Is Background Bokeh really necessary in Wildlife Photography.

It really does depend. Sometimes, there's enough action in the photo to make it on of your best shots without a BG:
Sometimes, all you're looking for is a simple portrait of a new bird:
Sometimes, the background tells an intriguing story:


And sometimes, the BG turns a normal photo into one of your best:

Photography is all about creativity, you have to try to visualize the right BG for what you're trying to get.

The 500mm f5.6E PF works well against a 'friendly' background; and stalking this Grey Duiker, I needed the TC14 III

Nikon D850, 1/800, f8, ISO 9000

Larry Sherertz said:

Interesting “poser”… Short answer is yes as bokeh tones down distracting background. There are simple editing tools in Apple for JPEGs that were originally designed for removing dust spots, etc, that can be enlarged to soften backgrounds…. If you’re happy with the results that’s all that matters..

Click to expand...

Don't forget LrC's new Blur feature!

robertrear said:

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Click to expand...

I think bokeh is still both very desirable and achievable with slower lenses, though best results take a little more care in background selection, subject distance from the lens and subject to background distance. It's worth noting that many bird photographers often stop down their long fast lenses anyway if their intent is to get the entire bird in focus. Wide open the long f/2.8 and f/4 lenses have the benefit of offering faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs relative to slower lenses, but stopping them down to achieve greater depth of field lessens their bokeh and speed advantages in practice.

Steve said:

Keep in mind that although aperture is really the only thing that can affect depth of field, there are a number of things that can affect how our backgrounds look. Most notably, your distance to the subject and the distance of the subject to the background. The quality of the background can have a significant impact as well.

Take a look at these images - all of which were shot with slower glass. To me, the backgrounds look every bit as good as what I see with my faster glass. However, they only look that way because I positioned myself so I was close enough to the subject to (more or less) fill the frame, the background was somewhat distant, and the backgrounds where generally "smooth" and not overly disturbed. Also, I'd add that not every background has to be a smooth, creamy blur - sometimes a hint of what's there is helpful for context. The trick is that it's just a hint and not hitting you over the head!

Oh, and I'm contractually obligated to mention that the first two were with a pre-production 600 PF.


View attachment 73967
View attachment 73968

View attachment 73972

View attachment 73971
View attachment 73970

Click to expand...

For me

Love these example photos, they are just beautiful, the creatures simply command the eye and evoke a pleasing emotion for me.
What i see is Beautiful, it clearly reflects skill sets and shows what can really be achieved even on mid level or non exotic glass.
Love the rain effect, WOW.

You have summed up the key points perfectly. One should never feel left behind.

If 90% of what we get comes from the person behind the viewfinder, why do some people spend 90% of their money and time on the 10%.

I find skill set, composition, opportunity, plays such an enormous part as to what we eventually achieve. Yes some tools make it easier absolutely as they should, but a hammer is still a hammer, its how you use it that counts.

I tell new beginner photography club member's Invest in your self first, its also what i personally believe in.

In the right position, light and opportunity at 500mm even on my old hack 150-500 Sigma that lives in the trunk on a D7100 can surprisingly deliver very pleasing results depending on how its used, of course its easier with F2.8 or F4 glass.

My 300 2.8 VR II at F2.8 speaks volumes used at F2.8 or F4 and so easily makes back grounds melt away as expected, but the real need for what i want out of this F2.8 prime is speed and gathering light especially in low light conditions again especially micro detail and micro contrast, light is my best friend.

I feel with some of the new Z glass the large diameter, shorter length in cases, along with some of the new lens formula technology has really moved things up a level.

Any manufacturer turning up sensor sensitivity to light is going to complement a lot of the F5.6 F6.3 F9 stops.

There is for most people really no need to buy the 600 or 400 TCs exotics, i mean they have their place and if you can afford them that's fantastic.

There are some amazing FX glass bargains available in exotic primes that if you need F2.8 or F4 primes, hey its always worth a serious look, a 600 F4 FL on a D850 or D5, its 10% of the equation, 90% is you.

As to editing my way into the look i expect, no thanks, not where my passion thrives, yet i know many people who actually just love doing it and that's so wonderful, to me sitting is the new smoking LOL, i do believe the AI technology in the future if not already will be revolutionizing editing as we know it, i mean will we ever just tell Siri to edit what we would normally do our self LOL.

I like outsourcing serious editing...........for good reason, its cheap, it always gives me fast even AI cutting edge results over night while i am dining out, at a movie, or in bed doing other things like reading, yes sleeping.

Only an opinion

O said:

For me

Love these example photos, they are just beautiful, the creatures simply command the eye and evoke a pleasing emotion for me.
What i see is Beautiful, it clearly reflects skill sets and shows what can really be achieved even on mid level or non exotic glass.
Love the rain effect, WOW.

You have summed up the key points perfectly. One should never feel left behind.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words

Ibrahim said:

Bokeh is good but so is being able to see the background, if it is relevant. A lot of this is fashion. Bokeh is fashionable. It can be over done. I'm interested in how I see things. Have I been trained how to see? Do I see what others see?

Click to expand...

What you say seems to make some sense

Bokeh,

Is it fashionable, not really i fell more its artistic and technically enhancing the photo.
Is it a Tool to achieve a result, yes
Is it natural looking, depends if the shot is a record shot documentary shot or artistic shot.
Is it used properly, if not its mainly due to possibly a lack of skill set or more so poor opportunity, but yes for a lot of people.
Is it real, up to the individuals taste.
How should we see it. However we want it to be seen as long as it pleases the author and viewer.

EXAMPLE The EMU photo is absolutely lovely and what a character LOL love it,
for myself i cant focus on or keep my eye on the EMU for the blinding white circles especially on the left.

As humans we usually tend to focus on the brightest part of a image first, if its really bright it seems to compete for the eye against the intended point of interest.

If you have a sparrow in front of a very busy similar colour or contrast environment the sparrow can become lost somewhat, de-saturating the back ground in post often may help.

Bokeh doesn't have to be silky smooth and plain in colour etc, but the objective is to try and isolate the key subject and minimize the risk of the eye being distracted, competing with the focal point of interest, or the message.

Its a technique, tool and or art.

Only an opinion

Woody Meristem said:

To definitively answer your question -- It depends. It depends on the photographer's and/or viewer's personal preference; it depends on whether the background detracts from the main subject or distracts the viewer's from the subject; it depends on whether it shows the subject in it's habitat.

Click to expand...

Yep…sometimes you want a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes none. Just depends on the particular angle you're aiming for with a particular shot. Or the lens you happen to have on and the relative positioning of you, the subject, and the background so that getting BG blur isn't in the cards. In that case…the some insurance shots and then try to improve the composition by moving closer or right/left or up/down or swap lenses or...or...

If it's something you've never seen before…getting the insurance shot first is a must. If it's just another GBH…maybe not so much and you can try to improve the positioning. If it's the GBH trying to swallow the eel or the largest fish you've ever seen…again the insurance shot first is a must.

Anjin San said:

Yep…sometimes you want a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes none. Just depends on the particular angle you're aiming for with a particular shot. Or the lens you happen to have on and the relative positioning of you, the subject, and the background so that getting BG blur isn't in the cards. In that case…the some insurance shots and then try to improve the composition by moving closer or right/left or up/down or swap lenses or...or...

If it's something you've never seen before…getting the insurance shot first is a must. If it's just another GBH…maybe not so much and you can try to improve the positioning. If it's the GBH trying to swallow the eel or the largest fish you've ever seen…again the insurance shot first is a must.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If it's new or cool, get 'normal' style photos first. If it's common, think about how you can make your photo great using your creativity.

Check out this thread discussing the video by @Steve to compose Better Backgrounds

robertrear said:

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Click to expand...

I think Steve sums it up very well............

Steve's comments "Keep in mind that although aperture is really the only thing that can affect depth of field, there are a number of things that can affect how our backgrounds look. Most notably, your distance to the subject and the distance of the subject to the background. The quality of the background can have a significant impact as well"

I reflected on training days in our camera club, many member's had different needs questions and skills.

Bottom line

If you love using your FX 600 F4 or 300 2.8 VR II the operative word is LOVE that matters, a 300 2.8 used at 2.8 does basically what a 600 F4 does at F4 as far as background blur goes.

I find a 150-500 Sigma, 200-500, 70-200 FL all does similar with back grounds, and as Steve says its all depending on distances between you, your subject, and the back ground position.

For me unless its a F4 or F2.8 glass everything else is more fair weather or good light glass and easier to carry, F4 F2.8 mirror less glass is being priced up into F1 levels making lighter smaller PF style lenses more desirable but in my view also at very expensive prices for what they are...............

To me the pre owned or on sale FX F4 F2.8 prime glass is becoming incredibly attractive especially if your looking for spectacular blurred back grounds and essential lower light performance, is a compromise in size and weight worth it, that's up to the individual.

I want smaller, lighter, as sharp as FX primes, but most importantly with good low light performance, OK, what do i need, 1) money 2) transition to mirror less 3) comprise on lower light capability compared to F4 F2.8 primes.

Yet I would be happy with my 300 2.8 VR II or 600 F4 FL.

Many members are delivering spectacular images on FX DSLRS and Mirror less systems, there all just tools, do either make you a better photographer ?

Be happy love what you have and do, 90% of what you achieve comes from you.


Only an opinion

Sometimes there's no background.

Doug Herr said:

Sometimes there's no background.

View attachment 75516
​

Click to expand...

But look at that buttery transition to OOF...

Nimi said:

But look at that buttery transition to OOF...

Click to expand...

The lens was a simple 2-element achromat from 1970 with field curvature and enough spherochromatic aberration to be glaringly obvious in higher-contrast OOF objects in the background i.e., twigs, reeds or blades of grass. It would appear as bright magenta/green fringing that was difficult to correct for. I had to be very careful with backgrounds when using that lens.

raptor photo said:

It really does depend. Sometimes, there's enough action in the photo to make it on of your best shots without a BG:View attachment 74212
Sometimes, all you're looking for is a simple portrait of a new bird:View attachment 74213
Sometimes, the background tells an intriguing story:

View attachment 74214
And sometimes, the BG turns a normal photo into one of your best:
View attachment 74215
Photography is all about creativity, you have to try to visualize the right BG for what you're trying to get.

Click to expand...

Its clear you enjoy what your doing.....lovely

robertrear said:

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Click to expand...

Back ground blur is simply a tool, you either use it or you don't, it all has to do with the desired effect of what the author wants or is trying to communicate to the viewer, the means of achieving the desired back ground blur is dependent largely on composition, skill sets and the tools used.

You can buy and dive a KIA, BMW, Ferrari they are all different, but all still get you to your destination.

Only an opinion

For me, a good background, especially good bokeh, is essential in a good photograph. If it is jittery, harsh and distracting, then it takes away from the subject. If the background is clean and the bokeh is good, then the subject is more pronounced and the center of attention your eyes are not distracted by background interference. There are those that like to contextualize the subject and include the background so as to place the wildlife or other subject in their habitat. If this is the case, then even a small aperture (high f number) with a long lens will still generally mean a blurred background and thus it should be smooth and clean where possible, IMO. I have always been a fan of "good bokeh", whether it be wildlife, portraits, or other subject matter and hence my penchant for fast lenses - which generally mean high prices and with high prices generally means that a lens comes with more attention paid to things like bokeh. However, these are just my humble opinions, and everyone is different and has different tastes.

Anyone can photograph a subject for me background is key.

A common misuse of the word bokeh is quantity of blur. As originally defined bokeh is the quality of the blur; it can be soft and smooth, or harsh and distracting, or neutral, neither especially pleasing nor distracting. Among the factors that influence bokeh are distance from subject to foreground or background, the shape of the objects in the OOF areas, the lighting of the OOF areas and optical properties of the lens.

Isolating a subject with a lot of blur can make a pleasing photo but tells us little about the creature's habitat. A suggestion of habitat tells more of the animal's story but risks distracting from the subject with a distracting negative space; this is where lighting, types of OOF objects and optical properties of the lens play a bigger role.

Doug Herr said:

A common misuse of the word bokeh is quantity of blur. As originally defined bokeh is the quality of the blur; it can be soft and smooth, or harsh and distracting, or neutral, neither especially pleasing nor distracting. Among the factors that influence bokeh are distance from subject to foreground or background, the shape of the objects in the OOF areas, the lighting of the OOF areas and optical properties of the lens.

Isolating a subject with a lot of blur can make a pleasing photo but tells us little about the creature's habitat. A suggestion of habitat tells more of the animal's story but risks distracting from the subject with a distracting negative space; this is where lighting, types of OOF objects and optical properties of the lens play a bigger role.

Click to expand...

100%. And for me, the quality of the transition to the oof region is very important. That's principally how I judge lenses. I've had plenty of sharp lenses with great background, but the transition was too harsh; back they went.