An observation -- Avian photography and critiques

Nothing important, just an observation. I occasionally post on another site as well. Interesting to see the differences in responses to the same types of photos.

While there are definitely those here at NPN that prefer the BOAS look (bird-on-a-stick), there are also one heck of alot of shots here that show honest-to-goodness habitat around the bird. Both work for me, depending upon purpose of the shot and what you're going for.

The other site? Amazing the difference in critiques. Definitely more of a focus on the BOAS look, with expectations that you should clone out even the tiniest out-of-place habitat element or "imperfection", be it a branch, rock, leaf, etc. Not even sure what to call "imperfection", as many of them to me seem to be habitat elements that are critically important in defining where that bird lives.

Maybe the difference in focus isn't surprising, given the founder of that other site. And I certainly see why there's sometimes a BOAS focus. Those types of photos definitely do seem to sell better for many commercial purposes.

Nothing for me though beats seeing a bird and its natural habitat represented together in the same shot, such as the recent Goldcrest photo, Seedsnipe photo, or Blackpoll Warbler photo that have been posted.

I know the site, Terry, and I agree with many of your perspectives. I signed up as a member there initially but now never go back partly because of the BOAS emphasis and partly because there's only so much time in the day. The longer I photograph birds, the more bored I am with BOAS.

Terry,

I agree.

remember what James Audubon did in his work documenting birds. I think he liked them stuffed so he could paint them.

I guess that's the ultimate bird on a stick approach, eh?

Frank

Hi Terry,

Tho' I've recently posted a few "BOAS" images on this website (and made fun of myself for doing so), I've always been a big fan of balancing the ultra-clean backgrounds with enough detail to put the bird in context in its habitat. Although this is clearly a personal preference issue, I've become extremely bored with the BOAS images. In my never-humble opinion I think BOAS images are pretty easy to execute, whereas finding a way to balance clean, non-distracting back/foregrounds with just the right amount of interesting (and visually pleasing) habitat features is a much more demanding task...

Just my 2 cents worth...

Brad

PS: In a recent post to the Avian gallery I criticized the background of my own image and was (eventually) asked what I didn't like about it. My answer was more lengthy than what I've written here - if you like to check it out go here (you'll have to scroll down quite a ways - my answer is about the 18th or so comment).

I like that response you're pointing to Brad. That's how I look at it too. Maybe it's because I'm birder first, photographer second, but I much prefer photos that show how you actually see a species in the field. It's a lot harder to relate at that level to a BOAS photo.

(Of course, after I say all this, my latest post is indeed one bird, one stick...)

If elephants could fly, someone would no doubt establish EOAS as the predominant elephant photography style.

I agree - capturing a photo of a bird where the subject stands out, yet with a background/setting that conveys a sense of the environment is a whole lot more difficult. When done successfully, IMO no BOAS image can compare.

Terry, that's funny about your latest BOAS submission.

I still do BOAS now and then, too, just to remind myself that I can. It's like a combination of portrait and sports photography. Portraits in that you set up the perch with the BG in mind, work out the lighting in your head and the direction the subject likely will face. Sports in that the key moment can last less than half a second and you've gotta get it or not get it in that time. Planning, equipment knowledge and reflexes all required.

That being said, I see BOAS as more of a stage in the learning process of avian photography than a real statement of art.

It might be that 30 years as an avid birder before pursuing photography full time made me look for more than a nice tight portrait when looking at others' avian photographs. In the end, I just like looking at bird photographs, because I like birds. And being in a blind just beyond the MFD of a 400mm lens brings you VERY close to birds. That's a lot of fun in itself.

Terry,

Good evening. I will take a photo of a bird or animal in its natural environment over one on my feeder any time. Not that there is anything wrong (IMO) with a bird / animal on a feeder. I just feel that when they are in a tree, on the beach or where ever it is more natural to me.

As far as cloning stuff out, Steve Foss said it the best when talking about his picture of the ermine, (Fuana Gallery):

“Sometimes it's best just to let a photograph be a photograph, not a Photoshop exercise”.

I could not agree with this statement more because it is so true. Not every picture can be an artists rendering. We live in the real world where stuff gets in our pictures, but that is nature.

Steve this is a statement that you should use on all of your postings and thank you for saying it.

PS – Jim, what do you mean if elephants can fly?

Great post Terry. I know the web site you are referring to and the BOAS thing is soooo boring and overdone I'd quit taking pictures if that's all there was to avian photogrpahy. I can't understand why so many photographers are trying to take exactly the same pictures. I could predict what would be said about every post I made there, before I even uploaded an image.

“Sometimes it's best just to let a photograph be a photograph, not a Photoshop exercise”.
What a great quote Steve.... almost sums up my entire philosophy about digital photography.

Being a new avian photographer, I'd be tivkeled pink to capture a good BOAS photo with good focus and lighting. When I grow up I'll be board with BOAS right now it's real hard to get a good on. You guys are so good.
Rohn

For an experiment, why don't we focus on shooting bird photos with as many twigs in the scene as possible. Maybe use it as a camouflage to obscure the bird.

an anti BOAS photo

I agree about the BOAS argument. When I first started photographing birds I was a total BOAS shooter. The main reason being that in all the literature and even the NPN avian forum at the time, it was the accepted practice (if not rule). Now, I hardly ever take a BOAS image. IMO it's just as much about the habitat as the bird. I like to show some hint of where the bird lives. This also makes for a much more interesting shot. But, there is still a need for BOAS for certain projects such as field guides. Kudos to everyone on here who is thinking outside of the norm!!

Hey Folks

Ahhhh, the old "Bird On A Stick" argument";

Generally when we reduce a phrase to an acronym we don't include short 1 or 2 letter words .. such as 'on' or 'a'. :)

Seriously though .. there are some amazing images in all genres, styles, techniques, etc. Rather than take your short lens and go home, why not try to take even better images in that style? I saw a simple, clean image by Brian Small last month that totally kicked my a**. More props to him.

Cheers

Carl

Good grief! How do silly discussions like this ever get started?

Here's an example of something that prompted the post. I posted this photo on the other site, and the first response was from someone who edited it, taking out all of the background trees and leaving a uniform OOF background.

For some commercial purposes, perhaps that "cleaner" shot would sell better. But my memory of this moment is rounding a bend in the road in a spruce forest, and seeing this guy in that opening. I totally lose the feeling of that magical moment once everything is cloned out except the perch tree and the bird.

As with NPN, there are a lot of talented photographers posting there, and a lot of wonderful shots. I cringe a little bit every time I see someone post a beautiful shot out there, and have it digitally manipulated within an inch of its life.

Hi John,

Good grief! How do silly discussions like this ever get started?

They get started because a number of individuals fall into the trap of "group think" and start rejecting or thinking negatively of any image that falls outside their preconceived, narrow idea of what a good image should be. It's natural to have a backlash (however minor) against the rigid thinking and equally as natural to comment on it. I'm not sure where "silliness" fits into the equation or why you'd find it necessary to potentially insult the originator of the thread by referring to it as such. Go back to the origin of the thread, the first two words were "Nothing important..."

No insult intended to you - I hope you don't perceive my comments that way...

Brad

PS: Terry - your Great Gray Owl shot is exactly what I was referring to re: balancing the "opposing" demands of keeping the background non-distracting while including enough habitat elements to place the animal within its habitat. Well done!

Great thread. Thanks for starting it, Terry.

Your owl shot and accompanying comments say it perfectly. It's no fun to remove the magic.

This thread is a great reminder for us to stay true to our own vision of the scene, not someone else's.

“Sometimes it's best just to let a photograph be a photograph, not a Photoshop exercise”.

The statement matches perfectly what self-satisfaction I get out of nature photography. When I got back into photography after being away from it while I earned a living, it was the digital age so I took a class in Photoshop. The instructor was one who focused on all the tools that can be used to alter photos to reflect something that was not originally in the shot. I hated the exercises because of the amount of time spent in front of the computer when I prefered to be out shooting. I spend a minimum amount of time on the computer and I presume that is why my postings look somewhat amateurish compared to most of the other postings. Still, I am personally satisfied with most of my results.

I have found many of the comments made about my postings, as well as others, to be constructive and informative. I have seen the light on how PS could be used to make slight improvements to photos but I am squarely in the camp of let nature be reflected and not manipulating to the point of creating faux images.

Sorry this is so long but I wasn't even aware of the BOAS approach, just inherently against it.

I spend a minimum amount of time on the computer and I presume that is why my postings look somewhat amateurish compared to most of the other postings. Still, I am personally satisfied with most of my results.

I guess this is somewhat off topic, but I wanted to note that many of the fantastic shots here are created with a minimum of PS work. It's easy to think your shots aren't as good because the other shooters must have done some PS magic. But that's not likely in my experience. It's usually because my shots simply aren't as good.

Still, the most important thing - especially if you happen to be a hobbyist, as I am - is the second sentence. If you're satisfied, then you're doing great.

I'm heartened to see so many people are tired of the formulaic BOAS pose. When I view a photo the first thing I look for is what the photographer trying to say, what's the story here? For me, the BOAS shot simply says this is what this bird looks like, nothing more. That's not to say that some are not brilliant photos that are a pleasure to view, but not all of the time please. Also, I think there's some critical pressure on photographers, especially new ones, to follow stereotypes for all animal photographs. Instead, we should encourage creativity and foster art. Good thread.

IMO, specific geographic locations and related species found there, heavily and unfairly assume that all birds can be treated the same. No doubt the BOAS composition is easier done in locales like Florida where shorebirds, wading birds, and raptors are often out in the open , with minimal vegetation to deal with, and often blue skies as well. What has always irritated me from day one is assuming this same composition works where I live in the northeast, photographing songbirds in the thick of the forest. Warblers and other song birds are usually found in dense vegetation, not on the end of a stick with blue skies.

In summary, I think that avian compositions are very dependent on the geography and species found there . . and is not appropriate to consider for all habitats and related species.

Where were all you people 7-8 years ago when I felt like a solitary voice in Avian Photography? I took a lot of heat here at NPN when the BOAS style was very popular by suggesting that nature photos should look natural. My preferred style then was bird in habitat, as it still is now. I'm glad the person most responsible for that artificial style and most of the heat I took has moved on to his own site and NPN has become a more diverse site with a variety of styles accepted.

The experience 7 years ago caused me to put most of my beliefs into words, and they still live on in the rants page on my current web site.

The only real discussion here should be about the dork who edited Terry's photograph without permission. As to the rest, if you like a natural background; Great! If you like a plain background: Great! Sounds like each side is just as "rigid" as the other, to me.

I think I'm gonna start a BOAB camp!

One thing that has always bothered me about nature photography discussion is that there does seem to be these seperate camps. Where a lot of it does come down to personal preference, there are some that seem to think that certain ways of doing things are always better than others, because of some preconcieved 'rules' that they have picked up from somewhere. We see it in BOAS, flash vs natural light, blurred vs frozen, which way an animal is walking ( )

An image should be judged on one thing - and that is whether it evokes an emotion in the viewer

Just my opinion...

cheers,
Billy

I'm starting the BOAH style myself - I'm certain the masses will follow!

But Jim....then we'll have to start debating if it's OK or needs to be disclosed that you had birdseed or suet in your hair....

David, no baiting allowed. The little fella found my hair to be good nesting material.

Hi all,

I'm starting to hear a few references to "camps" and the "them" vs. "us" thing, which is something I think we should avoid.

I think it's absolutely fine to have a preference (and I certainly do) - after all, that's what ends up producing personal styles. As long as one remembers it's all personal preference and is careful in their comments on others' images to ensure that the concept of preference/style is clearly expressed (e.g., "...doesn't suit my style preference" or "...differs from what I prefer") then all is good. The minute one starts to think their style is "correct" or tries to force that style on others, then problems begin. My preference is NOT "...on a stick" shots, but I still shoot 'em (I consider them good technical practice and, done well, they DO sell!).

Just my 2 cents worth...

Brad

lol@Dan. too funny dude.

Great shot Terry that shows how brutal the environment is. Can't believe someone would even consider doing that to your image. I've always felt that nature photography falls more under the realm of journalism than digital composites.

I did BOAS kind of images a lot for long (and used similar formulas in macro and fauna images too) and now most of the time worry about approaches that go beyond just documentation with an inclination towards art and with an emphasis on light, shade and space. I strongly feel George Miller's observation on amount of information a human mind can process at a time (7 plus/minus 2) is very applicable for process of viewing any image. BOAS images are easy on our visual system but then may be it is over done and we humans also need change. But the challenge of limit of processing i.e, 7 plus/minus 2 still remains valid. The *different* perspective we need to come up with if not BOAS still need to be very simple. Unless we are born artists (unfortunately I don't consider me to be one) this is not easy - atleast that is what has been my experience so far. I use to love my 600mm f4 lens a lot in past, not any more. Now I think it is very challenging to use it since often I end up in very familiar perspectives be it BOAS or routine images of (large) birds in flight. On the contrary may be there is a lot to learn from art movements and explore possiblities of using some of them in our nature photography.

Agreed Fabiola, except for one minor point.

If there is a bird that LIVES in a cluttered, unorganized habitat, then that's what I expect to see in a photo. This is one of my favorite photos. About as messy a setting as you can get, but that's a Le Conte's Sparrow's stomping grounds.

I love that photo of the Le Conte's Terry, and couldn't agree more with you about this post.
I have to admit, the bird on a stick thing bores me at times too, especially when I recognize the same placed perch used in several different shots lol.

One thing I want to clarify, just in case some people think I was upset that someone downloaded and edited my photo.

No, that's not the case. The policy on the other site is to allow someone to demonstrate how they might process or change a photo. That's what was done to the GG Owl photo. Someone suggested editing the background, so did so and posted his suggested edits.

Especially since it's the policy of that site to allow such edits (and even if it wasn't their policy), I don't mind having someone show me what they might do to an image.

It's just WHAT was done to the image...removing habitat and making a OOF background...that I didn't agree with, from the standpoint of my own personal preference.

Terry, your Le Conte's Sparrow's photo posted above is IMO superb for the reasons you state!

A long time ago we used to suffer through what I called "PhotoShop Derbies" where the photo was reposted over and over with everyone taking a shot at improving it. The threads were no longer about the original photo, but about the reposts. I wrote an article about our policy here on NPN about this a while back and just this past month received a letter on that article. The link to the Letters to the Editor page can be found in the Articles menu at the top of the page, bottom of the list.

Here's an example of what I now strive for in my images. Take a look at this bay-breasted warbler shot. The bird is in the open, well lit and is surrounded by it's natural breeding habitat. There's way more interest in this shot to me than a plain BOS. Some would say "clone out the bright lichen, it's distracting". No way, it's supposed to be there, why would I clone it out?? I sell way more images like this than BOAS shots. Like I already said, it's just as much about where the bird lives than just the bird.

Interesting discussion.

Usually the compositional elements and possibilities become limited when shooting small subjects at a large magnification, which is why I prefer to shoot larger subjects myself - the larger your subject, the more you can show of the habitat and the more creative possibilities there are. I'm generalizing now, but I think you get my point.

Due to an unwelcome and disruptive post near the end of this thread – which has been deleted in everyone’s best interest – this thread has to be locked.

I believe this thread has been enlightening and up to the post in question, conducted in proper fashion. References to “other sites” are just that – general references to other places in cyberspace which may operate under different guidelines than NPN.

We encourage discussion of photography and photographic technique in a civil manner as per the Posting Guidelines. Thanks to all for your participation!