. Right now I'm after a pair of particularly elusive Bullock's Orioles in my yard. And if I succeed I will probably post in Avian (with full disclosure that it is a setup). But I have now moved on to concentrate much more heavily on BIH. I appreciate both styles but prefer BIH.
Seems to me that at the core of Richard's post is a plea for due respect for a style (BIH) and that that respect should be reflected in the comments made in the Avian forum. I fully agree. For me to refrain from commenting positively on a skillfully taken BOAS image or to be critical of it because of it's bland background lacking habitat would be just like those who ignore BIH images or continually suggest cloning out appropriate and nondistracting habitat, IMO.
I couldn't agree more with Rich and Jeremy. As there is much benefit to thoughtful critiques of images, I personally have stopped posting images which are constantly critiqued according to the "Arthur Morris Style" of bird photography - ie "the bird's head should have been rotated another 2.5 degrees to the right" etc, etc. Only to be followed by critiques of the same nature. OK. But what about the artistic aspects? How many photos are discounted because of BOAS criteria that otherwise are a fine representation of the photographers intent?
I personally admire the artistry of Jim Brandenburg but I wonder how an anonymous posting of one of his photos would fare according to BOAS criteria. I don't think Brandenburg obsesses over a stray branch when he sees a moose standing in the morning light of a beautiful meadow.
As beginning art students learning the "art" of critique, one of my art professors constantly reminded us in our critiques "What was the artists intent?" "Has he/she met that goal?" "Why or why not?"
BOAS vs BIH? Both are respectable in their own right. But let's not judge one by the others standards.
Obviously there are many schools of thought on this topic. I tend to agree with the BIH group but that is just my personal preference. I am perhaps biased since I was studying biology and ecology in college before I became a photographer and I am certain that this affected my photography in many ways for years and probably still does. I like some inclusion of habitat because it reveals many things about the subject. Having said that when I first got into photography I was a graduate student in botany and my early flower photos were very sterile and purely documentary. It took me several years and some comments from my wife to realize that a photograph taken for documentary purposes can also be aesthetically pleasing. I still shoot those FOAS (flowers on a stick) sometimes but have migrated more and more to the habitat shots.
Posted by Mia McPherson on June 12, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Good morning,
I have loved observing nature since I was a small girl and when most other girls were playing with Barbie dolls and dressing up in their mother's clothes I was outside, sitting in trees and watching birds, watching tadpoles in small creeks or smelling the earthy aroma of the soil on a warm spring day. I'm fairly certain my mother must have had some really dirty clothes to wash every week from my nature adventures, probably as many as I was myself now from spending hours laying in mud to capture images that illustrate the bird's natural environment & behavior.
Fast forward 40 plus years, and while most (but not all) women would love to be at an air conditioned mall shopping, I would rather be laying in the wet sand taking images of shorebirds, or sweating up a storm hiking in the woods, or just sitting still and watching the amazing interaction of nature unfold before me. That isn't to say that the people who prefer to be at the mall are doing any thing wrong, it is their choice, but it is not my choice.
I am a bird in habitat (BIH) photographer and probably always will be as long as there is natural habitat left.
When I am shooting landscapes, I prefer to shoot images that do not have the hand of man in them, other wise to me they logically belong in Man & Nature.
The BOAS vs. BIH, or Natural vs. Staged debate doesn't stop with Avian photography Guy. It can extend to ESS too, especially with the intimate shots I have seen in that forum where some one has deliberately placed rocks, shells, leaves or other items where they wanted them for a better image. The image then is not completely natural but staged, and I have seen discussions in ESS about that topic too. And Fauna for people who bring in predators by throwing road kill into a location where they might bring in a bear or other animal. Or hidden/disguised salt licks for ungulates.
Is staging right or wrong? I can't tell you that for everyone, but it is wrong for me.
If I baited, had a set up, or brought birds in with bird calls I would feel ethically obligated to disclose that. If I moved some thing to make a better composition, I would feel equally obligated to disclose that.
I admit I am very passionate about nature and my preferences in my approach to nature photography, I learn so much from being in the field about the birds (or animals, geographical locations, etc.) I photograph that it fills me with a kind of peace I can not find in other avenues of my life. Even before I had a camera surgically attached to my hand (just kidding about that, but I almost always do have a camera in hand) I found profound joy in watching, observing and learning as much about the natural world as I could. Whether I get zero or 100 images that I think are wonderful from a particular sojourn into the bird's habitat, I am still happy to have spent time with them.
Is BOAS photography difficult? I'm sure setting every thing up is. I can not honestly say how difficult it is because I have not attempted it.
Is BIH photography difficult? It isn't always easy, I know that for certain. But I am happier within myself for taking that approach. My desire it not only to share my images, but on some level to share the experience of being there with the bird, or some quirky behavior they displayed. When I am shooting images, I am not only focusing on my technique but attempting to do that without stressing the bird.
I'll probably add more thoughts to this later as I digest the intricacies of the discussion, but I am very glad you brought this up Richard. I think this conversation is interesting.
Posted by Grace Blair on June 12, 2008 at 10:55 AM
This is a needed conversation, as some of us have found some amazing critiques of our BIH shots from the BOAS folks. Don't get me wrong, there are some stunning photos of nature's magnificent creatures sitting on a stick, but for me, I think a photo which tells a story is MUCH more interesting. A capture of a bird in its natural habitat is great and if you catch it doing something interesting so much the better, IMHO. It probably will not make the cover of a bird or nature magazine, but it surely gives ME a thrill. Same with fauna shots showing a behavior in their natural habitat. And the same can be said about the "correct" lighting of "point your shadow at the bird". That is a great way to get a flat photo IMHO. I want a moderate side light so that the feather detail and texture is better displayed, and EARLY morning or late evening is preferred, or even a moderate overcast gives lovely soft lighting.
Thanks for bringing this up, Richard, as it has been bothering me for quite some time. For documentary (and artistry too) purpose I feel that BIH and behavior is VERY important.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I'm with Guy. I'm sure their are birds all over in my photos, I'm usually just not sure where.
I understand where everyone is coming from, but I don't think this is a clear cut black and white issue. The "habitat" is of course everywhere. Many species benefit from human structures and byproducts just as many suffer. Of course the biggest concern for our species is whether our activities are impacting our own ability to survive.
When you look at outdoor photos used in magazines and advertisements, those with humans in the picture outplace those without by a large margin. The same can be said of photos with architecture or people at work or product photos. Landscapes without people can be found, but they just aren't as common. Particular formats benefit covers and ads, like smooth backgrounds and space for text.
But magazines and advertisement is not the only commercial avenue for photography and its is definitely not the only avenue for photography as art. With that in mind, if you can pursue that which makes you happy, make that your personal goal. If you rely on photography as your primary source of income, you might have to adapt your product to meet the market expectations.
Richard. I've been rolling my eyes at the BOAS type critiques for a while now. Since Art Morris has already been mentioned here I'll throw in my two cents. His photography was very unique in the beginning. But now, a few books and a couple of hundred workshops later, his "style" has become overdone and boring- because there are hordes of photographers trying to imitate him or taking his critiques and comments as the only "right way". I don't get why.
I've gotten some nice images of birds on a stick in my yard and I'll never turn down a chance at another, but they are hardly my most rewarding in terms of memorable moments in nature.
When it comes down to it, if BOS photos are someones preferred way of shooting, more power to them.
Great subject Richard and it's giving some of us a chance to vent too!
Posted by Cliff Beittel on June 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Why bother with the bird at all? Just photograph the habitat.
Why bother with habitat? Get rid of the stick! BOAS was a good start, but Susan Middleton and David Liittschwager have taken BOAS to its logical conclusion--BOWB and BOBB (bird on white background, bird on black background).
In defense of Artie Morris, he has done the world of bird photography a ton of good. Without his efforts, I suspect a large portion of today's interest in bird photography would not exist.
Just like a great food recipe, AM's techniques have helped the fledging bird photographer produce excellent photos very quickly. Just like a good food recipe, his "assembly line" techniques with step-by-step instruction ensure that even novices can get good results. It's no wonder he has established himself as The Authority on bird photography!
But even a good recipe, served too often, will start to wear thin. This is where it is up to the individual photographer to start tweaking the "Artie Morris bird photo recipe" and begin creating a style of their own. Certainly, Artie's "recipe" is a great place to start this process.
It is often recommended that someone new to photography study and learn the techniques of established pros. I could not agree more. It has also been suggested that once a photographer gains competency in those techniques, that they start modifying the technique to better fit their own tastes. This, IMO, is where a photographer truly starts to grow, establish their own style and enjoy the process even more.
I enjoy both the BIH photos and the more plentiful, usually well-executed BOAS photos. But I must admit that a really striking BIH will get a greater amount of my appreciation every time.
Dave Gill's comment above sums it up for me. Each image should stand on it's own merit. When I'm out there, I rarely think about where an image fits in. BOAS or BIH both appeal to me if well done. A well done BIH always has more appeal to me personally. But again the emphasis is on the well done part. Placing an image in a critique forum opens the door to everyone so every comment has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you're in the minority with a certain style preference, a thick skin becomes a necessity. Bias towards certain styles is common in every forum on this and every other site. The best way to change hearts and minds is to wow them into submission with undeniable images.
I predominantly shoot landscapes but have the same observations about style biased critiques in the ESS forum. Whether its mountainous landscapes, fields or waterfront, the standard has become super wide angle with some relatively small object or feature taking up the bottom 30% - 50% of the frame as the "primary subject". If there is flowing water it must be veiled to look soft and pretty. Mountain peaks and horizons must look like they are 30 miles away when they're actually only 5 miles away and foreground pebbles must be far larger than mountains. No matter how natural they are, branches and foliage that intrude in the scene or are chaotic or broken or dull in color must be avoided or cleaned up in post processing. Colors must be as bold, brilliant and saturated as possible without being blatantly overprocessed. Basically, the drive to achieve maximum visual impact tends to override the drive to record nature as you witness it. That said, its not at all surprising that the standard for visual impact has evolved that way. Living things (at least birds and mammals) are attracted to sensory inputs that trigger endorphins and make them feel good. We also reward those that provide those good feelings (oohs, ahhs & wows in critiques for example). The good news is that over indulgence and saturation eventually results in reduced or non reaction and we start looking for some other form of excitement. I used to jump directly to those "beautiful" seascapes and landscapes (throwing in my share of wows) when browsing ESS but now they all tend to look the same and I find myself bypassing the thumbnails without even opening them and looking for something more different and interesting.
I don't think any "style" is particularly good or bad but I do think that critiques would be more beneficial to the poster if they were focused on the photographers ability to use their equipment to meet their self prescribed goal. In order to do that the poster has to make it clear, in the description, what that goal was. If the stated goal is to show the bird and its interaction with its natural habitat then the critique should be geared toward helping that person do so in the most pleasing and effective manner possible. If the stated goal is to show the brilliance of the plumage, the textures of the feathers and the physical peculiarities of the bird with as much impact and clarity as possible then the critique should be geared toward helping the photographer accomplish that goal (which probably would be best served by a BOAS approach). Without any guidance from the poster I think the critiques tend to default to a goal of "most visually exciting image".
Personally, if I were to buy a nature book on birds I would look for one that has a variety of shots for each bird. I would like to see the isolated close-up, some samples of the bird interacting with its environment and some in-flight shots. I would pay a LOT of money for a well photographed bird book like that!
It may not be obvious to a novice or some one unaware, but I wanted to clarify what a BOAS shot is.
It is my understanding that the definition of BOAS is: BOAS is clearly a set up shot, with a perch/stick being placed in the best position for photography, then the bird is coached by food, water, calling or some means to come in to the perch.
Why I wanted to clarify that is there are images taken in the wild, natural environment that could appear to be a BOAS which are really BIH shots.
If I take an image of a RWBB on a cattail in the natural habitat, though it looks like it is a bird on a "stick", it is a BIH shot.
If I cut that cattail off, take it home (or any where) stick it into the ground, and call birds in by using food, water, or pre-recorded calls, it is a BOAS shot. Due to the controlled environment or staging.
And thus, is the present day photographic philosophy for any genre of subjects. It is all about pleasing the masses, especially if personal validation, accolades and glory is what you seek.
As long as I feel that I receive something personally from the experience, I have succeeded.
Dare I say it, but the NPN forums in general foster formulaic sameness. Those who don't fit the formula either leave for other similar forums or stay and follow the advice (and end up with images that look like everyone else's). For my tastes, it's rare to look at any NPN forum and see distinct and unique work. There are indeed a few, but by and large the images (especially ESS) fit a very particular mold that Gary Minish has virtually nailed.
I am really happy to see you address this issue Richard. I am guilty of not posting many avian images in habitat, although I feel they are very nice images. Not because I am concerned with negative comments, but because I feel that the majority of the people viewing the images will not appreciate them for what they are, birds in their natural habitat.
I completely respect anyone that prefers the Bird on a Stick type image. What makes photography so great is the ability for someone to create an image to their liking. Where I have a problem is when images are commented on negatively because a stick or other element does not fit the commenters idea of a perfect picture. We all have our own idea of what we feel is a great image. Of the over 8000 bird images I have in my files, there are probably less than 5 that were shot on a manmade object or a manmade object is visible in the image, that is a preference that I have chosen for my work. However I regularly see many beautiful images of birds on manmade perches and do not comment negatively because of it. They are wonderful images, just not my style. I think birds in habitat should be looked at in the same manner.
Whenever possible I do try to capture birds in a pleasing environment with a nice background, but a natural one. Other than a few common backyard birds that I have practiced with in my back yard, the majority of my images are the result of alot of walking and waiting in forests, prairies, swamps, around lakes etc. This is the reason I love nature photography and I am not shooting portraits and weddings. I love to be outdoors in nature.
My only other comment would be that as much as I agree with you on this subject Richard, I do feel that shooting shots in habitat is not an excuse for ignoring the pursuit of a technically well done shot with a pleasing composition. The images I see on this sight are spectacular no matter what style they are. The reason in my opinion is that most of the participants look at photography as an art form, not just a snap shot.
And why do chefs hate food? Most of them make cakes that taste nothing like raw margarine, flour and shortening...
Seriously, I think you're mixing two completely separate and distinct things. My enjoyment of being in the wild and the art I choose to create, though related, are very distinct things. I can enjoy a good hike without making a single exposure, and I can spend hours in my basement office working in Photoshop without seeing so much as a green leaf and enjoy both activities.
There's the joy of baking a cake, and the joy of eating it, and the joy of serving it to others and they are all separate and distinct. And just because I'm good at making cake doesn't mean I hate potatoes.
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on June 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Why do birds have to either be photographed on a stick or in a "habitat"? Birds are meant to fly, and aren't static creatures. That's how I view bird photography anyway.
Posted by Richard Hahn on June 12, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Good evening.
How about if everyone takes the type of pictures that makes them happy. I do not take pictures just to impress others, I take them for me. Of course being human, as least I think I am, I will always accept some praise about my pictures. Criticism welcome too.
I will not and do not have the right to criticize someone because his or her picture shows a bird on a bird feeder or a bear in a zoo.
Of course I would rather be in the wild all the time seeing & taking pictures of my subjects in their natural environment, even though birds & other animals in back yards are a natural environment, but I live in my world where that is not possible.
So why don’t we just enjoy each other photos instead of telling them that they should or should not do something.
Rich Hahn
Posted by Richard Ditch on June 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM
First, my thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read my original post, see it in the context it was intended, and comment thoughtfully. I have seen lots of good points here and a variety of opinions, and I don't intend to address all of them here at this time (and maybe never).
Please read my initial comments again:
My intention is not to change the world and make others shoot the way I do, but rather to get everyone to think a bit about their preferences and prejudices in photography, and consider other styles.
I was serious about that. So, if you prefer to shoot bird-on-a-stick, by all means do so. I often comment (and almost always positively) about BOAS images when they are well done and show the subject well.
When I said:
I'd like to see more people looking at BIH posts, taking the time to actually see the content, and only then commenting about the good and the bad as they see the image.
Ron Dudley actually figured out what I meant and said it better:
Seems to me that at the core of Richard's post is a plea for due respect for a style (BIH) and that that respect should be reflected in the comments made in the Avian forum. I fully agree. For me to refrain from commenting positively on a skillfully taken BOAS image or to be critical of it because of it's bland background lacking habitat would be just like those who ignore BIH images or continually suggest cloning out appropriate and nondistracting habitat, IMO.
Or, more simply from Don Kates:
BOAS vs BIH? Both are respectable in their own right. But let's not judge one by the others standards.
Some people have introduced "hand of man" issues; I did not mention that because I see that as a separate topic entirely. But for the record, I love barbed wire and weathered wood posts for grassland species that use them, and I've posted shots from my own back yard with birds on an artificial water feature and from urban parks on concrete walls. So, if it is something the bird has chosen and it adds some interesting color or texture to the image I don't see the point of trying to exclude it and pretending that the bird was found in a pristine natural setting untouched by humans. I think it is a real conceit to pretend that a photograph "just occurred" without all the high tech gear used to take it, so why try to move the bird off the barbed wire and unto the introduced "natural" perch beside the fence. See, there's that Control issue coming up again.
That's enough for now; I don't want to debate, I don't want to prove anything, and I don't want to shut off anybody from thinking through these points and contributing their own worthwhile views.
So, please continue to comment here, but please don't get angry over something I really didn't write that you thought I did.
Posted by Wayne Jones on June 12, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Thanks Richard and others. – Mission accomplished, and not just in the case of the Avian gallery. In addition, this thread might be useful in promoting tolerance of critiques as well as respect for “unconventional” images.
I am just an occasional dabbler in all the galleries, and you have opened my eyes. As Gary pointed out, greater interest in “formula” shots is not a phenomenon limited to Avian. In addition to BOAS birds and cookbook landscapes, many reviewers seem to be looking for conformity in other subjects. Even though “mammals on a stick” are not common, Fauna comments often are looking for “eye contact” with the camera. I would much rather see critters interacting with their environment than with the photographer. Unless it’s a zoo or some park where the animals are habituated to tourists, eye contact often means that the photographer has blown his cover, disturbed the subject, and possibly ruined any chances for another shot other than a fleeing animal. Having said that, I accept that lots of people WANT to see a personal interaction with animals, and find animals staring at the camera more exciting. Some of us just have different ideas. There are examples of “your picture would be better if it looked like mine” in other galleries, too. After all, we each have our own personal taste, and “here’s how I would have done it” is the basis for many of our comments even if we do respect each others’ different styles. That’s kind of a natural reaction, isn’t it?
As David said, if you are not out to conform to the formula, you need to develop a thick skin. Even with a thick skin, however, being ignored is discouraging. Assuming most of us are here to learn, we would rather hear negative comments than nothing at all, as long as they are polite. Perhaps we skip images because we are trying to be polite, following the principle “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.” Another reason for not commenting might be that some viewers just are not interested in certain images. For instance, in the Flora gallery, I sometimes comment on particularly striking studio shots of plants that obviously came from a manicured garden or a flower shop, but I have to admit that I skip most of them because it’s just not my “thing.” (To some people, domestic plants and animals are nature, and to some they are not.) I think it’s understandable that we comment on what we find interesting, and that our comments reflect our own personal taste. Maybe this thread can help some of us appreciate our differences, and comment with more open eyes, whether we have something nice to say or not. And if we get a comment that says “too bad this image does not fit the formula” we can still roll our eyes, and say “at least somebody looked and took the time to comment.”
I was not really trying to make the "hand of man" an issue Richard. Just trying to make the point that everyone has some aspect of their work that they feel strongly about. Whether I agree with their ideas or not , I do respect them. I guess I just did not word it properly.
Thanks Richard for your well posed title post. I've never deliberately photographed bird or animal subjects unless the critters were conveniently slow moving like banana slugs. So those subjects and the world of equipment and technique involved is unfamiliar to me. However it is an attitude that extends beyond bird images. I feel the pain of famous film photographers of birds and elusive animals that used to work entirely in the field. Lia and Gary Minish finely written posts reflect my own general attitude that won't surprise anyone here. Nothing wrong on manipulated images either...as long as the photographer is up front and honest about what they are doing at least in some small way with their public audience. And that is of course a related issue in your post because I would suspect some of those that set up the bird images tend to not inform their audience just as is the status quo with landscape photographers who don't so. And predictably not always when such images are used for commercial stock uses as they probably realise some client viewers won't like manipulation.
Over the last decade one could chart out what landscape and nature photographers as a community have considered the acceptable status quo with image manipulations that would clearly show a continually slowly creeping evolution from simple tweaks when the masses were rather ignorant of even early Photoshop capabilities to today when some sneaky pros today are replacing whole boring blue skies with dramatic clouded skies from other sky images. And not telling anyone what they are really doing in order to make a buck or receive recognition.
The issue of NPN critiquers making suggestions about post processing improvements to images is fine though a photographer is responsible for informing their audience about the nature of their personal style if that includes leaving things naturally camera captured in some way. My own style is to not effect the graphic content thus leave in all out of focus elements regardless of whether such has a negative aesthetic value. Not that cloning out such is wrong but rather simply a facet of my adopted natural style I am consistent about and so communicate. So if a commenter still wishes to add that "they" would have cloned out the jet contrails and how they would do so, such does not bother me at all. It is when such a helpful comment is phrased such that I somehow missed an opportunity to do so and they are informing me how to improve the image. Thus commenters ought to have bothered to read the photographers opening post with some awareness regarding style and intent.
To read at length about my own thoughts in more detail please read the Style &Philosophy link on my below webpage.
Slightly OT, but in regards to posts not receiving adequate response, please remember that a big part of this responsibility falls on the person posting the photo! Nothing works better than emailing a few other members asking for them to take a look and leave some comments.
Posted by Jeff Nadler on June 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Richard,
From the business perspective only, it does seem that potential end-publication use is a heavy determinant in bird composition. Where a bird is featured for ID purposes, the plain BOAS is often preferred. The bird dominating the image is usually sought. For magazine publication, the desire for blank space for text around the bird is desired-especially for covers.
Where this style falls short terribly imo, is for printed photographs to be hung on walls-in galleries, offices, and our homes. There is nothing more sterile and blah than seeing a framed bird on a stick with nothing else but sky. Habitat is truly required for such artwork to be interesting and captivating.
Thus, there is room for all styles. Where I agree with you though, is when the majority of bird photographers are so heavily influenced by the "leaders" in this field, that negative comments are offered if there is anything in the background of an image. I truly believe most people post such a comment because they have been brain-washed into it but don't feel it emotionally.
I have recently tried to capture more habitat shots (I sort of have to now with a 300 F2.8) and nothing irks me more than the comments, " too bad about the background, too bad the leaf is there, etc." Comments are absolutely far fewer on most images that are not a BOAS format. For that reason, I have cut way back on posting my images and don't even feel like bothering anymore.
What really matters to me, is if I am pleased with my image-whether or not it fits a standardized format. I spend most of my time shooting birds in eastern forests where there are lots of natural sticks, I don't really ponder cultivating pretty sticks and mounting them.
I will offer this too. There is certainly a high percentage of serious bird photographers, with much impact, in Florida. The bird species photographed there - often wading birds and shorebirds, are typically in such habitat that a pure background is more achievable. Sand, water, low vegetation. It is fairly easy to isolate these birds and make a pure background. In my case, shooting warblers and vireos in forests, it is usually impossible. My emotions get really high when the Florida-style bird photographer comments on my background and perhaps has never even seen a thick northeastern forest. I feel that bird photography composition has a major geographical/habitat factor that results in species variation. Don;t try to apply a heron composition to a Cerulean warbler.
Good discussion Rich. I happen to be a fan of both and enjoy making images of both styles. By far I love birds in habitat more but it's much harder unless one thinks of BIH as the bird being small and a bunch of out of focus branches. Get that bird small in the frame in a Bateman like setting and you will have a winner in my book. Some editors have even begun stating "No bird on a stick images please" as well. They want more eating, singing, bathing, flying etc. On the other hand they still often select BOAS images. One thing is for sure, getting a good image of a bird in it's habitat that works well is I think much more challenging if you want the image to not just look cluttered. I think that the problem with some images called BIH have lots of out of focus branches and the problem there is that our eyes don't see them that way so they don't look right. Long story short, a pleasing shot of a BIH is just much harder to take but the ultimate goal.
I have to agree, it seems to me strange that while we all embrace the new technology that the photography manufacturers can throw at us, very few people are applying the imagination needed to use it to produce truly ground-breaking and different images.
There are many people, who despite having fantastic creative potential at their fingertips, are still producing the same old stale chocolate box/field guide style images they were producing years ago on film, although to some extent this is driven by the magazines that use images, as many do seem reluctant to use fresher styles of photography.
I really hoped the advent of digital imaging would be a "big kick in backside" that would push nature photography into a new age, and whilst it has in some respects, it seems that most photographers always go for the easy option rather than trying to find a style of their own and push at the boundaries.
Posted by Peter Conway on June 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
This is a very interesting and broad ranging discussion. There are several very distinct and separate points raised.
BOAS vs. BIH. . I think the real point behind this is how people react to photos. I find Richard to be one of the most interesting posters on this forum. I like it when he comments on my photos because he is frank and forthright, and he has a great deal of knowledge. On the other hand I don’t think Richard likes to hear anything negative about his photos. He clearly has more knowledge than I do, so should I refrain from expressing my opinion? Should I say to myself “clearly he has considered that and likes it as is” and therefore make no comment except as cheerleader? I am not sure what is appropriate. I find myself becoming less and less willing to ever say anything to people except an “atta boy”.
I do agree that there is a certain sterility to the formulistic approach and that whenever one deviates one will hear about it. I am OK with that. If I post a photo that gets negative comments because it doesn’t follow the formula I still appreciate the comment and that someone took the time to look and express an opinion.
I take much more personal satisfaction from photos I get in true natural environments. I like being there and getting close to wild birds and animals. I spent many days last summer trying to get close to a Blue Heron that inhabits Lost Creek. You can’t get within 100 yards of it if you are seen. Last winter I golfed a couple of days in Florida and there were Blue Herons all over the course that one could almost walk up and touch. A photo of one of them would look the same as the ones I took but the experience is completely different. There is nothing wrong with shooting at a golf course or a water park but it is very different than approaching birds that are in fact wild. If the objective is the picture then the golf course makes more sense, if it is the experience then shoot in the wild.
I have no conclusion, only a question. If I look at a photo and find the BG less than ideal from an aesthetic sense should I comment or not?
Peter: thanks for commenting here and being honest and open. That's part of what I'm asking for in this thread.
On the other hand I don’t think Richard likes to hear anything negative about his photos. He clearly has more knowledge than I do, so should I refrain from expressing my opinion? Should I say to myself “clearly he has considered that and likes it as is” and therefore make no comment except as cheerleader? I am not sure what is appropriate. I find myself becoming less and less willing to ever say anything to people except an “atta boy”.
I ask for honest feedback, and I try to take the negative when I receive it. My apologies to you and everyone else if I sometimes don't react well. Yes, it is rare that I haven't considered all the content of an image that I post, and I've been at this long enough to know what the "rules" and expectations are. But that doesn't mean that I think every image I post is perfect, and I often have a list of flaws for an image when I post it that I don't want to point out so I don't slant the direction of the replies.
What is appropriate? Your honest views on the image.
I have no conclusion, only a question. If I look at a photo and find the BG less than ideal from an aesthetic sense should I comment or not?
Yes; it is part of the image as presented. I think the bigger question is what you say about it, of course. If you think that the photographer overlooked the background (perhaps a novice who hasn't learned yet to examine the complete frame) then it can be helpful to make suggestions. If it was an obviously experienced photographer then you probably should consider why it looks that way: was it a conscious choice; was it unavoidable because of the fleeting moment or the geometry of the location; etc. In that case saying that "the background just doesn't work for me because it is distracting, or cluttered, or merges with the subject," or whatever seems very reasonable. Such a comment gives the photographer an opportunity to talk about the choices made when the image was taken which can lead to a learning experience for everyone including the photographer.
This is a matter of judgement, and the difficult times can be when an experienced photographer apparently has made the mistakes of a novice, or when the person commenting doesn't understand the limitations of the situation in which the image was made.
So, Peter, which of my many cluttered and distracting backgrounds would you like to point out?
Posted by Peter Conway on June 19, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Richard,
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have been on the site long enough to recognize some of the very good photographers such as you, but I may not know all of them. I may by mistake offer advice to someone that is way beyond me in terms of experience because I thought they were looking for advice, I would ask they not be offended, or we will all be reduced to never giving any advice which would really hurt people like me that still appreciate it.
In the case of an experienced person like you, may I ask if you want to hear people's opinions on the aesthetics of your photos or are you comfortable knowing they are what you want?
Since you asked, I am going to bring up a photo. Quite some time ago you posted a picture of a grouping of birds on the water. The background birds were out of focus. I commented that for me the OOF birds made the photo "fatally flawed" using a descriptive term I borrowed from you. I really did feel that it was, and I hoped you would appreciate my use of that descriptor. I fully expected that you might totally disagree with my assessment but thought you would like to hear my blunt reaction especially knowing that I usually admire your photos. Should I have made that comment? It is not as if I didn't think you were aware of, or hadn't considered the OOF birds. I thought you posted it specifically to get a reaction to them, but subsequently felt you may have thought my post presumptuous given our relative experience. Was it a good or poor post? In the larger scheme of things should one comment on what one doesn’t like even if it was clearly considered and/or unavoidable?
Since you asked, I am going to bring up a photo. Quite some time ago you posted a picture of a grouping of birds on the water. The background birds were out of focus. I commented that for me the OOF birds made the photo "fatally flawed" using a descriptive term I borrowed from you. I really did feel that it was, and I hoped you would appreciate my use of that descriptor. I fully expected that you might totally disagree with my assessment but thought you would like to hear my blunt reaction especially knowing that I usually admire your photos. Should I have made that comment? It is not as if I didn't think you were aware of, or hadn't considered the OOF birds. I thought you posted it specifically to get a reaction to them, but subsequently felt you may have thought my post presumptuous given our relative experience. Was it a good or poor post? In the larger scheme of things should one comment on what one doesn’t like even if it was clearly considered and/or unavoidable?
The photo was of a group of Long-billed Dowitchers, taken at the Gilbert Water Ranch. I remember your comment quite well, especially because of the "fatally flawed" phase you borrowed from one of my own posts. It gave my a lot of personal pleasure as it meant the phrase had registered with someone!
I thought it was completely appropriate as it expressed your views on whether the image worked or not. I don't think it has much to do with experience, either the viewer's or the photographer's; it is something that either works or doesn't work. I too wished all the birds were in focus, but I just couldn't pull it off. I posted the image, anyway, because I didn't think the flaw was fatal (perhaps just a flesh wound, to quote the Black Night from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
So, yes, it was a good post. And yes, one should be comfortable with a comment on what one doesn’t like even if it was clearly considered and/or unavoidable?
Discussion
40 repliesAt the heart of my question is the popularity of Bird-on-a-stick (BOAS) style photos, and the comparative lack of popularity of Bird-in-habitat (BIH) shots.
My intention is not to change the world and make others shoot the way I do, but rather to get everyone to think a bit about their preferences and prejudices in photography, and consider other styles. I also hope that novices, especially, will think about what they really are hoping to accomplish with their photography, and why. Ultimately, I'd like to see more people looking at BIH posts, taking the time to actually see the content, and only then commenting about the good and the bad as they see the image.
To gauge the degree of this issue all anyone needs to do is look at the number of comments on BOAS photos and then try to find any BIH posts with the same degree of response. And it's not just the number of comments, but also the content of these comments. A smooth, clean, monochrome background will almost always be praised, while a natural background will seldom be praised. If there's any "stray" twigs or leaves intruding into an otherwise clean background there will likely be suggestions to clone out the "offensive" material from the frame. Other "helpful" suggestions might include applying Gaussian Blur to get an even more uniform look to the background, or even complete replacement of the "imperfect" original. These suggestions may be helpful to some photographers, but they are offered up indiscriminately on many posted images as if all photographers wanted to achieve the sterile look.
What's more, some photographers are so committed to the BOAS style that they take whatever steps are necessary to achieve this goal and make outdoor studios where they have maximum control over most of the content of their images. This includes hand selected perches, artificial backgrounds, and artificial lighting. All that's left to some degree of chance is the bird itself, and even that is controlled as much as possible by placement of feeders, use of bait or water drip, or even the playback of a taped call. Although the results of these efforts can look very nice, showing a high degree of technical skill and image quality that approaches perfection, the results are also often sterile and essentially interchangeable. In fact some photographers are so skilled at this that it matters little where they go to take photos; their results from Texas, or Arizona, or Michigan, or New Jersey, or Washington, or California, etc. differ only in the species shown on the hand selected perch. The background, the camera position, and even the catchlight occur with assembly line precision in many of these images.
An alternative to BOAS is BIH, in which the subject is shown in a natural setting of its own choice, going about its daily life uncontrolled by the photographer. Any naturalist knows that wildlife and environment are closely coupled; exploitation of a niche is a driving force of the natural selection behind our species diversity. Photographs that show this relationship, or at least hint at it, are so much more interesting that the boring sterility of BOAS photos, which at best show the pretty colors and feather texture in field guide splendor.
Is the esteem in which BOAS images are held because people think it is the ultimate demonstration of skill; that BOAS is somehow more difficult than BIH? I hope not, because I don't think that is true. BOAS is all about imposing control on Nature in advance of actually making the image, and the skill of BOAS is tied to exercising that control. With BIH photos such control doesn't apply. Instead, the skill comes from knowing the behavior and preferences of the subject, finding a way to incorporate habitat into the composition without allowing it to dominate the frame or appear simply as distracting random clutter, and capturing the subject in a natural setting and behaving naturally. And this means the subject is free to move about, in and out of the natural light and the vegetation. There is a lot more chance involved, and the photographer needs to be able to deal with that element of chance and live with the consequences of it in the final image. It takes patience, attention, and quick reflexes in order to react when all of those elements of chance come into alignment for a fleeting moment in front of the camera.
I see more people willing to shoot BIH these days than I did eight years ago, even including people who used to favor BOAS and have since "discovered" the BIH style and all its challenges. And yet some of the people who shoot BIH and do it well still seem embarrassed by it, feeling compelled to apologize for it by including the phrase "in habit" in the title of their posts. This may be an attempt to ward off all the "helpful" suggestions generated by the assumption that the photographer didn't really mean to take the image this way, but I think it is past time that BIH photographers stop feeling bad about this style and start asking the BOAS shooters what they have against nature in the first place.
I've been a birder since 1973, and have been hard at work as a nature photographer for the last five years, part of that time spent as an avian photographer.
After about a year of capturing avian images and concentrating pretty hard on BOAS around my feeding station, I got bored with it. My backgrounds were natural, my perches natural, my setup careful, my images quite nice. But it couldn't hold me for long.
Now, when I see people who work very long and very hard to capture and post those types of images, even those it very sweet light with a great pose on a great perch with that lovely background bokeh, I am tempted to think of it as studio photography, and wonder when folks like that are going to graduate and move on to something . . . well . . . moving.
But then I remind myself that my way of seeing the world is only my way, not the right way. There's nothing wrong with anyone who dedicates perhaps even his/her whole live to BOAS photography. It's a way of self-expression, and is there a wrong way to do that?
I'll use wedding photography as a parallel.
While I like a certain number of posed wedding photographs, my strength and preference is in taking advantage of natural circumstances to capture spontaneous moments of emotion. I equate studio portraiture to BOAS, and I don't care for that. I like to catch my birds on the wing, if you will.
But different people prefer different expression. There's an excellent, truly gifted longtime wedding photographer in my area who does excellent and inspired studio photography to accompany the wedding work.
And then there's me. People who look at both our work gravitate toward one or another based on what they like and what they want.
Neither of us is "right" or "wrong" in our approach, it is merely an approach that reflects our values and preferences. It is the essence of our art.
BOAS vs BIH is no different. No right, no wrong, just individual expression.
Frankly, the more people who focus on BOAS the better, as far as I'm concerned. That leaves a more open market for people who want to express the bird's lifestyle along with the bird. And there's absolutely no doubt that BIH images sell much better as prints than BOAS images.
Well, OK, maybe I had a sneaking suspicion you did. And as I think I've told you, I respect your views on "setup" shots, baiting, etc.
I think there are 2 considerations. First...is money part of the issue? For bigger commercial sales, it's been my impression that BOAS photos are often more favored than those with more habitat. Think magazine usage...it's a lot easier to work with a BOAS photo for placement of text and the like than it is for a photo with a more complex background.
Second issue...the challenge? I don't know about other avian photographers, but I get a LOT of pleasure out of "bagging" a species for the first time. Maybe it's the same with BOAS...folks that focus on that style of shooting might view that as their personal challenge, to build a collection of BOAS photos.
How about "BOAP" or "BOBW" photos? That would be "Bird on a Post" or "Bird on Barbed Wire" shot. I know too that there are many times when you post out here that you're criticized for an "unnatural" perch. The question is...what the heck is "unnatural"? God knows in my part of the world, fence posts and barbed wire are the perch of choice for many species.
If that represents natural behavior, why should someone be "dinged" for posting a photo of a bird on a fence post? Don't remember who, but someone recently posted a beautiful G.H. Owl, sitting in a rectangular barn opening. I thought it was stunning, but there were still comments about the "unnatural" perch. I'm sure the Owl was quite comfortable where he was, and didn't think it at all "unnatural"!!
As a superficial dabbler in bird photography, I have found it far more difficult to obtain satisfying images of birds in their habitats - where the habitat is adding to the composition and not distracting - than to obtain BOAS-type shots.
Kudos to Mr. Ditch for the skill continually displayed in his chosen genre!
However, life would be really boring if that is the only "acceptable" style for bird images!
Interesting topic and replies!
For me I think whatever works for you! When I see an image posted by a photographer I like his/her take on the situation! For me there is no right or wrong, just how you want to communicate to your viewer I suppose!
I’m happy shooting any bird that comes my way and try many different styles to keep the flame alive! I love enviro shots (BIH) as much as I love a bird on a stick (BOAS)! I just love being out watching birds and sometimes I take my camera too!
Seems to me that at the core of Richard's post is a plea for due respect for a style (BIH) and that that respect should be reflected in the comments made in the Avian forum. I fully agree. For me to refrain from commenting positively on a skillfully taken BOAS image or to be critical of it because of it's bland background lacking habitat would be just like those who ignore BIH images or continually suggest cloning out appropriate and nondistracting habitat, IMO.
Thanks for bringing this up Rich.
I personally admire the artistry of Jim Brandenburg but I wonder how an anonymous posting of one of his photos would fare according to BOAS criteria. I don't think Brandenburg obsesses over a stray branch when he sees a moose standing in the morning light of a beautiful meadow.
As beginning art students learning the "art" of critique, one of my art professors constantly reminded us in our critiques "What was the artists intent?" "Has he/she met that goal?" "Why or why not?"
BOAS vs BIH? Both are respectable in their own right. But let's not judge one by the others standards.
Guy
I have loved observing nature since I was a small girl and when most other girls were playing with Barbie dolls and dressing up in their mother's clothes I was outside, sitting in trees and watching birds, watching tadpoles in small creeks or smelling the earthy aroma of the soil on a warm spring day. I'm fairly certain my mother must have had some really dirty clothes to wash every week from my nature adventures, probably as many as I was myself now from spending hours laying in mud to capture images that illustrate the bird's natural environment & behavior.
Fast forward 40 plus years, and while most (but not all) women would love to be at an air conditioned mall shopping, I would rather be laying in the wet sand taking images of shorebirds, or sweating up a storm hiking in the woods, or just sitting still and watching the amazing interaction of nature unfold before me. That isn't to say that the people who prefer to be at the mall are doing any thing wrong, it is their choice, but it is not my choice.
I am a bird in habitat (BIH) photographer and probably always will be as long as there is natural habitat left.
When I am shooting landscapes, I prefer to shoot images that do not have the hand of man in them, other wise to me they logically belong in Man & Nature.
The BOAS vs. BIH, or Natural vs. Staged debate doesn't stop with Avian photography Guy. It can extend to ESS too, especially with the intimate shots I have seen in that forum where some one has deliberately placed rocks, shells, leaves or other items where they wanted them for a better image. The image then is not completely natural but staged, and I have seen discussions in ESS about that topic too. And Fauna for people who bring in predators by throwing road kill into a location where they might bring in a bear or other animal. Or hidden/disguised salt licks for ungulates.
Is staging right or wrong? I can't tell you that for everyone, but it is wrong for me.
If I baited, had a set up, or brought birds in with bird calls I would feel ethically obligated to disclose that. If I moved some thing to make a better composition, I would feel equally obligated to disclose that.
I admit I am very passionate about nature and my preferences in my approach to nature photography, I learn so much from being in the field about the birds (or animals, geographical locations, etc.) I photograph that it fills me with a kind of peace I can not find in other avenues of my life. Even before I had a camera surgically attached to my hand (just kidding about that, but I almost always do have a camera in hand) I found profound joy in watching, observing and learning as much about the natural world as I could. Whether I get zero or 100 images that I think are wonderful from a particular sojourn into the bird's habitat, I am still happy to have spent time with them.
Is BOAS photography difficult? I'm sure setting every thing up is. I can not honestly say how difficult it is because I have not attempted it.
Is BIH photography difficult? It isn't always easy, I know that for certain. But I am happier within myself for taking that approach. My desire it not only to share my images, but on some level to share the experience of being there with the bird, or some quirky behavior they displayed. When I am shooting images, I am not only focusing on my technique but attempting to do that without stressing the bird.
I'll probably add more thoughts to this later as I digest the intricacies of the discussion, but I am very glad you brought this up Richard. I think this conversation is interesting.
Thanks for bringing this up, Richard, as it has been bothering me for quite some time. For documentary (and artistry too) purpose I feel that BIH and behavior is VERY important.
I understand where everyone is coming from, but I don't think this is a clear cut black and white issue. The "habitat" is of course everywhere. Many species benefit from human structures and byproducts just as many suffer. Of course the biggest concern for our species is whether our activities are impacting our own ability to survive.
When you look at outdoor photos used in magazines and advertisements, those with humans in the picture outplace those without by a large margin. The same can be said of photos with architecture or people at work or product photos. Landscapes without people can be found, but they just aren't as common. Particular formats benefit covers and ads, like smooth backgrounds and space for text.
But magazines and advertisement is not the only commercial avenue for photography and its is definitely not the only avenue for photography as art. With that in mind, if you can pursue that which makes you happy, make that your personal goal. If you rely on photography as your primary source of income, you might have to adapt your product to meet the market expectations.
Mel-
I've gotten some nice images of birds on a stick in my yard and I'll never turn down a chance at another, but they are hardly my most rewarding in terms of memorable moments in nature.
When it comes down to it, if BOS photos are someones preferred way of shooting, more power to them.
Great subject Richard and it's giving some of us a chance to vent too!
Why bother with habitat? Get rid of the stick! BOAS was a good start, but Susan Middleton and David Liittschwager have taken BOAS to its logical conclusion--BOWB and BOBB (bird on white background, bird on black background).
"A bird on a stick is worth two in a bush."
Couldn't resist!
Just like a great food recipe, AM's techniques have helped the fledging bird photographer produce excellent photos very quickly. Just like a good food recipe, his "assembly line" techniques with step-by-step instruction ensure that even novices can get good results. It's no wonder he has established himself as The Authority on bird photography!
But even a good recipe, served too often, will start to wear thin. This is where it is up to the individual photographer to start tweaking the "Artie Morris bird photo recipe" and begin creating a style of their own. Certainly, Artie's "recipe" is a great place to start this process.
It is often recommended that someone new to photography study and learn the techniques of established pros. I could not agree more. It has also been suggested that once a photographer gains competency in those techniques, that they start modifying the technique to better fit their own tastes. This, IMO, is where a photographer truly starts to grow, establish their own style and enjoy the process even more.
I enjoy both the BIH photos and the more plentiful, usually well-executed BOAS photos. But I must admit that a really striking BIH will get a greater amount of my appreciation every time.
Regards,,,,,,David
I don't think any "style" is particularly good or bad but I do think that critiques would be more beneficial to the poster if they were focused on the photographers ability to use their equipment to meet their self prescribed goal. In order to do that the poster has to make it clear, in the description, what that goal was. If the stated goal is to show the bird and its interaction with its natural habitat then the critique should be geared toward helping that person do so in the most pleasing and effective manner possible. If the stated goal is to show the brilliance of the plumage, the textures of the feathers and the physical peculiarities of the bird with as much impact and clarity as possible then the critique should be geared toward helping the photographer accomplish that goal (which probably would be best served by a BOAS approach). Without any guidance from the poster I think the critiques tend to default to a goal of "most visually exciting image".
Personally, if I were to buy a nature book on birds I would look for one that has a variety of shots for each bird. I would like to see the isolated close-up, some samples of the bird interacting with its environment and some in-flight shots. I would pay a LOT of money for a well photographed bird book like that!
It is my understanding that the definition of BOAS is: BOAS is clearly a set up shot, with a perch/stick being placed in the best position for photography, then the bird is coached by food, water, calling or some means to come in to the perch.
Why I wanted to clarify that is there are images taken in the wild, natural environment that could appear to be a BOAS which are really BIH shots.
If I take an image of a RWBB on a cattail in the natural habitat, though it looks like it is a bird on a "stick", it is a BIH shot.
If I cut that cattail off, take it home (or any where) stick it into the ground, and call birds in by using food, water, or pre-recorded calls, it is a BOAS shot. Due to the controlled environment or staging.
As long as I feel that I receive something personally from the experience, I have succeeded.
I completely respect anyone that prefers the Bird on a Stick type image. What makes photography so great is the ability for someone to create an image to their liking. Where I have a problem is when images are commented on negatively because a stick or other element does not fit the commenters idea of a perfect picture. We all have our own idea of what we feel is a great image. Of the over 8000 bird images I have in my files, there are probably less than 5 that were shot on a manmade object or a manmade object is visible in the image, that is a preference that I have chosen for my work. However I regularly see many beautiful images of birds on manmade perches and do not comment negatively because of it. They are wonderful images, just not my style. I think birds in habitat should be looked at in the same manner.
Whenever possible I do try to capture birds in a pleasing environment with a nice background, but a natural one. Other than a few common backyard birds that I have practiced with in my back yard, the majority of my images are the result of alot of walking and waiting in forests, prairies, swamps, around lakes etc. This is the reason I love nature photography and I am not shooting portraits and weddings. I love to be outdoors in nature.
My only other comment would be that as much as I agree with you on this subject Richard, I do feel that shooting shots in habitat is not an excuse for ignoring the pursuit of a technically well done shot with a pleasing composition. The images I see on this sight are spectacular no matter what style they are. The reason in my opinion is that most of the participants look at photography as an art form, not just a snap shot.
Seriously, I think you're mixing two completely separate and distinct things. My enjoyment of being in the wild and the art I choose to create, though related, are very distinct things. I can enjoy a good hike without making a single exposure, and I can spend hours in my basement office working in Photoshop without seeing so much as a green leaf and enjoy both activities.
There's the joy of baking a cake, and the joy of eating it, and the joy of serving it to others and they are all separate and distinct. And just because I'm good at making cake doesn't mean I hate potatoes.
Guy
How about if everyone takes the type of pictures that makes them happy. I do not take pictures just to impress others, I take them for me. Of course being human, as least I think I am, I will always accept some praise about my pictures. Criticism welcome too.
I will not and do not have the right to criticize someone because his or her picture shows a bird on a bird feeder or a bear in a zoo.
Of course I would rather be in the wild all the time seeing & taking pictures of my subjects in their natural environment, even though birds & other animals in back yards are a natural environment, but I live in my world where that is not possible.
So why don’t we just enjoy each other photos instead of telling them that they should or should not do something.
Rich Hahn
Please read my initial comments again:
I was serious about that. So, if you prefer to shoot bird-on-a-stick, by all means do so. I often comment (and almost always positively) about BOAS images when they are well done and show the subject well.
When I said:
Ron Dudley actually figured out what I meant and said it better:
Or, more simply from Don Kates:
Some people have introduced "hand of man" issues; I did not mention that because I see that as a separate topic entirely. But for the record, I love barbed wire and weathered wood posts for grassland species that use them, and I've posted shots from my own back yard with birds on an artificial water feature and from urban parks on concrete walls. So, if it is something the bird has chosen and it adds some interesting color or texture to the image I don't see the point of trying to exclude it and pretending that the bird was found in a pristine natural setting untouched by humans. I think it is a real conceit to pretend that a photograph "just occurred" without all the high tech gear used to take it, so why try to move the bird off the barbed wire and unto the introduced "natural" perch beside the fence. See, there's that Control issue coming up again.
That's enough for now; I don't want to debate, I don't want to prove anything, and I don't want to shut off anybody from thinking through these points and contributing their own worthwhile views.
So, please continue to comment here, but please don't get angry over something I really didn't write that you thought I did.
I am just an occasional dabbler in all the galleries, and you have opened my eyes. As Gary pointed out, greater interest in “formula” shots is not a phenomenon limited to Avian. In addition to BOAS birds and cookbook landscapes, many reviewers seem to be looking for conformity in other subjects. Even though “mammals on a stick” are not common, Fauna comments often are looking for “eye contact” with the camera. I would much rather see critters interacting with their environment than with the photographer. Unless it’s a zoo or some park where the animals are habituated to tourists, eye contact often means that the photographer has blown his cover, disturbed the subject, and possibly ruined any chances for another shot other than a fleeing animal. Having said that, I accept that lots of people WANT to see a personal interaction with animals, and find animals staring at the camera more exciting. Some of us just have different ideas. There are examples of “your picture would be better if it looked like mine” in other galleries, too. After all, we each have our own personal taste, and “here’s how I would have done it” is the basis for many of our comments even if we do respect each others’ different styles. That’s kind of a natural reaction, isn’t it?
As David said, if you are not out to conform to the formula, you need to develop a thick skin. Even with a thick skin, however, being ignored is discouraging. Assuming most of us are here to learn, we would rather hear negative comments than nothing at all, as long as they are polite. Perhaps we skip images because we are trying to be polite, following the principle “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.” Another reason for not commenting might be that some viewers just are not interested in certain images. For instance, in the Flora gallery, I sometimes comment on particularly striking studio shots of plants that obviously came from a manicured garden or a flower shop, but I have to admit that I skip most of them because it’s just not my “thing.” (To some people, domestic plants and animals are nature, and to some they are not.) I think it’s understandable that we comment on what we find interesting, and that our comments reflect our own personal taste. Maybe this thread can help some of us appreciate our differences, and comment with more open eyes, whether we have something nice to say or not. And if we get a comment that says “too bad this image does not fit the formula” we can still roll our eyes, and say “at least somebody looked and took the time to comment.”
Over the last decade one could chart out what landscape and nature photographers as a community have considered the acceptable status quo with image manipulations that would clearly show a continually slowly creeping evolution from simple tweaks when the masses were rather ignorant of even early Photoshop capabilities to today when some sneaky pros today are replacing whole boring blue skies with dramatic clouded skies from other sky images. And not telling anyone what they are really doing in order to make a buck or receive recognition.
The issue of NPN critiquers making suggestions about post processing improvements to images is fine though a photographer is responsible for informing their audience about the nature of their personal style if that includes leaving things naturally camera captured in some way. My own style is to not effect the graphic content thus leave in all out of focus elements regardless of whether such has a negative aesthetic value. Not that cloning out such is wrong but rather simply a facet of my adopted natural style I am consistent about and so communicate. So if a commenter still wishes to add that "they" would have cloned out the jet contrails and how they would do so, such does not bother me at all. It is when such a helpful comment is phrased such that I somehow missed an opportunity to do so and they are informing me how to improve the image. Thus commenters ought to have bothered to read the photographers opening post with some awareness regarding style and intent.
To read at length about my own thoughts in more detail please read the Style &Philosophy link on my below webpage.
From the business perspective only, it does seem that potential end-publication use is a heavy determinant in bird composition. Where a bird is featured for ID purposes, the plain BOAS is often preferred. The bird dominating the image is usually sought. For magazine publication, the desire for blank space for text around the bird is desired-especially for covers.
Where this style falls short terribly imo, is for printed photographs to be hung on walls-in galleries, offices, and our homes. There is nothing more sterile and blah than seeing a framed bird on a stick with nothing else but sky. Habitat is truly required for such artwork to be interesting and captivating.
Thus, there is room for all styles. Where I agree with you though, is when the majority of bird photographers are so heavily influenced by the "leaders" in this field, that negative comments are offered if there is anything in the background of an image. I truly believe most people post such a comment because they have been brain-washed into it but don't feel it emotionally.
I have recently tried to capture more habitat shots (I sort of have to now with a 300 F2.8) and nothing irks me more than the comments, " too bad about the background, too bad the leaf is there, etc." Comments are absolutely far fewer on most images that are not a BOAS format. For that reason, I have cut way back on posting my images and don't even feel like bothering anymore.
What really matters to me, is if I am pleased with my image-whether or not it fits a standardized format. I spend most of my time shooting birds in eastern forests where there are lots of natural sticks, I don't really ponder cultivating pretty sticks and mounting them.
I will offer this too. There is certainly a high percentage of serious bird photographers, with much impact, in Florida. The bird species photographed there - often wading birds and shorebirds, are typically in such habitat that a pure background is more achievable. Sand, water, low vegetation. It is fairly easy to isolate these birds and make a pure background. In my case, shooting warblers and vireos in forests, it is usually impossible. My emotions get really high when the Florida-style bird photographer comments on my background and perhaps has never even seen a thick northeastern forest. I feel that bird photography composition has a major geographical/habitat factor that results in species variation. Don;t try to apply a heron composition to a Cerulean warbler.
There are many people, who despite having fantastic creative potential at their fingertips, are still producing the same old stale chocolate box/field guide style images they were producing years ago on film, although to some extent this is driven by the magazines that use images, as many do seem reluctant to use fresher styles of photography.
I really hoped the advent of digital imaging would be a "big kick in backside" that would push nature photography into a new age, and whilst it has in some respects, it seems that most photographers always go for the easy option rather than trying to find a style of their own and push at the boundaries.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=31182&CGISESSID=1f9a08af801afae8a3984b9d6a203c3c&u=3368
BOAS vs. BIH. . I think the real point behind this is how people react to photos. I find Richard to be one of the most interesting posters on this forum. I like it when he comments on my photos because he is frank and forthright, and he has a great deal of knowledge. On the other hand I don’t think Richard likes to hear anything negative about his photos. He clearly has more knowledge than I do, so should I refrain from expressing my opinion? Should I say to myself “clearly he has considered that and likes it as is” and therefore make no comment except as cheerleader? I am not sure what is appropriate. I find myself becoming less and less willing to ever say anything to people except an “atta boy”.
I do agree that there is a certain sterility to the formulistic approach and that whenever one deviates one will hear about it. I am OK with that. If I post a photo that gets negative comments because it doesn’t follow the formula I still appreciate the comment and that someone took the time to look and express an opinion.
I take much more personal satisfaction from photos I get in true natural environments. I like being there and getting close to wild birds and animals. I spent many days last summer trying to get close to a Blue Heron that inhabits Lost Creek. You can’t get within 100 yards of it if you are seen. Last winter I golfed a couple of days in Florida and there were Blue Herons all over the course that one could almost walk up and touch. A photo of one of them would look the same as the ones I took but the experience is completely different. There is nothing wrong with shooting at a golf course or a water park but it is very different than approaching birds that are in fact wild. If the objective is the picture then the golf course makes more sense, if it is the experience then shoot in the wild.
I have no conclusion, only a question. If I look at a photo and find the BG less than ideal from an aesthetic sense should I comment or not?
Peter Conway
I ask for honest feedback, and I try to take the negative when I receive it. My apologies to you and everyone else if I sometimes don't react well. Yes, it is rare that I haven't considered all the content of an image that I post, and I've been at this long enough to know what the "rules" and expectations are. But that doesn't mean that I think every image I post is perfect, and I often have a list of flaws for an image when I post it that I don't want to point out so I don't slant the direction of the replies.
What is appropriate? Your honest views on the image.
Yes; it is part of the image as presented. I think the bigger question is what you say about it, of course. If you think that the photographer overlooked the background (perhaps a novice who hasn't learned yet to examine the complete frame) then it can be helpful to make suggestions. If it was an obviously experienced photographer then you probably should consider why it looks that way: was it a conscious choice; was it unavoidable because of the fleeting moment or the geometry of the location; etc. In that case saying that "the background just doesn't work for me because it is distracting, or cluttered, or merges with the subject," or whatever seems very reasonable. Such a comment gives the photographer an opportunity to talk about the choices made when the image was taken which can lead to a learning experience for everyone including the photographer.
This is a matter of judgement, and the difficult times can be when an experienced photographer apparently has made the mistakes of a novice, or when the person commenting doesn't understand the limitations of the situation in which the image was made.
So, Peter, which of my many cluttered and distracting backgrounds would you like to point out?
Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have been on the site long enough to recognize some of the very good photographers such as you, but I may not know all of them. I may by mistake offer advice to someone that is way beyond me in terms of experience because I thought they were looking for advice, I would ask they not be offended, or we will all be reduced to never giving any advice which would really hurt people like me that still appreciate it.
In the case of an experienced person like you, may I ask if you want to hear people's opinions on the aesthetics of your photos or are you comfortable knowing they are what you want?
Since you asked, I am going to bring up a photo.
Peter
The photo was of a group of Long-billed Dowitchers, taken at the Gilbert Water Ranch. I remember your comment quite well, especially because of the "fatally flawed" phase you borrowed from one of my own posts. It gave my a lot of personal pleasure as it meant the phrase had registered with someone!
I thought it was completely appropriate as it expressed your views on whether the image worked or not. I don't think it has much to do with experience, either the viewer's or the photographer's; it is something that either works or doesn't work. I too wished all the birds were in focus, but I just couldn't pull it off. I posted the image, anyway, because I didn't think the flaw was fatal (perhaps just a flesh wound, to quote the Black Night from Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
So, yes, it was a good post. And yes, one should be comfortable with a comment on what one doesn’t like even if it was clearly considered and/or unavoidable?