Yep…get a decent shot then move a bit if available for pose or stick or background or whatever…but don’t miss the shot entirely…unless it’s a GBH or something you’ll see another 12 times today.
Background, how much does it matter?
- Thread starter sh1209
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Yep…get a decent shot then move a bit if available for pose or stick or background or whatever…but don’t miss the shot entirely…unless it’s a GBH or something you’ll see another 12 times today.
Unless it is for a contest where there are rules…or used as a photojournalist for which again there are rules…then disclosure is a personal preference thing. Cloning out trash or a limb or putting in another sky as long as WB, light angle and all match…they’re fine by me absent those rules. Just because it was yesterday’s sky and you were only there today doesn’t make the image fake outside those rules…it’s still an image and if no rules are broken then how I got the image is irrelevant. Heck…PP on any RAW file or using a SOOC jpeg is still ‘altering’ the image. Dodging/burning, suppressing noise, sharpening, changing WB…all of those also alter the image and we all do those routinely without disclosure…and I see no real difference except in degree and if I like the final image who cares. We’ve seen far too many debates about the honor…or not…of PP and disclosure…or not…and just like every other debate the issue is unsettleable IMO.
James C.
Active member
My question would be this: "Who are you trying to please with your photographs?"
If you are an AMATEUR photographer (i.e., someone not trying to sell their work), the three possible answers that I can think of are:
A) Yourself,
B) Other photographers,
C) Non-photographers.
If you answered "A," then don't worry about what others think about all the technical aspects of your shot. You take a burst of shots at that given moment and choose which one you like best when you get home.
If you answered "B," then be prepared for analysis, and (constructive) criticism on just about EVERY aspect of your photo (e.g., background, horizon being level, exposure, lighting, color saturation, crop, etc.).
If you answered "C," then perhaps you might be a LITTLE concerned about something like minor visual distractions, but even that worry might be misplaced. For example, I have posted a lot of my nature/bird photography on Facebook to share with my friends and nature groups. Most of them are amazed at my photos and that I was even able to capture such a large/clear image of a bird/animal that they may have never seen before. They're happy, and I'm happy.
So again, I think it comes down to, who are you trying to please?
If you are an AMATEUR photographer (i.e., someone not trying to sell their work), the three possible answers that I can think of are:
A) Yourself,
B) Other photographers,
C) Non-photographers.
If you answered "A," then don't worry about what others think about all the technical aspects of your shot. You take a burst of shots at that given moment and choose which one you like best when you get home.
If you answered "B," then be prepared for analysis, and (constructive) criticism on just about EVERY aspect of your photo (e.g., background, horizon being level, exposure, lighting, color saturation, crop, etc.).
If you answered "C," then perhaps you might be a LITTLE concerned about something like minor visual distractions, but even that worry might be misplaced. For example, I have posted a lot of my nature/bird photography on Facebook to share with my friends and nature groups. Most of them are amazed at my photos and that I was even able to capture such a large/clear image of a bird/animal that they may have never seen before. They're happy, and I'm happy.
So again, I think it comes down to, who are you trying to please?
ccirelli
Well-known member
Such a hard question to answer for me, because it really depends on what I'm shooting and what the priority is. And of course where my aperture is set. Sometimes I absolutely prioritize background, sometimes it's very much secondary. I also remind myself, it's generally super easy to fix distracting background elements in post with today's tools (and I have no problem with that, assuming we're not in the photojournalism / documentary genre).
But I'm always keeping backgrounds and light in mind, always looking for the best possible candidates - just not at the expense of capturing the moment.
But I'm always keeping backgrounds and light in mind, always looking for the best possible candidates - just not at the expense of capturing the moment.
Calson
Well-known member
I have a book 'Pictorial Effect In Photography: Being Hints On Composition And Chiaroscuro For Photographers' by H.B. Robinson and it is the second printing that was done in 1879. Photographers of the time lamented the entry of so many amateurs as photography had become so easy with the ability to buy the processing chemicals and pre-treated photo paper and cameras off the shelf. Sheet film also made life much easier for photographers who did not need to treat glass plates in the field.
An amateur was also someone who did not know how to combine a negative of an interesting cloudy sky with a photo taken later of a scene. This was something that landscape painters took pride in having a collection of work paintings of the sky and then later using them in new paintings to make them visually much more interesting.
We do that with IR cameras and the use of filters and even the choice of film emulsions or white balance with a digital camera or the exposure duration can have a profound impact on the print that is produced. We tend to overlook this manipulation as with tilt shift lenses and wide angle lens perspective distortion and most photographers are oblivious to this but will complain about digital manipulation of an image in post.
What is important though it that our eyes automatically go to the brightest part of a picture and if that is not the primary subject then it detracts from the image. There is also the often shooting of BIF with panning where the background is half dark and half bright, or backlit birds with out of focus backgrounds that have bright spots and bokeh does not fix this in the pictures taken. Applying a mask can help but it is time consuming and has limitations and best to avoid situations or cull shots when it occurs.
Garfield
Well-known member
I don't shoot stills much any more, but what I've come to learn is that if you really want the subject to stand out the background needs to be completely blown out. In fact I'm seeing more accomplished bird photographers doing a complete background replacements in a complimentary, light colour to accomplish just that. It does make a difference, and makes it MUCH easier when shooting in the field since it allows the photographer to focus on the pose/action without worrying about the BG. My take is that it's becoming an acceptable practice, as long as the subject itself is not being modified.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
My opinion is that the animal and its habitat are inseparable, and that replacing the background distorts the animal's life story. YMMV.
Agreed.
I'd add that IF a background is replaced it should at least be plausible and not demonstrate impossible lighting or impossible DoF (e.g. clouds thousands of feet to miles behind the subject clear and crisp in a long lens wildlife shot) or at the very least labeling the image as a photo art composite.
FWIW, NANPA's photography ethics guidelines are a pretty good starting point for accepted practices and how they're evolving: https://nanpa.org/why-nanpa/ethics/
In particular their captioning guidelines are worth a read: https://nanpa.org/wp-content/Files/Public/Truth-in-Captioning-Statement-Revised-3-2018.pdf
Garfield
Well-known member
For typical BOBs (bird on branch poses) I agree that a complementary background can add to the shot, but if you've captured the bird doing something really unique/special, anything in the BG takes away from the impact IMO. YMMV.
And as far as ethics go, who cares if someone does a complete opaque BG replacement? Given the increased scarcity of birds, a lot of "rules" are going to have to change.
Last edited:
I just think the surgically clean backgrounds get boring to some extent. Capturing the animal in my mind is first and foremost. If I can take a extremely clean shot, then by all means I do so. Having said that, no way will I miss a beautiful subject because of a stick or cluttered surrounding.
O
Well-known member
With you all the way on this,
one of the reasons i use my 300 2.8 VR II mostly at 2.8 or the occasionally rented 600 F4 FL at F4 is for subject isolation and milky back grounds adding to subject isolation, with a simple move from F2.8 or F4 to F5.6 or F8 the back ground can selectively be brought in as needed.
The photo generally needs a for ground mid ground and horizontal point.
A Shallow DOF is always nice unless it landscapes etc
I find the 300 2.8 VR II while not the most versatile lens compared to a 500 pf or 200-500 it works supper well with a 1.4TCIII giving 420mm at F 3.92 or F4)
The negligible 80mm short fall is made up in spades by extra light gathering capacity and crop ability given 45mp cameras can deliver that capacity.
Busy distracting backgrounds have always been something i address where ever possible, i am a F2.8 shooter where ever possible, i love the 70-200 FL even on the Z9.
The 600 F4 does what the 300 does at F2.8.
I may pick up a 500 pf in 12 months once more are on the used market If i haven't gone to Canon by then.
Only and Opinion
Interesting thread and comments. I saw the beautiful bird and thought, "WOW, this is incredible." I suspect that most mere mortals seeing this would think something similar. I love the fact that I can learn so much here and still enjoy "less than perfect" photos.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
My opinion (FWIW) is that a clean featureless background can be visually pleasing but it's also a lost opportunity; a hint of habitat for context can augment our understanding of the creature. The trick is to include enough background to add to the photo's story without adding so much that it distracts from the animal. These two photos might help illustrate the idea: they're the same bird, the first showing what the bird looks like (with a relatively clean background) and the second shows how the bird lives.
A common woodpecker pose & posture
In the second photo the row of sap wells isn't technically background, it's negative space (the space other than the main subject) which in the first photo is mostly just a perch and a green background. In the second photo the sapsucker's red color keeps our primary attention on the bird while the featureless green background is minimized and the tree trunk shows us how the bird got its name.
Another example is this Great Blue Heron. The background has enough form and color to imply a habitat without bright spots or distracting elements that distract from the bird.
A common woodpecker pose & posture
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I personally like them all
Hi! I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. I believe that if you are skilled in Photoshop a bokeh identical to a prime 600mm f4 is easily achievable if you can make an excellent mask. If the bokeh is not quite what you want it is an easy fix.
In the 500pf example below I could not get low due to reeds and was not happy with the resulting bokeh behind the bird. I was really surprised when my PS fix made the bird pop.
NO BOKEH FIX
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
BOKEH FIX IN PS
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
ElenaH
Well-known member
Background is very important for me and I didn't have some pictures if for example, I wouldn't have some particular lens. I had luck and was able to take this picture with 400/2.8 FL because my partner had 800PF in this time ;-) I think, with higher F number it would not be possible to get that impact of the scene because the background will be more destructive:
Sometimes it is only background or bokeh what is most important to get some special idea. Old lenses have special character, special bokeh, special background rendering. I wanted to show some kind of forest-mystery and used an old Porst to get the bubble-bokeh:
Well.. but here is one more important thing..
A FOREGROUND!!
What do you think is it a background or the foreground around the butterfly here?
Right. It is a foreground. It renders like an aquarelle. Well, you would say we are taking photos of wildlife. Right. But we can always try some interesting ideas from one photography scope to the other. There are some bird photographers who are taking pictures of birds through the branches and leaves and it looks amazing.
I started to practice it as well.
Ans here is a good news about that: you don't need to have a heavy expensive lens for that!
Here is a Hornbill through the leaves and foliage:
Somehow it makes the pictures more interesting, more close to nature.
It is not easy to shoot through the foliage with DSLR but it is possible. And now we have cameras with that amazing eye-AF!
So, you should try!
And sometimes you don't need to take care about the background if you use the foreground like a frame of your subjeect.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sometimes it is only background or bokeh what is most important to get some special idea. Old lenses have special character, special bokeh, special background rendering. I wanted to show some kind of forest-mystery and used an old Porst to get the bubble-bokeh:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Well.. but here is one more important thing..
A FOREGROUND!!
What do you think is it a background or the foreground around the butterfly here?
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Right. It is a foreground. It renders like an aquarelle. Well, you would say we are taking photos of wildlife. Right. But we can always try some interesting ideas from one photography scope to the other. There are some bird photographers who are taking pictures of birds through the branches and leaves and it looks amazing.
I started to practice it as well.
Ans here is a good news about that: you don't need to have a heavy expensive lens for that!
Here is a Hornbill through the leaves and foliage:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Somehow it makes the pictures more interesting, more close to nature.
It is not easy to shoot through the foliage with DSLR but it is possible. And now we have cameras with that amazing eye-AF!
So, you should try!
And sometimes you don't need to take care about the background if you use the foreground like a frame of your subjeect.
ElenaH
Well-known member
I will post a few more examples.
Here I am trying to use the foreground flowers and plants to frame the subject:
and here is a happy bird also in the frame of foreground plants:
Here I use the foreground (the water) to show the atmosphere. As you can see I have almost cut the background:
The eye is going to the light strip where the squacco shows his excellent balancing act!
Water is always a nice foreground if you have a right perspective and lying on the banks or in the hide.
So, the foreground is my "new background" now and I am trying to work it out by shooting through the foliage, going down to get eye-level perspective (or using the long lens to get such perspective) or integrating the environment into the foreground.
Here I am trying to use the foreground flowers and plants to frame the subject:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
and here is a happy bird also in the frame of foreground plants:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Here I use the foreground (the water) to show the atmosphere. As you can see I have almost cut the background:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The eye is going to the light strip where the squacco shows his excellent balancing act!
Water is always a nice foreground if you have a right perspective and lying on the banks or in the hide.
So, the foreground is my "new background" now and I am trying to work it out by shooting through the foliage, going down to get eye-level perspective (or using the long lens to get such perspective) or integrating the environment into the foreground.
Beautiful imagesI will post a few more examples.
Here I am trying to use the foreground flowers and plants to frame the subject:
View attachment 44375
and here is a happy bird also in the frame of foreground plants:
View attachment 44376
Here I use the foreground (the water) to show the atmosphere. As you can see I have almost cut the background:
View attachment 44378
The eye is going to the light strip where the squacco shows his excellent balancing act!
Water is always a nice foreground if you have a right perspective and lying on the banks or in the hide.
So, the foreground is my "new background" now and I am trying to work it out by shooting through the foliage, going down to get eye-level perspective (or using the long lens to get such perspective) or integrating the environment into the foreground.
Those are all wonderful,but the 3rd one especially I'd be happy to have on my wall.
dwillar
Active member
Happy Photoshopping to you all! I enjoyed this thread up to this point.
ElenaH
Well-known member
Isaac Grant
Member
I have read through most of this thread and my opinion (not surprisingly is different than most) is that the background is more important than the subject and here is why. There are givens in photographs that have to be there in order for it to be a keeper such as it being sharp and in perfect focus, nice light, properly exposed, etc. These must be there and if not the shots are immediate deletes. Modern cameras are all so good that getting sharp and well exposed shots has become basic and easy regardless of the subject. To me the skill involved in taking a sharp photo is all but non existent these days. I can hand my A1 and 600 to any person with a pulse and they can get a sharp photo in seconds. That impresses me zero these days. The art is in the knowledge of your subjects (for the birds that I shoot it has taken a lifetime of birding that I can apply to any situation), getting the birds in a memorable setting (takes field craft), a memorable pose (time in the field), in glorious light (getting up early or staying out late) and with a killer background. Those subtle things make all the difference between an average photo and a killer photo. Having a photo of a sharp bird is a dime a dozen but if you take that same sharp bird and have it against a beautiful background the photo takes on a whole new life and for that reason I find it more important than the actual bird. And for what it is worth, the same goes for the perch or surroundings. Sharp bird on a dead stick is a delete but take the same bird and get it on a beautiful flowering perch and you have a much better and more difficult photo go get. Now take the same bird in same pose on that same flowering perch against a a crappy cluttered background and it is a delete in my book. But if you have a beautiful background you have something truly memorable. Those are the shots I am after, not basic see bird, raise camera, take photo shot. Those take no skill (except for the engineers who designed the amazing autofocus systems) and have no value to me. So once you take the bird needs to be in focus out of the equation, it is the light, the perch, the background and the action captured that separate the photos from ordinary to something memorable.
Remember that if you can not afford that very expensive long prime lens, beautiful images such as those shown by Elena can be created in post. However I would say that it will probably take as long to develop the necessary PS skills as it takes to develop the amazing field craft required to capture the images in-camera. The latter field craft skills appear to be revered and the former PS skills scorned. Masters of either (or both) can create beautiful images.
- Status