OOF Branches

I recently posted a photo of a house finch in the Avian gallery. One of the comments concerned the OOF branches above the bird. Ron went on in his comment to state it may be more appropriate to pass up a shot with distracting elements instead of taking one with OOF branches. I do not necessarily agree, I like to see the habitat not only birds but all animals are photographed in, but I understand his point of view. I am just wondering how others feel about skipping a shot because of what maybe considered distracting elements, or taking the shot then using PS to clone out the distractions, how far should we go? Maybe, it just comes down to individual preferances.

I have been a strong proponent of bird-in-habitat images since I started posting 12 years ago. I consider it much harder to get a good BIH shot than it is to engineer a clean bird-on-a-stick image.

But I see far too many photographers post very cluttered images and "explain" the clutter as "habitat," or use the phrase "you take what you can get" or "that's where the birds were." Those are excuses that just don't pass muster for me.

It is possible to get good BIH shots where the habitat part of the image isn't a distraction - it just takes more patience and effort, and a lot of deletions when reviewing a day's work.

So, this is the type of situation that I might shoot in the filed, but wouldn't survive the first pass of editing on my computer. I'd go back in the field and spend more time to get a better setting. This is easy to do with a common species like the House Finch, but not as easy when the subject isn't common, so that plays a part in the overall approach to shooting and editing.

Concerning cloning, I personally would not even consider cloning out so much of an image as the overhead twigs in this frame. I avoid cloning whenever I can and try to limit it to dust spots, distracting specular highlights, and occasionally "junk" on an otherwise good water surface.

"Maybe, it just comes down to individual preferances." I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

When you've made dozens of photographs that are better than the one you see through the viewfinder, you won't bother. If you do like what you see, trip the shutter and decide later whether it measures up or whether you want to edit it. It's completely up to you.

John: It does boil down to personal preference but since you asked...... There are times when the habitat adds to the image. To me that means the added information "adds" to the story you saw while you were there. Our job as photographers is to eliminate distractions. That does not mean that habitat is a distraction, it means that habitat that does not help the image, hurts the image. In this image, the OOF branch for me is a distraction and draws me away from the subject. That is not what your eyes saw when you captured the image since our eyes can discern far more than our lenses. The DOF on this image created the OOF branch. The other two branches, while not completely OOF, do not add to the story for me either. There isn't a simple black and white answer to the question. As far as cloning..... If "it" bothers me, I remove it, if not I leave it.

I'll sometimes take the shot, despite major distractions, knowing full well that I'd never post the photo since I won't do major cloning. Occasionally the distraction when seen through the viewfinder looks more obtrusive than it does on the screen (or it can be dealt with by cropping) but that's a rarity. I nearly always delete those types of shots on the first pass.

Here's a prime example of a "cluttered" image as the other have said. For all the time I've spent, and the limited number of sightings..well I can count the keepers of this bird inflight on one hand, and I lost one finger in a lathe
And it's always coming off the ground that is more or less in focus.
When you post an image like this to a broader audience on the web, say via Flicker or Facebook - You will garner mostly favorable responses.
All I'm saying is that the photographer's here at NPN are in pursuit of the best possible image, as stated.
And that's as it should be.
But one of the things I've learned over time is that sometimes rules are made to be broken..
And in the final analysis you are the artist, you make the call

All I can say is I shoot by the credo, "Just because a bird presents itself as a possible subject, does not mean it is a good subject in a good setting that will make a good image." Be picky. This way of thinking in the field has worked well for me. At the computer I also am my own worst critic. When looking at images if everything does not come together in an image, I toss it. In the end, Howard is correct, you make the call. I just tend to be very demanding of my own work.

John, I suppose it all depends on what you're after. I agree that, all other things being equal, it is more interesting to have some habitat in an image than just a bird on a stick. But that doesn't mean you can take a picture of a bird just anywhere and have it be a good image.

It's great to strive for images of birds in habitat, but unless your goals are strictly documentary without aesthetic or artistic interests, it also has to be an attractive image. That means getting the bird in habitat that is complemenatary and pleasing to the eye, without large distracting or oof elements. This is a lot more difficult, and requires great presence of mind in the field, good fieldcraft, and a critical eye both behind the viewfinder and in front of the computer.

The more rigorously you critique your own work, and absorb the constructive criticisms of photographers whom you admire, the more you'll find yourself seeking and finding better shots in the field. What you shoot and what you keep and what you post is up to you. I'm more likely to keep a marginal image of a rare species or one that I've not photographed before, but it's more for my own memories than for artistic purposes, and it is not likely to see the light of day on a site like this.

In terms of cloning, that's personal too. For me, I don't really have the stomach for a major clone job like getting rid of that branch. I don't have the interest or the patience, and I'd rather get it right in the field next time.

Unless there's some compelling reason to keep it (interesting behavior, rare bird, etc), if an image isn't tack sharp or if it has other unfortunate elements, I usually delete it on the first pass. And I try to recognize why the image failed and what I might do differently next time. Your decisions may be different.

John, I'm so glad you started this thread. It's so helpful to have all these comments in one place.

For me, on the one hand, I take to heart what I'm told here, and I think my best images are those that follow most closely what I'm told here. On the other hand, I do shoot some images that are just for me because I like what the bird is doing, it's a different bird for me, etc. I don't delete them if I like it just for me (or for friends and family). Bottom line as far as best images, though, in my opinion, I learn from what I'm told here and strive for images that those who have posted in this thread would call good images. I think that's the only way I can get better.

I think the important thing to think about is why are you doing wildlife photography to begin with. The folks that post here are going for the most incredible wonderful shots. I soon came to realize that my purpose in doing wildlife photography (although I sure don't mind getting a great shot) is very different. I do it solely for the fact that it gets me up and out into the places I want to be, doing something that makes me feel good. I actually stopped posting here (not because I wasn't learning a lot) but because rarely did my shots pass muster here. I have very little time to do this activity that I love so much and worrying about the end result was ruining the joy and relaxation I had doing it. This site has a wonderful purpose in letting you share with others for critique so that you can become a better photographer. But doing that takes a lot of time in the field and for me anyway that just wasn't able to happen as much as I would love it to. I still come here frequently just to look (and think some day maybe) but I don't post my current images because I know I don't have the time to do the work required (at least right now) to make them better, like everyone posting here hopes you will. So think about why you do nature photography and then you will know whether OOF branches make a throw away or an image that makes YOU happy.

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this topic. Looking again at the photo I posted, I can see where the OOF branches, specially the ones on the top can be/are distracting. I did not want to clone out anymore than what I had. And, I will admit the best small bird photo I have posted here is of a hummingbird with nothing in the BG or FG, just the bird in flight with a somewhat neutral BG. I appreciate all of the responses, and even though my nature photography is mostly just for fun and my enjoyment, I will consider some of the comments posted here as I review and select photos for posting. This is one of the reasons I joined NPN, to get and give feed back.

I'm certainly guilty of taking the shot despite the background and muttering about habitat.

But for me it comes down to this: what's the subject of the photo? Is it a shot of a bunch of twigs that happens to have a bird in it, or is it a shot of a bird that also shows you where it lives? Put another way, does the non-bird stuff add to the photo?

I'm not a big fan of a bird against an unblemished background. It may be "clean" but it doesn't tell you anything about the bird; it doesn't tell a story, and for me that's a weaker photo.

Ultimately, you have to please yourself. Like Sally, my first goal is always to enjoy what I'm doing. This site is fabulous for helping you improve your photos, but the vision you have in mind when you make a photo has to be yours, not some homogenized product of other members' visions. The photographers I admire most in the Avian Forum, where I mostly hang out, are those whose vision is so good that they've achieved a recognizable style, that you can see in the thumbnails before you even read the text. Richard Ditch, Ron Dudley, KC Choo: you know their work at a glance. They've done what I aspire to do: developed their goals into a consistent, beautiful style.