Action shots or classic poses?

I've been wondering lately, in the world of avian photography, are action shots and classic poses of equal merit, or is one considered more desirable than the other?

Hi Barbara. I don't think of one over the other in terms of merit. Capturing a quality avian image of a bird posed can be just as pleasing to view as capturing some great action shot. For me it depends more on the subject, composition, technical execution and presentation. Images either have impact on the viewer or they don't (obviously the impact is an individual thing for each viewer).

Merit? Desirable? It all depends on the individual and the intended use. Personally I've been more interested in birds as part of the landscape more than anything lately. But in the end the goal should be to create a compelling image, whatever the type.

To me, every image stands on it's own. There is no formula for a "good" image - every bird or landscape you see before you has a totally unique set of elements and potentiaL , and our job is capturing each of them in the way that combines them into a compelling image in our eyes - OTHERS may or may not agree, and that's fine.

I'm reminded of a wonderful cougar cub image that won a WP a few years ago. It was a captive cub in a zoo, but had a number of compelling factors that far surpassed the other excellent wild entries of elephants, big cats, and others. I bet many were surprised, feeling that "wild" always surpassed "captive".

Sandy

I don't like to limit myself so I have action shots and classic poses on my web site and my blog. I also don't like to limit myself to only the best light which is why I include low light, high key, side lit and back lit images. Even when the light isn't optimal compelling images can be created. Action shots often have wonderful poses and they can create a wonderful tension in a frame. But images where the bird is still can convey great moods too.

I find parts of my ans. in all of the above. I will add that since I teach nature photography with a strong emphasis on the ecology and habitat-often more than the technical aspects, particularly to my youth classes-I tell stories and use my photos to illustrate. Or to turn that around I show a shot or a sequence and ask them questions......what does this say to you? what could be happening here? etc.
To that end, a good series of action shots for, lets say a nest building pair of Osprey, is much more interesting, thought provoking than even the best still life, perfect shot of that same Osprey.
keep up the good work.
NB

I think you can answer your question on the Fred Miranda Nature Forum http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/41
At this site skilled photographers catch white tailed kites handing off prey in mid-air, owls hunting over marshes, cranes posing against the rising sun, and so on--both action and still serene shots of birds. And there are plenty of pics of the bird-on-a-stick and the heron gliding along, which are boring after a while, but very useful for anyone who wants to see birds close up--and illustrated better than most bird books. The answer to your question: it all works in its own way. There is no "more desireable" category of bird photography.

I agree with most everything that has been said. However, I tend to value an action shot a little more, because it is often harder to get. Still, a great image is a great image!

Thanks very much for the replies and thoughts so far. John, those great action and serene shots are here at NPN also. But your comment on some shots being boring after a while seems to indicate that the type of shot does matter, and not just the quality.

Either one is fine with me, but I also like images that tell a story, or that a back story is attached to, Finally, I like avian/wildlife photos that are about the animal and not the photographer.

Obviously, it is a matter of personal taste and/or intended use. Take what you like; like what you take.

I like good images of both types. I shoot more static images than action: I like to play with the graphics of composition and I like to show birds in habitat. I take flight shots when I get the chance, but I don't get a lot of opportunities for them. I don't want to engineer situations for flight shots of small birds near feeding stations - that's just not something I enjoy. And I definitely don't want to shoot raptors flying into rodents provided by the photographer at the camera position!

In any case technical proficiency is necessary for me to consider an image good - I don't excuse bad exposure or bad focus or confusing/distracting clutter just because an image shows the bird doing something.

Interesting reading all, as a newbie to the NPN I have had a few,, yes, just a few inferior feelings to those that are regularly capturing images from a nature preserve or wildlife safari, etc.... while I am content at the moment to capture the action from my back yard and /or the nature walks I take in our local parks and/or forests/wetlands. I must say, I am learning from each image, and each post by the feedback, as I try to read them all, and I appreciate the feedback,. whether it be my image , or that of another..
but in the end .. it is the image that immediately tells a story to you, whether still or action, the one that grabs your attention, that is the real winner.........thanks for nurturing me, as I am sure some of you just had to be where I am a few years ago?