I frequently visit and post images on 3 or 4 nature photography web sites on the Internet. I mostly frequent the avian forums and view the bird photos with a critical eye, always looking at what images other bird photographers post to see if there is some technique I can incorporate in my own style of shooting. Sometimes reading other photographers' critiques of posted images will give me some insight as to what the bird photography industry, as a whole, is looking for in images. Invariably, most critiques will not center around the bird, itself, but most critiques will be centered on the subject's background. Of all of the genres of photography, bird photography and macrophotography are very background conscious.

I have to smile at critiques that never mention the bird. "Great background!" or "Absolutely smooth background," are the comments most often posted regarding "successful" bird photos. "That background is too cluttered," or "I'd clone out that (leaf, stick, whatever) to clean up the background," are the critiques I all too often read about "unsuccessful" bird photos. To many, many bird photographers a front lighted bird perched on a pencil thin perch framed against a totally textureless background represents the ultimate in bird images. This is a style that has been popularized by avian photographer Arthur Morris as presented in his book, "The Art of Bird Photography".

Yes, images such as these can be beautiful and commercially successful but these types of images leave me wanting more. I want more than just a pretty, totally front lighted, "bird-on-a-stick" image. I want an image that tells me more about the bird, about its habitat, and about how that bird relates to its habitat and environment. If you are the type of bird photographer who is looking to join the legions of Arthur Morris "clones"*, the rest of this essay may not interest you. If you are looking to make more effective, informative bird images, please read on.

Female Lesser Goldfinch on sunflower stalk.

First, let's look at the typical "bird-on-a-stick" image. The image of the female Lesser Goldfinch, to the right, is a fairly typical "bird-on-a-stick" image. Totally front lighted, simple, thin perch, and a background with no details. So, what's the problem with this image? Images, like this one, are commercially successful and are the focus of the majority of bird photographers. The background is "to die for"! The simple answer is, it's boring. It gets boring viewing image after image just like this one. There is no personal stamp of style in this image. This image could have been made by any one of a thousand Arthur Morris "clones". Hang a hundred of these images in a gallery, each image having been made by a different "bird-on-a-stick" photographer, and without the photographer's name presented with each image, you'd never know which photographer made which image. There is lost, in these images, a stamp of personal style.

Do I make "bird-on-a-stick" images? Only when the opportunity presents itself naturally. Let's face it, I love bird photography and photograph birds mostly for the pure joy of the pursuit. However, I do have some interest in commercially marketing my bird images and it would be imprudent of me not to produce marketable "bird-on-a-stick" images. I will not, however, erect artificial perches in areas that birds do not naturally frequent. Many "bird-on-a-stick" photographers carry a variety of "perches" with them and place those perches in areas where the photographer can control the lighting of the bird and can control the background (or absence of background) behind the bird. I will not do this. Birds choose natural perches based on comfort and security from predators. However, birds are naturally curious and will explore, if only briefly, new additions to their environment. In my opinion, erecting artificial perches in areas that birds normally do not perch exposes a bird to an increased risk of predation. The welfare of the bird must come first and foremost!

Neither will I spread bird seed or, otherwise, bait birds to areas that the bird would not naturally forage. Again, this increases the risk of predation. After observing a particular bird foraging, I might spread some seed where I observed the bird foraging just to hold the bird a little longer in that area so that I might photograph it. I will never, ever spread seed randomly in an effort to bait birds into an area they would not normally forage. Many "bird-on-a-stick" photographers will strategically erect artificial perches around bird feeders to make their images. OK, this is less disruptive if the photographer is photographing birds already accustomed to visiting a bird feeder. Temporarily placing bird feeders in areas where there were no feeders before and simply for the sole purpose of photographing birds is a big sin, in my opinion. In whatever manner a bird is enticed to disrupt its normal routine or utilize artificial perches, I view the resultant images as visual lies, no matter how pretty the final image. The bird is not doing what the bird naturally does and the image has been gotten at an increased risk to the bird.

Female Hooded Merganser and winter reed reflections.

There are going to be situations in which you cannot help photographing a bird on a plain background. Good examples would be ducks on water, birds in flight, high-perching birds silhouetted against the sky, to name just a few. Do I pass up these images? In a word, "No". As long as the bird is doing what it naturally does, these images are certainly valid. I do try to make the backgrounds interesting, though. Ducks sitting in a steel gray pool of water does not make the most attractive of images. Ducks sitting on water reflecting nearby reeds or, ducks sitting on water reflecting autumn foliage, makes for a far more interesting image. Images of birds sitting on high perches silhouetted against the sky can have more interesting backgrounds if clouds can be incorporated into the image. Anything that can be done to help break the monotony of a clear blue sky will enhance a bird image photographed with the bird on a high perch. Not all "bird-on-a-stick" images have to be artificial.

Female Lesser Goldfinch on dead sunflower plants.

To produce my most "artistic" bird images, and to produce my most commercially successful bird images, I add a little habitat to the image. The female Lesser Goldfinch image, at right, was made while the goldfinch was naturally feeding on dead sunflower bushes. Compare this image with the female Lesser Goldfinch image, above. We now know more about our bird and can even make an educated guess as to the time of year the image was made. The goldfinch feeds on sunflowers in an area of her choosing from a perch of her choosing. The sunflowers are dead indicating that this could be autumn or winter. With the addition of a few dead sunflower sprigs we have expanded our knowledge of the goldfinch without sacrificing the background.

Now is a good time to discuss lighting, too. Again, the majority of "bird-on-a-stick" photographers will prefer the bird to be photographed using direct, frontal lighting. Birds are three dimensional. Direct, frontal lighting flattens the three dimensionality of the bird and makes the bird look like a flat object pasted onto the background. Direct, frontal lighting, in my opinion, suppresses the details that make bird images interesting and dramatic. Experiment with different lighting angles that will bring out and emphasize the three dimensionality of your subjects. Throw away the rule of "pointing your shadow directly at the bird". You wouldn't want a portrait photographer to make your portrait using a single light placed directly in front of you, would you?

Yellow-rumped (Audubon's) Warbler in mesquite tree.

My most personally satisfying bird images are those images where the bird is immersed in its habitat but the bird is still the focus of attention. This is the toughest type of bird image for me to successfully create. Too much habitat and the bird is lost in visual confusion. Too little habitat and the image looks like a failed "artistic" image. This image of the Yellow-rumped (Audubon's) Warbler, at right, would be highly criticized by the "bird-on-a-stick" photographers because of the "busy" background.

I feel this is one of my most successful images, however. The bird is the center of attention, well sculpted by the lighting, and is surrounded by the habitat in which it forages. The background is nicely softened yet some details can still be made out. I know I would be roundly criticized by the "bird-on-a-stick" photographers for allowing twigs and leaves to intrude on the image from outside the image frame but this was done on purpose. These "intrusions" help identify the background vegetation and helps the viewer fill in the details of an otherwise detailless background.

Green Heron on background of dead reeds. Ugh!

So what is a truly bad background? A truly bad background swallows up the bird and draws a viewer's attention from the bird. The Green Heron image, at right, is a perfect example of a truly bad background. The tones of the heron merge with the tones of the dead reeds and the texture of the reeds constantly draws the viewer's eye from the bird. (I really, really can't believe I actually made this image!) This background would be considered a "busy" background by any bird photographer's standards. Also, note how the almost direct, frontal lighting contributes to the heron's merging with the background. Direct, frontal lighting is not always appropriate.

Another pitfall you want to avoid when photographing birds in habitat is having the bird partially obscured by habitat elements. Try not to have leaves, twigs, branches, and shadows obscure significant portions of the bird. An occasional small twig over the tail or body or a tail partially obscured by a leaf may be tolerable. Even a perch that crosses in front of the body, if it is small enough in diameter, may be tolerable but try to avoid this issue whenever possible.

Female Hooded Merganser wing flap.

Is there ever a time a "busy" background can be acceptable? This question is debatable. If the bird is displaying an attention-getting behavior then the background could be less than perfect. The image of the female Hooded Merganser, at right, would be acceptable, in my opinion. The bright belly feathers and wing-flapping display grabs the viewer's attention and keeps the viewer's attention away from the dead reeds. Compare it to the image of the heron, above. Whereas the heron blends into the background and remains a static subject, the merganser's head contrasts with the dead reeds. Also helpful is the fact that the dead reeds occupy only 50% of the image area. Yes, I would consider this an acceptable image.

I am hoping you will keep these points I've made regarding backgrounds in mind as you visit the various avian forums on the Internet. Look critically at the images posted and see how those images appear in regards to these suggested guidelines. Study the images presented by the bird photographers whose work you admire and see how you may incorporate their techniques in your style of photography. I do not advocate rote imitation but we can all learn from those photographers we admire most.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Regarding my reference to Arthur Morris "clones", this is in no means any criticism of Arthur Morris, himself. Artie is a wonderfully talented avian and nature photographer who has given a great deal of his time and generosity helping others to become successful photographers. I have the utmost respect for Artie. My criticisms are directed at the "clones" who fanatically attempt to imitate Artie's particular style of avian imagery. There is only one Artie and, though he is imitated by many, Artie's work stands heads above his imitators.

My avian photography has been strongly influenced not only by Artie Morris but also by Richard Ditch, birding expert extraordinaire and, in my opinion, the king of the habitat image. I've also been strongly influenced by Jim Neiger and the wonderful in-flight imagery he creates. These gentlemen have been influences and I do not wish to imitate their styles but I do learn so much from them that I try to incorporate and blend their styles with my own unique style of shooting.