hummingbird bias?

I'm just curious and intend no disrespect, but I'm curious about an apparent bias in comments on hummingbirds at feeders. I posted one that I thought was good but received only a few comments and then I noticed that other hummer pics at feeders also received few comments. Is it considered a no-no to photo birds at feeders or is it just trite, having been done so often? Just curious and I'm always happy with whatever comments I recieve.

I'd call it a preference, not a bias. In that sense, I think you may be right, and I think such a preference is appropriate. If the choice is between a hummingbird on a feeder or a hummingbird in a more natural setting, well, this is a nature photography web site. It takes a little more effort, but a shot without the "hand of man" is usually more effective.

Reed, I'll admit that I tend to skip over feeder shots. My own personal feeling is that I don't find them particularly interesting, nor do they fit well with what I view as nature photography--the "hand of man" is too strong for me. I'm not opposed to shooting birds at feeders, I just prefer that the feeder not be in the frame.

I too will admit that a hummingbird shot on a feeder (or the feeder included in the frame) doesn't have a lot a appeal to me and I usually do not comment. I think we all realize that to get hummingbirds you usually need a feeder to draw them in, but that does not mean that the photo need be captured on the feeder.

I agree with others - would rather not see the feeder. In regards to low comments on your image, there are other factors like not being a "regular" in the Avian forum. That is NOT to say that you are shunned or anything like that, but when you post regularly in the Avian gallery (and this holds true for all galleries) you tend to get "followers" that seek out your photos for comments.

It's not considered a no-no, it's just not a shot that can be too positively critiqued. The element of a feeder takes away from it being natural, so there isn't a whole lot to say unless there is something extraordinary going on.

Hi Reed,
I do like your image, it's different because of the position of the 3 birds. I would say that most people's preference is to see a photograph of a bird in a nice, natural setting rather than on a feeder. That being said there is certainly a place and a market for photos of birds on feeders as companies that sell bird feeders, birding magazines etc use them in their publications.

Reed:
Good question. I really only see the hummingbird and pay little attention to "where' it is. That is, to say until your question came along and now I'll be looking deeper. Thanks for bringing to mind.

Don

Good question. Myself I don't much care if there is a feeder in the photo or not, since it seems that most HB photos are taken with some sort of attraction to get the hummers in range, be it in your backyard or Costa Rica. If it is a good image of the bird, to me that is the important thing as long as the welfare of the hummers is not being compromised. Granted a hummer shot w/o a feeder in it will have more apeal all other things equal, than one with the feeder visible. I certainly would not pass up trying to photograph a hummer just because it is at a feeder. Which means I need all the practice I can get. Thanks Reed for bringing this subject up.

My strong preference is no feeders in the photo - I want my nature shots to at the very least look natural.

It is not necessary to take hummingbird photos at or near feeders, and almost all of my hummingbird photos are not taken anywhere near a feeder. We have two feeders in our yard and Costa's Hummingbirds at them every day of the year. I occasionally take shots of them resting somewhere in the yard. All the hummingbirds I photograph at the Gilbert Water Ranch like this Anna's are taken where I find them along the trails.