What Makes/constitutes A Good Bird Photo/image???

[Firstlight]

This question
is/was prompted by a remark made to an image of a bird on a feeder.
First this is NOT pointing fingers at anybody, but the remark made was to the effect that the viewer was not keen on images of birds on feeders/bird tables,
I have no issue with that but it left me thinking "what makes a good image".
Bird images can fall into many categories ie,
1.Birds in flight.
2.Portraits (head and shoulders).
3.Classic, side on, very sharp, right colours and would look good in an bird identification book, ie this a "Robin".
4.Bits of birds, wing tips missing etc.
5.Birds in their environment, ie bird is there, but is not the main part of the image.
6.Birds as "art", blurred/manipulated/false colours etc.
any thoughts??
regards Firstlight.

[john robinson]

FL
The easy answer is that if the photographer is pleased with a picture or any of us like a picture -then it can be called "good" !
There really is no easy answer in my opinion. I personally like any "type" of picture. Sometimes even an out of focus shot can be pleasing.
If I had to describe my ideal "type" it would be classic portrait ,like the ones from the Hosking days. Nice pose with a bit of habitat.
JohnR

[Colin Key]

Well, since I have been "fingered" here (albeit anonymously!), I would have to say that I (in general) do not like to see human artifacts in a bird photograph. Bird photos fall into several categories, all of which can prove pleasing even of the same bird: close-cropped portraits, full-frame poses, in-flight, "action" shots, etc. When we have taken a good and pleasing shot which shows the bird and is technically near perfect we are very pleased with ourselves; but, to be honest, someone else, somewhere else has taken almost exactly the same shot of that same species (there is a huge number digital images of birds out there now and it is difficult to improve on many or most of them except for one's own personal pleasure). So, to get an "unusual" shot with some "interesting aspect" would be my own prime motivation. Having said that, I just like taking shots of any birds, full stop, but if they are scarce or rare then all the better.

A lot of professional and very good amateur bird photographers use feeders, bird tables, bird baths, etc. to attract birds but by and large they prefer to get the shot before or after the bird has been at the dining table (unless of course you are shooting commercial shots for the increasing number of manufacturers of feeders, tables, nest boxes, and the bird food itself).

To get back onto my old "hobby horse" once more, live baiting is a very common practice in some countries, especially to attract birds of prey. I have a photograph of some bloke with a clear plastic tray on the bonnet of his pick-up which contained an assortment of live mice and what also looked like hampsters. He had the door of his truck open and the window down and was crouched behind the open door photographing raptors coming into get this live bait. The photos were superb, but of course they did not show the scenario which I have described, just the bird stooping in for the kill.

I am only interested in photographing birds in their natural surroundings. I do not even use a hide. I have no problem with feeding of the type which John does because without him, and the thousands of others who do likewise, a large number of birds would have a tough time or even perish. I just don't like seeing feeders full of nuts, suet balls, etc. in the actual shot.

Just my personal opinion.

Colin :smile:

P.S. Must admit I recently shot a load of "exotics" at our local wildlife park. :err::beer:

[john robinson]

Colin
Just on the subject of baiting. I saw a post recently by a well known british photographer who was using corn etc, to attract mice as bait for owls. Not captive mice admittedly but it does raise the whole matter of ethics. - And also my old beef about the difference between "big " bait and "small" bait like mealworms. Sticklebacks for Kingfishers which I know the BBC have used regularly.
With todays gear is it really necessary any more. I have done it I admit.
JohnR

[Colin Key]

Hello John,

Yes, this business of "secondary baiting" is a difficult one. When I "flared up" on both Naturescapes and Fred Miranda I got responses such as "what is the difference between using live rodents as bait and putting seeds and berries on a bird table to attract passerines which then bring in a Sparrowhawk for the kill?"

Well, to me the difference is bloody obvious. Going out on a shoot and calling off at the petshop to pick up a box of "assorted live rodents" destined to be kid's pets is amoral. I do not know where the cut-off is regarding "size" of live bait; there is a big difference between a mealworm and a deer fawn! Sticklebacks I have no problem with, but providing live 3lb trout ("they" put buoyancy devices on them so they cannot submerge) to get Osprey shots is "out" in my book.

Have noticed some of your son's photos on the forum recently; all very nice, keep at it, and respect the wildlife (MY major concern in life).

Regards,

Colin :smile:

[Firstlight]

Hi Colin and John,
I will respond later in more detail, after we have had a few more responses from the hundreds of photographers that this forum holds!

By the way Colin did you get my reply to you regarding Rio de Alvor?

Some bird images sell quite well, would be interesting to know how much a pic of the "sparrow" on a feeder would have fetched from a seed/feeder manufacturer? ;)
regards Firstlight.

[Colin Key]

By the way Colin did you get my reply to you regarding Rio de Alvor?

Firstlight.

Yup, Ta.

Colin :yes:

[Colin Key]

Some bird images sell quite well,.....

regards Firstlight.


Not a lot, I'm afraid - there are too many people "at it" and to if try to sell your images you will find it is a very "closed market" - it is not how good the image is, it is who you know (and who he knows). I would absolutely hate to be a professional photographer who relies on his photo sales to put food on the table.

My best sale was £350 to sell the copyright on one of my images, but I actually felt a bit "uncomfortable" about it. I am usually quite happy to give them away as long as I get a credit (I am much more interested in fame than fortune).

If you want start a thead about "stealing" images I will contribute (with gusto!).

Colin :wideeyed::swoon::beer:

[Bobolink44]

as a non-photographer, I like composition and interesting action as key for those really memorable photos.

[john robinson]

Not a lot, I'm afraid - there are too many people "at it" and to if try to sell your images you will find it is a very "closed market" - it is not how good the image is, it is who you know (and who he knows). I would absolutely hate to be a professional photographer who relies on his photo sales to put food on the table.

My best sale was £350 to sell the copyright on one of my images, but I actually felt a bit "uncomfortable" about it. I am usually quite happy to give them away as long as I get a credit (I am much more interested in fame than fortune).

If you want start a thead about "stealing" images I will contribute (with gusto!).

Colin :wideeyed::swoon::beer:
I made more in the old transparency days when my agency got money for "lost" slides !
JohnR

[Colin Key]

I made more in the old transparency days when my agency got money for "lost" slides !
JohnR

Was this your "loss leader" John? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Colin

[Firstlight]

Well I've waited to see what responses this might get, a forum saturated with bird images would be bound to get swamped with replies/advice!!!
So, well done the three who took the trouble to make a reply.
Herewith, my own humble thoughts on the subject.Starting with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and what pleases you may not please me or others etc.
1.An image should be in focus/sharp (as required) and as near to true colours as possible.
2.The bird should be in eye contact with the photographer as if there is some comunication with you the viewer, and the image should capture that magic ingredient, the "gizz" of the subject.
3.The background should be subtle and diffused and be harmonious with the subject, ie no twigs/branches sticking out of it.
4.To make the image different it will need to be special to stand out from the 10,000 other images of the same bird, ie something we don't normally see, ie an unusual view point/angle or a normally unseen action, like the recent image of the "wren bathing", to capture the viewer interest.

I guess my final thoughts would be , will the image stand the "month" test on a calendar, ie could I look at the image every day for a month without getting bored!!
Sadly the arrival of the digital age has turned every body into a bird photographer, with the state of art focusing/metering systems and money no object, there is a lot of less than satisfactory work on show.
Images of "rare" birds seem to be the worse for this, for what ever reason; taking two recent examples ,the "sparrow" and LB Murlet, very few if any show much imagination, all looking the same , some better exposed or sharper.Each probably good in their own right but as a group all very much the same.
Me, well I'm just a "boy learning" with a lot of learning still to do, before I can claim the title of "king of record shots or chocolate box" :D:D:D

[john robinson]

Fl & Bobolink
( I really feel a bit daft addressing posts like this .I much prefer a real name, but I'm old fashioned - or maybe just "old")
Yes as you say the digital age has changed everything. As "Bobo" says, composition is vital but with smaller images in a large frame we can now do it when we get home. Remember how many slide shots were ruined by bad positioning in the "old days "
Personally I have a picture in my head of what I want long before I start a session. In fact I am off to do water rails tomorrow and I already have an image in my mind of exactly the shot I will be after. With a bit of thought its not tgat difficult. Having said that I'm a hide man not a chaser so it is a lot easier.
JohnR

[Firstlight]

Hi John,
Good luck with the water rail, noisy critters for such secretive and sneaky birds, hope you get what you have in your minds eye.
You say you have a "hide", is this a old garden shed or a "portable sack over the head job".
I have a length of camo scrim 3mx1.5m which can be thrown over me, or hung from a piece of cord from between two trees, very light and easy to carry.
I also bought some time ago an Americain shooters portable hide/blind. It is shaped like a conical wigwam, and is self erecting, ie it has some kind of coiled spring mechanism which when released instantly erects the hide.A quick twist and it folds up into a circle about the size of a push bike wheel (about 30" diam.x 2" thick, comes in a bag and can be easily slung over the shoulder, and weighs about 1 .5 kgs.
regards David

[Colin Key]

Is it one of these David?

http://www.ultimateaddons.com/Outdoor_Products/Wilderness_Camouflage_Pop_Up_Hunting_Tent___923.ht m?Image%20Gallery=yes&GalImage=1196435092

Colin

[Firstlight]

Hi Colin,
No, not quite but similar idea, it is more "wigwam" shaped but ends up folded like image 9 (bottom row on extreme RHS), it came from a company (USA) called Cabelas.It is pegable to the ground and has zipable windows and door, you can stand up in it or sit on a seat and use a tripod for lens/scope as required.If you look at Cabelas it is under the the hides/blinds used by archers for hunting.
Mine is down stairs in the garage, tomorrow if you have not already found it ,I will see if I can find the "paperwork" which relates to it and get you more details etc. From memory it cost about £70 which was much cheaper than a UK version, which was about £180 ish.
regards David.

[john robinson]

My hides can be four poles and material and are usually in situ for a long time. Others can be portable "pop ups " the design of which is my own. There is absolutely NO WAY that I am going to pay for a hide.The one in position for a long time are the best in my opinion.
I ended up with over 300 useable water rail pics today with up to three birds within two feet from the hide. I got the "minds eye" shots too. Not a bad three hours work !!.
Pics to come in time.
JohnR

[Brian S]

I did my degree in photography and my thesis on wildlife photography. Check out the work of one of the very best, where composition, light, colour all come together - Frans Lanting. It's hard to put into words why these are so good, but the skill by which he uses the frame to tighten the composition, means these are more than merely portraits

http://www.franslanting.com/gallery/index.php?category=gallery/Birds&start=0

Brian S

[john robinson]

I agree Brian, he's one of the best, and he,s been around a while too. He was on the panel when I won the Wildlife Photographer thingy in te 80,s ( So I suppose I ought to say he's good !! ) His stuff also shows how travel to remote parts of the world can pay off too.
JohnR

[Colin Key]

I did my degree in photography and my thesis on wildlife photography. Check out the work of one of the very best, where composition, light, colour all come together - Frans Lanting. It's hard to put into words why these are so good, but the skill by which he uses the frame to tighten the composition, means these are more than merely portraits

http://www.franslanting.com/gallery/index.php?category=gallery/Birds&start=0

Brian S

I did my B.Sc. in Geology, my M.Sc. in Geochemistry and my Ph.D. on the volcanic rocks of Jersey in the Channel Islands - and I still can't take photographs of birds (they move about a bit more than rock outcrops!!).

Colin :laugh:

[Brian S]

What a really good photograph should do, whether it is by Paul Strand, Diane Arbus, Sebastiao Salgado or Frans Lanting is to make the person looking at it think about and question the world they live in. Whether it shows a blind person in 1930s USA (Paul Strand) or a pair of BbAlbatrosses, it evokes a response in the viewer and their place in the world. It needs somehow to be more than mere portrait, buts shows the interaction of the photographer and the subject (otherwise it can become simply voyeurism). Photographers like Lanting manage to show this - look at those Lesser Flamingoes in flight or 'flock' of Bald Eagles. Amazing.

Brian S

PS - the first three photographers are not wildlife photographers, but are inspirational anyway. Check them out.

[john robinson]

Brian
I haven't got a degree in anything, and I've never really wanted one. I have never the less worked as a professional in the " nature industry" for most of my life, managing several national nature reserves for Nature Consevancy, NCC, and EN to what I feel a very high standard.
I question your comment that a picture should "question the world we live in" etc. etc.
I take pictures because I like taking pictures. It may well be that those I have taken may have done a little good in raising public awareness in the problems that they and much wild life is facing in today's world. I have to say that I don't sit there for three hours waiting for the right pic of a chaffinch , thinking " this guy's got problems "
As for the "interaction between the photographer and the subject"- I really don't see how that has anything to do with my reason and attitudes towards nature photography. From some of the pics posted around these days, the birds often look frightened to death !!
But then we are all in this world to do what we as individuals feel is the best reason for doing what we do.
I used to do a small amount model/glamour photography and it could be said that there was occasionally an "interaction" between me and the subject !
By the way Brian , I have been trying to find your gallery if you have one, but I have not got there yet ! Finding galleries on surfbirds I feel is one thing that needs looking at by admin. I had a job to find my own recently!.
Cheers
JohnR

[Brian S]

John - I respect your views, of course, and those were my opinions.

But here's my point: you say photograph birds because you enjoy it, that's great, but my feeling is that if you then post it or publish it you are saying to someone else, "look at my work, see what I am doing, try to see the birds and enjoy them in the same way I do". Why would someone do that unless yours stood out in some way, makes them stand out from the 1000s out there.

To come back to the original question was what makes a good photograph?For some it is the technical elements such as light, colour, composition, sharpness - a bird has to be sharp throughout - but, IMO, you need to be careful not to become too bogged down by technicalities. For others it might be the bird itself, what age is it? is there any sign of moult? Is it rare? Of course, I feel these go side by side with technique.

Maybe the interraction bit was a little over the top, but we live in a world where very little has not been changed by human interference in some way.

I won't repeat myself, but there has to be something about a GOOD bird photograph (or any photograph) that makes it stand out, that inspires, that educates, that makes you think about the way you see the natural world.

HEAVY!

Brian S

[Colin Key]

Brian

I used to do a small amount model/glamour photography and it could be said that there was occasionally an "interaction" between me and the subject !

Cheers
JohnR

Come on John, liven up the galleries here!!! :err:

Colin :laugh:

[Colin Key]

I understand the essence of what Brian is saying and agree with some of it. I do not however think that if you are publishing a photograph (via any medium) you are automatically making the statement that "this is special, take a look". Anyone who has published photos on Naturescapes will know that it is the artistic merit rather than technical perfection which gets the vote. You also come to realise that if you show a photo to an audience of ten you will most likely get ten different opinions on it. Art in any form has always been thus.

Like John, I think that if you enjoy taking photographs then you have the right to display them to others (they don't have to look, or to like them); who hasn't, in the days of film and machine prints, been bored rigid with Uncle Bert and Auntie Doris's holiday snaps?

There is another element to a photograph which has not been touched upon - the story behind it which, until it is told, is only of any significance to the photographer. I put this shot onto Naturescapes last November:

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/0C0J3610a.jpg

It got lambasted for various reasons (harsh oblique lighting, grotty perch, etc) until I told the story. I had secreted myself in the roofless abattoir at a ruined cattle ranch at Abicada where there were (and still are) five Black-winged Kites which hunt for rats around these old buildings and of which I wanted to try and get some in-flight shots. During the winter they are also the haunt of many Black Redstarts. This female appeared on the ironwork and I started calling (as best I could) to her, she became interested and came closer. I had to change camera and lens settings and just lined up this shot (hand holding) when from nowhere a female Kestrel swooped in an attempt to take the bird. She could not have seen me until the very last millisecond and aborted her attack but the outstretched talons actually made contact with the back of the Black Redstart's neck (which is what has ruffled her feathers). A fraction of a second sooner on the shutter button and I might have got a very special shot. As it was, the Black Redstart seemed to be totally stunned (but unharmed) by the experience and remained there in a state of shock for several seconds. A very lucky bird.

I have always been more birder than photographer and previously used digiscoping to take record shots, mainly of scarce and rare birds. After becoming VERY frustrated with that method I decided to splash out on some top end DSLR gear and now find myself addicted to photography and probably a third of my field time involves leaving the 'scope behind and taking the camera gear (it is a fact of life that you cannot be a birder and photographer at the same time). So, after only having been "at it" for just over a year it has given my interest a new lease of life; I have seen most of the Iberian species, I now intend to photograph them all.

Colin :twitcy: